·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · ZTE (USA) Inc.,· · · · · · · )· Case Nos.
`· · · · Samsung Electronics Co.,· · ·)· IPR2018-00111
`·5· · · Ltd., and Samsung· · · · · · )· IPR2018-00214
`· · · · Electronics America, Inc.,· ·)· IPR2018-00215
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· IPR2018-00274
`· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · · · ·)· IPR2018-00276
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· IPR2018-00425
`· · · · · · · · VS.· · · · · · · · · )
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · Fundamental Innovation· · · ·)
`·9· · · Systems International LLC,· ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`10· · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· · · ·)
`· · · · _____________________________)
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·TAKEN ON
`
`16· · · · · · · · · ·THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2018
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19· ·Reported by:· DENISE A. ROSS
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·CSR No. 10687
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-1
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · ZTE (USA) Inc.,· · · · · · · )· Case Nos.
`· · · · Samsung Electronics Co.,· · ·)· IPR2018-00111
`·5· · · Ltd., and Samsung· · · · · · )· IPR2018-00214
`· · · · Electronics America, Inc.,· ·)· IPR2018-00215
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· IPR2018-00274
`· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · · · ·)· IPR2018-00276
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· IPR2018-00425
`· · · · · · · · VS.· · · · · · · · · )
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · Fundamental Innovation· · · ·)
`·9· · · Systems International LLC,· ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`10· · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· · · ·)
`· · · · _____________________________)
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·TAKEN ON
`
`16· · · · · · · · · ·THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2018
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19· ·Reported by:· DENISE A. ROSS
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·CSR No. 10687
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-1
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
`
`·2· ·AND APPEAL BOARD, taken on THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2018, at
`
`·3· ·10:02 a.m., before DENISE A. ROSS, CSR No. 10687.
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·6
`
`·7· ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PATENT TRIAL
`· · ·AND APPEAL BOARD:
`·8
`· · · · · · · ·JUDGE JON B. TORNQUIST
`·9
`· · · · · · · ·JUDGE BRYAN F. MOORE
`10
`· · · · · · · ·JUDGE LYNNE E. PETTIGREW
`11
`· · · · · · · ·JUDGE JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI
`12
`· · · · · · · ·JUDGE PAUL J. KORNICZKY
`13
`· · · · · · · ·JUDGE ARTHUR M. PESLAK
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-2
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (continued):
`
`·2
`· · ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
`·3· ·INTERNATIONAL, LLC:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANNITA H. ZHONG, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · · · · MIKE FLEMMING, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·1800 Avenue of the Stars
`·6· · · · · · ·Suite 900
`· · · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90067
`·7
`· · ·FOR THE PETITIONER ZTE (USA) INC.:
`·8
`· · · · · · · ·McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`·9· · · · · · ·BY:· HERSH H. MEHTA, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · CHARLES M. McMAHON, ESQ.
`10· · · · · · ·444 West Lake Street
`· · · · · · · ·Chicago, Illinois 60606-0029
`11
`· · ·FOR THE PETITIONER SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AND
`12· ·SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.:
`
`13· · · · · · ·KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· EUGENE GORYUNOV, ESQ.
`14· · · · · · ·300 North LaSalle Street
`· · · · · · · ·Chicago, Illinois 60654
`15
`· · ·FOR THE PETITIONER LG:
`16
`· · · · · · · ·HAYNES AND BOONE
`17· · · · · · ·BY:· DAVID McCOMBS, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·2323 Victory Avenue
`18· · · · · · ·Suite 700
`· · · · · · · ·Dallas, TX 75219
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-3
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2018
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · ·10:02 a.m.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Good afternoon.· This is
`
`·5· ·Judge Tornquist.· And with me are Judges Pettigrew,
`
`·6· ·Moore, Peslak, Korniczky and Kokoski.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·This is a call for IPR2018 '111, '214, '215,
`
`·8· ·'274, '276 and '425.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Do we have Petitioner on the line?
`
`10· · · · · · ·Let's start with Samsung Petitioner.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Yes, your Honor,
`
`12· ·Eugene Goryunov on behalf of Samsung Petitioner.
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· ZTE Petitioner?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`15· ·Charles McMahon on behalf of ZTE; and with me is Hersh
`
`16· ·Mehta, both from McDermott, Will & Emory.
`
`17· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Welcome.
`
`18· · · · · · ·And did we get the LG Petitioners on this
`
`19· ·call?
`
`20· · · · · · ·MR. McCOMBS:· Yes, your Honor.· This is
`
`21· ·David McCombs with Haynes and Boone, for the LG
`
`22· ·Petitioner.
`
`23· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Great.
`
`24· · · · · · ·Patent Owner?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes.· This is Annita Zhong with
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-4
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·Irell & Manella, and together with me is Mr. Michael
`
`·2· ·Flemming.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Welcome.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·And do we have a court reporter on the line?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes, you do, your Honor.· This
`
`·6· ·is Denise Ross.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Welcome.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Who ordered the court reporter?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Patent Owner.
`
`10· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Great.
`
`11· · · · · · ·So if you would, Patent Owner, please, after
`
`12· ·the call is resolved and you have the transcript, can
`
`13· ·you put that in the record as an exhibit.
`
`14· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Definitely will.· Thank you.
`
`15· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· My understanding is that
`
`16· ·Petitioner Samsung has reached a settlement with
`
`17· ·Patent Owner.
`
`18· · · · · · ·We received a conference call request to
`
`19· ·discuss the mechanism for terminating Samsung with
`
`20· ·respect to these proceedings, but continuing forward
`
`21· ·with ZTE, and ZTE and LG in the '111 case.
`
`22· · · · · · ·With that request, we also received a
`
`23· ·proposed order from Patent Owner, which is a request
`
`24· ·that we authorize termination with respect to Samsung.
`
`25· · · · · · ·So, Patent Owner, let's start with you.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-5
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Could you please explain what questions you
`
`·2· ·need resolved here by the different panels and then why
`
`·3· ·you think the proposed order that you attached or put
`
`·4· ·in your e-mail is appropriate in this case.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Okay.· So as your Honor has
`
`·6· ·stated, Fundamental has entered into settlement
`
`·7· ·agreement with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.· And by
`
`·8· ·the terms of the agreement, Samsung is to withdraw from
`
`·9· ·the IPR proceedings that it's filed against
`
`10· ·Fundamental.
`
`11· · · · · · ·And Samsung and ZTE, basically, jointly filed
`
`12· ·six IPRs against Fundamental's patents.· And in each
`
`13· ·one of them, they jointly represented they are real
`
`14· ·parties in interest.
`
`15· · · · · · ·Usually in IPR proceedings, if a Patent Owner
`
`16· ·reaches a settlement agreement with one of the
`
`17· ·Petitioners, the mechanism, I understand, for
`
`18· ·withdrawal is -- a lot of times is under the 317(a)
`
`19· ·termination provision.
`
`20· · · · · · ·But 317(a) also provides that if the
`
`21· ·inter partes review is terminated with respect to a
`
`22· ·Petitioner under this section, non-estoppel under
`
`23· ·Section 315(e) shall attach to the Petitioner or to the
`
`24· ·real party interest or privy of the Petitioner on the
`
`25· ·basis of that Petitioner's institution of that
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-6
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·inter partes review.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·So in the six IPR proceedings that are
`
`·3· ·jointly filed by Samsung and ZTE, ZTE wants to remain
`
`·4· ·in the proceeding; but it also will not stipulate that
`
`·5· ·it is not a real party interest or privy of Samsung.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So what we got in is that it appears that ZTE
`
`·7· ·is holding out for the potential to claim that it's
`
`·8· ·Samsung's real party interest or privy and then be
`
`·9· ·effectively shielded by 315(e) by operation of 317(a).
`
`10· · · · · · ·And to us, that is contrary to AR's goal of
`
`11· ·just, speedy and expedited resolution of the
`
`12· ·patentability disputes between the parties, because ZTE
`
`13· ·can effectively claim to be a real party interest of
`
`14· ·Samsung, be shielded from 315(e) and can relitigate
`
`15· ·everything that is before the Board in another forum.
`
`16· · · · · · ·And we don't believe that that's what
`
`17· ·Congress intended.· And that is not just to the Patent
`
`18· ·Owner.
`
`19· · · · · · ·So what we are seeking from the Board is
`
`20· ·guidance on how Samsung can be dismissed from the
`
`21· ·proceedings jointly filed with ZTE without ZTE also
`
`22· ·preserving the argument that it can continue to
`
`23· ·participate in the proceedings, but not be subject to
`
`24· ·the estoppel provision or be bound by the Board's
`
`25· ·determination.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-7
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·So what we actually envision is that the
`
`·2· ·Board rule as part of the termination of Samsung and
`
`·3· ·its privy and real party interest that ZTE, basically,
`
`·4· ·is not Samsung's real party interest; and, therefore,
`
`·5· ·the estoppel provision applies to it.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Alternatively, if it's procedurally
`
`·7· ·allowable, Patent Owner also has no objection for
`
`·8· ·Samsung to file a motion to withdraw that does not
`
`·9· ·invoke 317(a).· But we don't really know what the
`
`10· ·procedural posture will be for such a withdrawal
`
`11· ·motion, and we need the Board's guidance.
`
`12· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Let me ask you a
`
`13· ·couple of questions.
`
`14· · · · · · ·The issue of estoppel is not before the
`
`15· ·current panel, is it?
`
`16· · · · · · ·I guess my point is:· The question of
`
`17· ·estoppel will be raised at some future time before
`
`18· ·either a different panel of the Board or possibly the
`
`19· ·district court.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Is that correct?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· So the estoppel issue will be --
`
`22· ·yes -- will be after the final written description --
`
`23· ·written decisions have been reached.· And it will be
`
`24· ·possibly before the district court or IPC panels.
`
`25· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I guess the concern the
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-8
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·panel may have is that anything that we do now, we
`
`·2· ·wouldn't want to cut off the ability of those future
`
`·3· ·tribunals to decide the issue.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·So how do you propose that we would make a
`
`·5· ·ruling here that would not bind or cut off a future
`
`·6· ·tribunal?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· I think one of the things is,
`
`·8· ·first of all, we can ask ZTE whether it wants to
`
`·9· ·stipulate or represent formally to the Board that it is
`
`10· ·not a real party interest to Samsung.
`
`11· · · · · · ·And if they can make that representation,
`
`12· ·then I think the issue is pretty easy.· We will just
`
`13· ·proceed under 317(a).
`
`14· · · · · · ·But if they don't, then, I guess, the
`
`15· ·alternative is if there's another way to terminate
`
`16· ·Samsung without invoking 317(a), then that will be
`
`17· ·another alternative.· But we don't know whether that's
`
`18· ·possible.
`
`19· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· So let me ask you
`
`20· ·another question.
`
`21· · · · · · ·You raised the idea or the request that we
`
`22· ·identify ZTE as not being a real party interest.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Are those facts before any of the panels at
`
`24· ·this time, the facts to make a ruling about ZTE's
`
`25· ·position that they or the IPR are privy to Samsung?
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-9
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· I think that if ZTE is a real
`
`·2· ·party interest to Samsung, then they should be
`
`·3· ·dismissed together with Samsung, because if they are
`
`·4· ·real party interest, then they are one and the same as
`
`·5· ·Samsung.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· So I think the question is for
`
`·8· ·ZTE's counsel to make a representation of -- tell us
`
`·9· ·what their position is, whether they do think they're a
`
`10· ·really party interest to Samsung.· And we can proceed
`
`11· ·from that.
`
`12· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· The final question, I
`
`13· ·think -- I want to make sure I understand your
`
`14· ·concern -- is that since we've already instituted, at
`
`15· ·least in a couple of these cases, could Samsung
`
`16· ·actually withdraw or must they be terminated under 317?
`
`17· · · · · · ·Is that correct?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes, whether they can just
`
`19· ·withdraw without invoking 317(a).
`
`20· · · · · · ·If that's possible, then, I guess we don't
`
`21· ·need to reach the question of whether ZTE is a real
`
`22· ·party interest or not, because then they cannot avoid
`
`23· ·315(e) estoppel provision.
`
`24· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I don't have my chart
`
`25· ·handy.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-10
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Do you have the current status of the six
`
`·2· ·cases that you've identified here for settlement?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·So IPR2018-00111, that one has been
`
`·5· ·instituted; and the PRI is due on August the 8th, and
`
`·6· ·LG was joined to that proceeding.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·The IPR2018-00425, that one was instituted
`
`·8· ·last Friday.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·The other four are still pending.· No
`
`10· ·decision has been made yet.
`
`11· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Let me shift now to
`
`12· ·the ZTE Petitioner.· And I'll let all the Petitioners
`
`13· ·have a say here, but it sounds like ZTE is the one that
`
`14· ·Patent Owner is most concerned about.
`
`15· · · · · · ·ZTE counsel, do you want to respond?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· Certainly, your Honor.· This is
`
`17· ·Charlie McMahon from McDermott for the ZTE Petitioners.
`
`18· · · · · · ·We've discussed this issue with counsel for
`
`19· ·the Patent Owner.· And I don't think the parties have
`
`20· ·any dispute about how the statutory provisions operate
`
`21· ·between 315, 317 and 318.· So we discussed that. I
`
`22· ·think we, pretty much, had an agreement.
`
`23· · · · · · ·We just don't see any need for a stipulation
`
`24· ·on this point at this time and agree with what, I
`
`25· ·think, you were stating, your Honor, that it's
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-11
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·premature for the Board to address any estoppel
`
`·2· ·questions at this time.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·So our position is there's no need to address
`
`·4· ·this at this time.· If a dispute arises at some point
`
`·5· ·in the future about estoppel, whichever tribunal is
`
`·6· ·addressing that, can address it at that time.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· What about the question of
`
`·8· ·the relationship between ZTE and Samsung as being
`
`·9· ·either real parties-in-interest or privies?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· So that's addressed in the
`
`11· ·petitions, because ZTE and Samsung did coordinate on
`
`12· ·filing these petitions, I think, under an
`
`13· ·interpretation of real parties-in-interest, we were
`
`14· ·real parties-in-interest.· And that's what we
`
`15· ·represented in the petitions.
`
`16· · · · · · ·So to the extent that answers your question,
`
`17· ·that's the answer.
`
`18· · · · · · ·I think as to how that relates to 317 and
`
`19· ·318, I think the relationship between those provisions
`
`20· ·is clear on when estoppel applies on a final written
`
`21· ·decision.
`
`22· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Anything else you
`
`23· ·want to address with regard to what Patent Owner
`
`24· ·discussed?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· Unless you have further
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-12
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·questions, no, your Honor.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Let's shift over.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·Samsung Petitioner, anything to add?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Your Honor, this is Eugene
`
`·5· ·Goryunov, on behalf of the Samsung Petitioners.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·You know, I think that while this is
`
`·7· ·certainly a conversation to be had between Patent Owner
`
`·8· ·and ZTE and whatever other entities, as Patent Owner
`
`·9· ·indicated correctly, Samsung has settled and would like
`
`10· ·to terminate its participation in these IPRs.
`
`11· · · · · · ·And our understanding is that the right
`
`12· ·mechanism to do so is Section 317 of the statute, which
`
`13· ·provides for termination based on settlement.
`
`14· · · · · · ·How that impacts anyone else is not something
`
`15· ·that we're taking a position on.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· And how about the
`
`17· ·LG Petitioners?· Anything to add?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. McCOMBS:· Your Honor, this is
`
`19· ·David McCombs.
`
`20· · · · · · ·I do not have anything to add.
`
`21· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Before the different
`
`22· ·panels discuss this, Patent Owner, is there anything
`
`23· ·else you'd like to address or respond to that you heard
`
`24· ·from the Petitioners?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· The only thing I would like to
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-13
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·add is that ZTE now has amended it's a real party
`
`·2· ·interest to Samsung.· And it just appears that, based
`
`·3· ·on their representation, they are going to invoke the
`
`·4· ·317(a) shield to shield them from 315(e) estoppel
`
`·5· ·provision.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·We don't think that's what the Congress
`
`·7· ·intended for the 317(a), to dismiss a Petitioner and
`
`·8· ·allow its real party interest to remain in the
`
`·9· ·proceedings.
`
`10· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I guess the question, then,
`
`11· ·becomes:· Are the current panels the ones to decide
`
`12· ·that issue, or should we or can we decide that issue
`
`13· ·now?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· I think the easiest way is if the
`
`15· ·panel has a way to dismiss Samsung without invoking
`
`16· ·317(a), that's probably the cleanest way to achieve the
`
`17· ·goal that we need.
`
`18· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Do you have any cases --
`
`19· ·and I was thinking specifically about the '111 and
`
`20· ·'425 cases that have instituted.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Do you have any Board cases or any other
`
`22· ·cases that would suggest that we can allow Samsung to
`
`23· ·simply withdraw and not be terminated from the cases
`
`24· ·under 317?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· I think that in one of the cases
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-14
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·I read many years ago, there was a CBM case, where
`
`·2· ·Apple wanted to withdraw to reconstitute the petition.
`
`·3· ·The Patent Owner opposed.· And as a result, that court
`
`·4· ·would not allow it.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·But I wonder whether it could be done if the
`
`·6· ·Patent Owner does not oppose such a withdrawal motion.
`
`·7· ·And I think -- let me see if I can get the case number.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I'm aware.· I know the case
`
`·9· ·you're talking about.· I don't have the number either,
`
`10· ·but we can certainly bring it up.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· It's CBM-201400013, Paper 22, I
`
`12· ·believe.
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Anything else to
`
`14· ·add, Patent Owner, before we discuss as a panel?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Nothing.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`17· · · · · · ·I'm going to put you on a brief hold.· And
`
`18· ·the panels will discuss.· And we'll come back with a
`
`19· ·ruling as to how we're going to move forward.
`
`20· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)
`
`21· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· The panel is back on
`
`22· ·line.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Do we still have Petitioners on the line?
`
`24· · · · · · ·So we have everyone, let's just go through
`
`25· ·it.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-15
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Samsung?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· LG?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. McCOMBS:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And ZTE?
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And how about Patent Owner?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And the court reporter is
`
`10· ·still on the line?
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes.
`
`12· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Sorry for the delay.
`
`13· ·Sometimes it takes a while with multiple panels.
`
`14· · · · · · ·The panels have conferred, and the decision
`
`15· ·is that we are not the correct forum to decide the
`
`16· ·question of RPI, privy and its association or effect on
`
`17· ·317 and 315.· So we will not make a ruling on those.
`
`18· · · · · · ·With respect to the question of withdraw or
`
`19· ·terminate, Patent Owner, would it be acceptable to you
`
`20· ·to file that request in the alternative in each motion?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· When you say, "file the request
`
`22· ·in the alternative" --
`
`23· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Sorry.· Let me explain
`
`24· ·that.
`
`25· · · · · · ·You're going to request that Samsung be
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-16
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·removed from the cases due to settlement.· And you can
`
`·2· ·request that either Samsung be withdrawn or, if
`
`·3· ·withdrawal is not appropriate in the case, that they be
`
`·4· ·terminated.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes, we can.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Also, for the ones that have not been
`
`·7· ·instituted -- the four cases that have not been
`
`·8· ·instituted, can Samsung be dismissed as opposed to
`
`·9· ·terminated?
`
`10· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I guess that's what we're
`
`11· ·trying to say.
`
`12· · · · · · ·You can file them in the alternative, which
`
`13· ·are dismissal versus termination.· So you can request
`
`14· ·that they be dismissed; but if that is not appropriate
`
`15· ·in those cases, then be terminated.
`
`16· · · · · · ·The question is -- what we're looking to do
`
`17· ·is file a separate motion for each case so each panel
`
`18· ·can make that decision on their own.
`
`19· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Okay.· We can do that.
`
`20· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Let's go ahead and let
`
`21· ·Patent Owner finish, and then I'll let Petitioners
`
`22· ·chime in.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Anything else, Patent Owner?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`25· · · · · · ·I just want to know, what will the motion be?
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-17
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Will that be -- because under 317(a), it
`
`·2· ·needs to be a joint request by the Petitioner and
`
`·3· ·Patent Owner.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·So the alternative that you're talking about,
`
`·5· ·does it need to be a joint request as well?
`
`·6· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I guess let's talk that
`
`·7· ·through.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Is there any question that Samsung would not
`
`·9· ·join such a request in the alternative?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Your Honor, this is Eugene
`
`11· ·Goryunov.
`
`12· · · · · · ·So under Section 317 of the statute, it's
`
`13· ·pretty clear that if an IPR is terminated -- and the
`
`14· ·context is as to a Petitioner.· Under this section, no
`
`15· ·estoppel under 315(e) attaches to the Petitioner.
`
`16· · · · · · ·So Samsung has settled; therefore, it should
`
`17· ·be terminated under the specific settlement provisions
`
`18· ·of the statute, but with all of the conditions and so
`
`19· ·on that apply to a party that has settled.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Now, how that interfaces with the other
`
`21· ·entities that are involved here, again, we don't have
`
`22· ·an opinion on that.
`
`23· · · · · · ·But, like I said, Samsung has settled; so we
`
`24· ·should be terminated pursuant to the settlement
`
`25· ·provisions.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-18
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· So what Samsung is
`
`·2· ·saying is they do not want to be dismissed; they want
`
`·3· ·termination under 317?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· As to Samsung only.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Samsung only.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So that would potentially be a disagreement
`
`·7· ·between Patent Owner now and Petitioner Samsung; so it
`
`·8· ·might not be a joint motion.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Well, it seems to me that the
`
`10· ·settlement agreement requires that we terminate as to
`
`11· ·Samsung.· And we are totally on board with that,
`
`12· ·your Honor.
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`14· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Your Honor --
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· We're trying to -- one more
`
`16· ·comment before I turn this back over to the panel and
`
`17· ·to the Patent Owner.
`
`18· · · · · · ·We're just trying to effect what the
`
`19· ·settlement agreement requires.· We've settled.· It
`
`20· ·requires termination as to Samsung, which is all we're
`
`21· ·willing to do.· We're happy to do that immediately.
`
`22· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Go ahead, Patent Owner.
`
`23· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· One thing I wanted to point out.
`
`24· · · · · · ·I believe 317 only applies to institute IPRs;
`
`25· ·so for the four not institute IPRs, I don't think it's
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-19
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·necessary for the termination provision to apply.
`
`·2· ·Plus, it gets into the settlement agreement; and I
`
`·3· ·don't believe the settlement agreement calls for
`
`·4· ·termination versus withdrawal.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Well, this is a question
`
`·6· ·for Samsung and Patent Owner to work out themselves.
`
`·7· ·We're not a party to that settlement.· And what you can
`
`·8· ·or can't do under that, you will have to decide on your
`
`·9· ·own.
`
`10· · · · · · ·I guess the question is -- we are going to
`
`11· ·authorize you to file a motion to terminate Samsung.
`
`12· · · · · · ·If you wish to do that in the alternative as
`
`13· ·a dismissal, the question was:· Would you like to do
`
`14· ·that?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· The parties then have to
`
`17· ·decide amongst themselves whether they actually can
`
`18· ·under their agreement and the like.
`
`19· · · · · · ·So we will authorize that motion.· But if
`
`20· ·there's an opposition, that would be a different
`
`21· ·question here.
`
`22· · · · · · ·It should be a joint motion if you're going
`
`23· ·to terminate.· And we prefer, as to Samsung and Patent
`
`24· ·Owner, all the way across the board here, if you're
`
`25· ·asking Samsung to be terminated or withdrawn from this
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-20
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·case.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·So, I guess, then the question is:· How would
`
`·3· ·you like to proceed, Patent Owner?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·In this situation, do you still want to file
`
`·5· ·the motion to terminate withdrawal?
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Patent Owner definitely wants to
`
`·7· ·have the alternative to seek to dismiss Samsung without
`
`·8· ·invoking 317(a).
`
`·9· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Your Honor, I apologize.· This
`
`11· ·is counsel for Samsung.
`
`12· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· My question is this -- and
`
`14· ·maybe -- if we can get an answer to this, this may
`
`15· ·resolve the concern that I have.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· So we have currently two
`
`18· ·options on the table:· Terminate as to Samsung under
`
`19· ·317, which is what Samsung and Patent Owner are on
`
`20· ·board with; but the alternative option is to have
`
`21· ·Samsung withdraw from the IPR.
`
`22· · · · · · ·My question is:· Would the Board treat that
`
`23· ·as normal termination, or would the Board treat that
`
`24· ·under a different provision of the statute?
`
`25· · · · · · ·In other words, we don't want to be in a
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-21
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·situation where Samsung's withdrawal is treated as some
`
`·2· ·kind of an admission or a request for adverse judgment
`
`·3· ·or anything like that.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Right.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·You want to make sure that you get the
`
`·6· ·benefit of the language of 317?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Correct.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·And, you know, if -- assuming that withdrawal
`
`·9· ·of Samsung would not carry additional repercussions,
`
`10· ·that could work as well.· But this is one part that is
`
`11· ·just not clear for us.
`
`12· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Right.
`
`13· · · · · · ·And the problem that we have is we have
`
`14· ·multiple panels and different facts for different
`
`15· ·cases.· So that's why we were looking to see if you
`
`16· ·would file the motions before the different panels so
`
`17· ·each panel could decide that question.
`
`18· · · · · · ·And, I guess, that is the problem that now
`
`19· ·faces us.
`
`20· · · · · · ·So, Patent Owner, what do you propose to do
`
`21· ·here?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· If what Samsung's concern is
`
`23· ·they're not going to get a 315(e) estoppel
`
`24· ·non-attachment, we can make it clear in a joint request
`
`25· ·that by the provision of this request, no estoppel
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-22
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·under Section 315(e) shall attach to Samsung as privy
`
`·2· ·and real party interest except in ZTE.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·And I don't know whether that's acceptable to
`
`·4· ·Samsung or not or whether we can make joint --
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· The concern there is that now
`
`·6· ·we're getting into status of Samsung as alleged privy,
`
`·7· ·alleged real party interest.· And, again, this is not
`
`·8· ·something that we believe needs to be touched upon.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·We've settled.· We have an obligation to
`
`10· ·terminate as to Samsung, and we definitely want to get
`
`11· ·that done ASAP.
`
`12· · · · · · ·So the simplest way, in our view, is to do a
`
`13· ·317 settlement termination, which we have a settlement,
`
`14· ·which I think everyone agrees is binding.· We just want
`
`15· ·out.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· I understand.
`
`17· · · · · · ·And -- okay.· Let me -- since we've, kind of,
`
`18· ·had a fair amount of back and forth here, I'm going to
`
`19· ·put you back on hold one more time so the panels on
`
`20· ·these different cases can confer and see how we want to
`
`21· ·handle this.· I think we understand the issues and the
`
`22· ·problems and the concerns of the parties.
`
`23· · · · · · ·We're going to put you on hold one more time.
`
`24· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)
`
`25· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· The panel is back
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-23
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·from the conference.· Let's just do a quick rollcall
`
`·2· ·again.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·Petitioner Samsung?
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Here, your Honor.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And ZTE?
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And LG?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. McCOMBS:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And Patent Owner?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`11· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And the court reporter?
`
`12· · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· The panels have conferred.
`
`14· ·And what we're going to do on this issue is take it
`
`15· ·under advisement.· We have multiple panels here.· And
`
`16· ·what we're going to do is issue either an order and
`
`17· ·e-mail in due course letting you know what our decision
`
`18· ·is or giving you guidance.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Now, I understand that there's a timing issue
`
`20· ·under the parties' agreement.
`
`21· · · · · · ·So when does a motion need to be on file?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Friday, the latest, I believe.
`
`23· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· So tomorrow?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Yeah.
`
`25· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· And, Samsung, do you
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-24
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· ·agree with that?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· So we will move --
`
`·4· ·we'll take this under advisement and move quickly to
`
`·5· ·give the parties guidance for moving forward with their
`
`·6· ·motion.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Okay.· Petitioners -- Samsung, any questions?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. GORYUNOV:· No, your Honor.· Thank you.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· ZTE?
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. McMAHON:· No, your Honor.· Thank you.
`
`11· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· LG?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. McCOMBS:· No, thank you.
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Patent Owner?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MS. ZHONG:· Nothing, your Honor.· Thank you
`
`15· ·very much.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`17· · · · · · ·With that, this call will be adjourned; and
`
`18· ·we will be in contact shortly.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Thank you very much.
`
`20· · · · · · ·(Whereupon, the telephonic hearing
`
`21· · · · · · ·concluded at 10:43 a.m.)
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · · · · -o0o-
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-25
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·I, DENISE A. ROSS, a Certified Shorthand
`
`·2· ·Reporter for the State of California, do hereby
`
`·3· ·certify:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·That said telephonic hearing was taken before
`
`·5· ·me at the time and place therein set forth and was
`
`·6· ·taken down by me in shorthand and thereafter reduced to
`
`·7· ·typewriting via computer-aided transcription under my
`
`·8· ·direction;
`
`·9· · · · · · ·I further certify that I am neither counsel
`
`10· ·for, nor related to, any party to said action, nor in
`
`11· ·anywise interested in the outcome thereof.
`
`12· · · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed
`
`13· ·my name this 13th day of July, 2018.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · _________________________
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Denise A. Ross
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CSR No. 10687
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fundamental Ex 2009-26
`ZTE e
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
