UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NICHIA CORPORATION
` Patent Owner.
`______________________________
`Case IPR 2017-01608
`Case IPR 2017-01623
`Patent No. 8,530,250 B2
`Teleconference before:
`JUDGES BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL
`Wednesday, February 28, 2018
`12:57 p.m.
`
`Job No.: 179923
`Pages: 1 - 38
`Reported by: Gail A. Reed, CSR, RMR, CRR
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`NICHIA EXHIBIT 2010
`Vizio, Inc. v. Nichia Corporation
`Case IPR2018-00486
`
`
`_____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NICHIA CORPORATION
` Patent Owner.
`______________________________
`Case IPR 2017-01608
`Case IPR 2017-01623
`Patent No. 8,530,250 B2
`Teleconference before:
`JUDGES BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL
`Wednesday, February 28, 2018
`12:57 p.m.
`
`Job No.: 179923
`Pages: 1 - 38
`Reported by: Gail A. Reed, CSR, RMR, CRR
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`NICHIA EXHIBIT 2010
`Vizio, Inc. v. Nichia Corporation
`Case IPR2018-00486
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`GABRIELLE E. HIGGINS, ESQUIRE
`KATHRYN N. HONG, ESQUIRE
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`3 Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, California 94111
`415.315.6300
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`MARTIN ZOLTICK, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL JONES, ESQUIRE
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14TH Street, NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202.783.6040
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`3
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Good afternoon,
`everyone. This is Judge McNamara. I'm on
`the line. Judge Dougal and Judge White are
`also on the line.
` Is anyone on the line for the
`Petitioner?
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor.
`This is Gabrielle Higgins and Kathryn Hong on
`behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner singular.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. That's
`Petitioner Vizio; is that right?
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. And how
`about for the Patent Owner?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yes. For the Patent
`Owner, your Honor, Marty Zoltick and my
`colleague, Michael Jones.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. And I
`understand we have a Court Reporter on the
`line; is that right?
` THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. My
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`4
`
`name is Gail Reed.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. And as
`I said, Judge Dougal and Judge White are on
`the line, so we are prepared to begin.
` I think it was the Patent Owner who
`requested this conference; is that right?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Well, why
`don't you begin then.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Sure. So we
`requested the conference call to address two
`matters. The first one was proposed change
`to the scheduling orders.
` And the second matter was
`authorization -- seeking authorization to
`file a Motion for Additional Discovery
`directed to the real party-in-interest issue.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Let me -- let me
`interrupt you for just a second because I
`might be able to short-circuit the discussion
`on the change to the scheduling order.
` We have -- the panel has reviewed the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`5
`
`circumstances, and we are not currently in a
`position to change the date of the final
`hearing of the trial hearing --
` MR. ZOLTICK: Okay.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: -- which I think
`is part of your proposal. So to the extent
`that you might want to go back and rethink or
`revisit your conversations with each other
`about that, you might want to do that and get
`back to us with another proposal. But as I
`said, right now, we're not in a position to
`change the hearing date.
` MR. ZOLTICK: No. I understand the
`situation.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Yeah, they get
`scheduled a long time out.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yes.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: And it's difficult
`for us with room reservations and all that
`sort of thing, so.
` MR. ZOLTICK: No. I understand.
`And we had tried to move that date just to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`6
`
`correspond to the one-week move we were
`looking at for Due Date 5 and 6, but I
`completely understand. And we'll go back and
`take a look at the schedule and see if
`there's any alternative that we can work up
`that won't affect the hearing date.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. I
`appreciate that.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Sure. Would you like
`me to move on to the second issue?
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Sure.
` MR. ZOLTICK: So the second issue
`relates to our request for -- to file a
`motion for additional discovery. And it
`centers on the real party-in-interest issue.
` The basis for the additional discovery
`that we're seeking centers on a company named
`Amtran and its joint venture partner,
`Everlight, and the issue of whether Amtran
`and/or Everlight are unnamed real
`parties-in-interest.
` And so if I could, I guess, give a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`7
`
`little bit of context. We raised the issue
`independent of Preliminary Responses, but if
`I can give a little bit of context, I think
`it might be helpful with respect to our
`request.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay.
` MR. ZOLTICK: So I think the
`Board's aware, based on the Petition and the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, that the
`Patent Owner Nichia had asserted the
`patents -- the 250 Patent that is involved in
`the two IPRs against a company called
`Everlight.
` There was a trial that was held in May
`of 2015, and the Court found that Everlight
`infringed the 250 Patent and that the Patent
`was not invalid. And that went up on appeal.
`The decision was affirmed by the Federal
`Circuit in April of 2017.
` And Nichia had asserted the 250 Patent
`against other parties subsequent to the
`Everlight case. That included the Petitioner
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`8
`
`in these IPRs, Vizio, and then Vizio filed
`the Petitions that resulted in these two
`proceedings.
` And so with respect to Everlight,
`there's no question that under 315(b) there
`would be a 315(b) bar with respect to
`Everlight. And -- and we believe that
`there's enough suggestion in the publically
`available evidence that we have been able to
`locate of the relationship between the
`Petitioner Vizio, which is the sales arm of
`the company Amtran, and Everlight, which is a
`joint venture partner of Amtran, to support
`discovery into the issue of real
`party-in-interest.
` And it's particularly important because
`if, as we believe, there's a privity
`relationship and/or a real party-in-interest
`issue relating to Everlight, then that would
`be a case dispositive issue.
` So, we think, based on the evidence that
`we've got, that the discovery request, which
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`9
`
`I'll get into in a moment, regarding the real
`party-in-interest issue that we're going to
`seek authorization on represents more than a
`possibility and mere allegation. And so if I
`can run through that evidence, I think it
`would put our requests in further -- in
`further context.
` And the evidence that we've been able to
`locate is a public record that is regarding
`the relationship between the Petitioner Vizio
`and then the unnamed parties, Amtran and
`Everlight.
` And first off, Petitioner Vizio is
`represented as the sales arm of Amtran. So
`there's clearly a relationship between
`Petitioner Vizio and -- which is the sales
`arm of Amtran.
` And we also know that Amtran
`manufactures and distributes digital
`televisions with LED backlighting. And
`that's important because the LED, you know,
`backlighting and the LED packaging is the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`10
`
`subject matter of the Patent that's in these
`IPRs.
` And we also know that since 2009, that
`Amtran and Everlight have been joint venture
`partners specifically manufacturing with LED
`packaging -- LEDs and, therefore, LED
`packaging, which, again, is the subject
`matter that's at issue in the IPRs and the
`related infringement actions.
` And we cited some of that evidence in
`the Patent Owner Preliminary Responses which
`the Board addressed in the institution
`decisions.
` Since the -- those Patent Owner
`Preliminary Responses, we tried to look for
`additional evidence regarding the
`relationship between Vizio, Amtran, and
`Everlight. We've located some additional
`evidence.
` We have a Westlaw Company Investigator
`report which -- which we provided to counsel
`for the Petitioner. And the report shows
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`11
`
`that Vizio and Amtran have a shared business
`address and phone number in California. I
`think that the Petitioner's counsel is going
`to address that. But the document itself,
`which we understand is based on Federal
`Employer Identification Number records,
`indicates that Amtran and Vizio have the same
`business address and phone number.
` That's the additional and so the new
`evidence that we have. I've already
`discussed the evidence regarding the
`relationship that's already in the record.
` And, you know, we acknowledge that as --
`as you, the Board, has indicated in the
`institution decisions, that the evidence
`currently is not sufficient to prove that the
`Petitioner failed to identify all the real
`parties-in-interest.
` But with that said, we believe that this
`evidence is sufficient to warrant the
`additional discovery that we are seeking.
`And -- and to that end, the specific
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`12
`
`discovery requests that we anticipate or that
`we're seeking would be very limited number of
`document requests and interrogatories and
`would be specifically directed to two areas
`or two limited requests: One being
`communications between the Petitioner
`Vizio -- and when I say the "Petitioner
`Vizio," we would include Vizio's directors
`and officers, executives, and its counsel --
`and Amtran and/or Everlight. And, again,
`when I say "Amtran or Everlight," we would
`include within that their directors,
`officers, executives, and counsel.
` And those communications would be
`specifically regarding preparation, drafts,
`or filing of the Petitions or the IPRs. So
`we think that that type of request falls
`within what's, you know, acceptable and --
`and limited and narrowly tailored under what
`we understand the additional discovery
`guidance the Board has provided would be
`acceptable.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`13
`
` And then the second request would be the
`corporate and management structure of Vizio,
`Amtran, and Everlight. That would include
`any personnel from any one of these entities
`who participates in the management or
`corporate decision making of any of the other
`entities.
` So the first request really gets at the
`real party-in-interest. The second request
`gets at the privity issue. And that would
`be -- that would be it.
` So we think that there is sufficient
`evidence to establish the relationship
`between the Petitioner Vizio and the
`nonparties, Amtran and Everlight, such that
`we would satisfy the Garmin factor of more
`than a possibility and mere allegation.
` And I also want to mention that because
`of the nature of the request and how narrowly
`tailored they are, we don't think that this
`would be overly burdensome for the Petitioner
`to respond to. And --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`14
`
` JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. Thank
`you.
` MR. ZOLTICK: -- I'm happy to
`answer any questions or speak to anything
`else if it would be helpful to the Board with
`respect to this issue.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Well, let's
`first hear from Vizio on this.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Sure.
` MS. HIGGINS: Thanks, your Honor.
`This is Gabrielle Higgins.
` First of all, as Petitioner set forth in
`the Petitions here, Vizio is the sole
`Petitioner and real party-in-interest. No
`other party is controlling these IPRs.
` We believe that no additional briefing
`and no additional discovery is warranted
`here. Patent Owner has not shown that there
`is more than a possibility and mere
`allegation that either Amtran or Everlight
`controls these IPRs under Garmin Factor (1).
` You know, as an initial matter, I think
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`15
`
`it's important to understand who these
`nonparties are. You know, the Patent Owner
`represented Vizio as the sales arm of Amtran.
`While we note that that is a characterization
`that was made in an article that was
`submitted with Patent Owner's Preliminary
`Response, for example, Exhibit 2128, we don't
`believe that that's a correct
`characterization.
` Amtran is one of several ODM, you know,
`manufacturer/suppliers to Vizio. They're a
`separate company. Everlight is also a
`separate company that is a component parts
`manufacturer.
` Now, first I'd like to address, the
`Patent Owner did send us yesterday what it
`refers to as additional evidence of company
`profile information. These are Westlaw
`printouts.
` We don't believe that they show that
`there's more than a possibility that a
`nonparty's controlling these IPRs. The
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`16
`
`accuracy of the information identified in the
`Westlaw Company Investigator reports, you
`know, we believe is questionable.
` But then, specifically, if we look at
`what Patent Owner pointed to us on the phone
`yesterday during our meet and confer, they
`pointed to what they characterize as an
`overlap in address. And they point to
`39 Tesla, which is an address down in Irvine,
`California. And that address, 39 Tesla, is
`Vizio's principal executive offices occupied
`solely by Vizio, not Amtran.
` Secondly, they identified a phone
`number, 949-428-2525, as allegedly
`overlapping between Vizio and Amtran. If you
`dial that number, you'll see that that is
`Vizio's general phone number when you call
`them at the 39 Tesla location. It is not an
`Amtran phone number.
` And they pointed out --
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Does Amtran have a
`separate phone number? Sorry to interrupt,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`17
`
`but does Amtran have a separate phone number?
`I mean, if I were trying to reach them, would
`I call that number, get Vizio, and then get
`transferred to Amtran?
` MS. HIGGINS: Not that I'm aware
`of, your Honor. They also identified -- so
`they pointed to an Amtran account manager,
`which is -- which -- she's common to these
`reports. Her name is Lillian Chang. And
`there's another number associated with her.
`949-336-6633. That is an Amtran number, and
`if you dial that number, you will -- I did it
`yesterday. I got an Amtran recording. I
`confirmed that it's not a Vizio number. And
`Lillian Chang, which these Westlaw documents
`identify as an Amtran account manager, is not
`an employee of Vizio.
` So based on the evidence that was
`identified to us in these Westlaw reports,
`Patent Owner has presented -- hasn't
`presented any evidence of a common address or
`employee. And, more importantly, they
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`18
`
`haven't -- they haven't shown that any kind
`of common address or location would
`necessarily lead to meeting this Garmin -- it
`doesn't meet the Garmin Factor (1).
` Let me just cite just a couple of cases
`here. There are PTAB decisions, you know,
`that say that existing -- even if you had --
`and we have no evidence of it here -- common
`directors or employees between Petitioners
`and third parties, that alone is insufficient
`to show an RPI issue and insufficient to
`warrant discovery.
` For example, GlobalTel CBM2015-00145,
`paper 18, which denied Patent Owner's Motion
`for Additional Discovery regarding RPI, and
`said that the mere existence of a
`relationship between Petitioner and a parent
`company in that case was insufficient to
`demonstrate a real party-in-interest.
` There's also the Daifuku decision, which
`is IPR2015-01538. This is an institution
`decision paper 11 at page 11. And in that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`19
`
`case at institution the Board found at
`institution that there wasn't persuasive
`evidence with respect to a holding company,
`Daifuku Holding. They were found that there
`was no persuasive evidence that they were a
`real party-in-interest.
` And there, in that institution decision,
`the Board said that a common address and
`telephone number, substantial overlap of
`officers, which Patent Owner has shown -- has
`not shown here, it establishes a relationship
`between parties. It does not establish a
`relationship between Daifuku Holdings and
`this proceeding.
` So it's very important that -- that the
`test here is, is there a relationship, not
`between parties but between the alleged RPI
`and this proceeding.
` And I think that also goes for some of
`the evidence that Patent Owner submitted in
`connection with the Petition, Exhibit 2128,
`which is a September 2009 article which is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`20
`
`talking about the future talks between Amtran
`and Everlight as opposed to building a fac --
`a packaging facility.
` It's important to note that that joint
`venture quote that Patent Owner referred to
`is not a joint venture involving the
`Petitioner Vizio here.
` While Patent Owner did not raise it, you
`know, as the Board already found with respect
`to stock -- stock ownership, that's also not
`enough to control, you know, as the Board
`preliminarily found. And I will point out
`one additional decision there. Synaptics,
`IPR2016-00863, which is an institution
`decision paper 27 at 11, 12, where in that
`case, you know, common ownership of stock was
`not -- was not found to be sufficient to find
`an RPI.
` The Daifuku decision, which I already
`mentioned, also stands for that proposition
`that the exercise or availability of general
`control that stock ownership vests in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`21
`
`stockholders such as parent-subsidiary
`relationships will not make one company a
`real party-in-interest of the other.
` Then with respect to the Patent Owner's
`requests, and I will say that when we met and
`conferred yesterday and from what I heard
`today, you know, we'd have to hear the exact
`wording of the request, because as they --
`because the exact wording and exactly whether
`they're referring to all communications or
`some specific communications would have to be
`worked out.
` But first with respect to their request
`regarding corporate management structure of
`Amtran, Everlight, and Vizio, as we've
`already said, Patent Owner, with respect to
`Garmin Factor (1), has not made that
`threshold showing with respect to -- even to
`get that request.
` With respect to Garmin Factor (5), we
`still believe that that -- we believe the
`request is overly burdensome and not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`22
`
`responsibly tailored to identifying whether
`Amtran or Everlight controls the proceeding.
` And with respect to Garmin Factor (3),
`we believe that at least with respect to --
`to Vizio's, you know, officers and directors
`and so on, that information is available by
`other means. For example, the Dun &
`Bradstreet information Patent Owner provided
`us yesterday had a whole list of management
`of Vizio.
` And we're not quite sure how a request
`that goes to the corporate management
`structure of Amtran and Everlight, these
`separate companies, you know, why -- why
`Patent Owner would be asking Petitioner Vizio
`to provide that information. You know, we
`certainly -- you know, we might have some of
`that information based on publicly available
`information, but it wouldn't be on Vizio's,
`you know, personal knowledge to provide org
`charts or whatever of two other separate
`companies.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`23
`
` With respect to communications regarding
`the preparation, drafts, and filing of IPR
`Petitions, we also believe that the wording
`of that request is overly burdensome and
`would have to be specifically tailored to
`identifying whether Amtran or Everlight
`controls the proceeding. I would point out
`that, for instance, I think your -- one of
`your Honors was involved in the
`Samsung/Black Hills IPRs, and there I know
`that there were interrogatories that were
`specifically tailored, for instance, to
`identifying, you know, who actually, other
`than Vizio's counsel, received, you know,
`drafts of the Petition, which didn't happen
`here.
` And so in -- in conclusion, we do not
`believe that the Patent Owner has met its
`burden under Garmin Factor (1) with respect
`to any of the evidence that it has set forth.
`They haven't shown more than a possibility
`and mere allegation that Amtran or Everlight
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`24
`
`controls these IPRs under Garmin Factor (1).
`And we believe that the document requests are
`overboard under the other factors.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Let me ask
`a quick question to the Patent Owner. And
`this concerns your request for the corporate
`management structure of Amtran and Everlight.
`Is that information not publicly available?
` MR. ZOLTICK: There's some
`information that we've been able to see
`from, you know, the corporate reports like on
`Westlaw. But that doesn't indicate at all
`who would participate in decision making with
`respect to one entity over another.
` In other words, we know there's this
`relationship between Vizio and Amtran and --
`and the question really is, does Amtran have
`any management or corporate decision-making
`authority over Vizio. And so --
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Let me try
`and parse this out a little better because
`we're -- we're -- you know, part of your
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`25
`
`argument was Vizio and Everlight as well.
`So -- but what I'm trying to figure out is,
`why, then, do you believe -- well, what leads
`you to conclude that Vizio would have any
`information that's not publicly available
`about the management structure of Amtran or
`Everlight?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Well, again, the
`publicly available information that we have,
`and I know that, you know, the Petitioner's
`counsel is disputing that some of it is
`correct, shows that, you know, there is a
`relationship -- more than just a supplier --
`manufacturer/supplier/distributor
`relationship between Amtran and Vizio.
` And we know, also, that there is this
`relationship between Amtran and Everlight in
`connection with manufacturing the LEDs that
`are at issue in the infringement case and in
`the -- you know, the subject matter of the --
`of the IPRs.
` And so there -- you know, we -- given --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`26
`
`given the relationship that exists between
`these parties, we believe that they are
`communicating and cooperating with each
`other, potentially. And we simply want the
`right to be able to ask that in discovery.
` I mean, a lot of the argument that was
`being made has to do with whether or not
`we've shown that those unnamed parties are
`real parties-in-interest, but we're not at
`that point yet. We're asking the Board for
`authorization to file our motion for
`additional discovery where we would lay out
`the, you know, specific discovery that we
`would seek, which I -- which I, you know,
`explained.
` And so we think there's enough evidence
`in the record thus far to at least get us to
`the point where we should be able to file our
`motion, identify specifically what discovery,
`you know, we're seeking, and go from there.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. I think I
`get your point.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`27
`
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor --
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Can you hear me?
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor. Can
`you hear me? Sorry.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Yes. Okay,
`I'm sorry. I was -- I was about to ask a
`question, so.
` MS. HIGGINS: Okay. Sure. I'm
`sorry, your Honor. Sorry to interrupt.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: That's all right.
`I think at one point my mute button might
`have been accidently triggered as well.
` But in any case, as to Amtran, and this
`question actually goes to the Petitioner, you
`refer to Amtran as one of several suppliers
`to Vizio. What does Amtran supply?
` MS. HIGGINS: Televisions,
`your Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. So
`Amtran -- and that's why they got -- that's
`why some people have characterized Vizio as
`the sales arm of Amtran -- is that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`28
`
`correct? -- because they sell televisions
`that are manufactured by Amtran; is that
`right?
` MS. HIGGINS: They sell televisions
`that are manufactured by Amtran. I'm not
`sure why they refer to it as the sales arm,
`but that is a correct statement, your Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Okay. Just
`out of curiosity, does Vizio sell televisions
`manufactured by anyone else?
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes, they -- I do not
`have at my fingertips -- I can probably
`get --
` JUDGE McNAMARA: You don't need to
`answer that.
` MS. HIGGINS: But there are at
`least -- there are at least four ODMs --
`original design manufacturers -- that sell
`televisions to Vizio.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. Great. I'm
`not taking discovery, so I'm not -- so you
`don't have to answer that. I just wanted to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`29
`
`ask that one question. Okay. Because you
`had said Amtran was one of several suppliers
`to Vizio.
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. So -- and
`my understanding from the Patent Owner is
`that there are some allegations as to a
`relationship between Amtran and Everlight and
`in the form of a joint venture and that --
`that -- some public information about that;
`is that correct?
` MR. ZOLTICK: That's correct.
` MS. HIGGINS: The Patent Owner
`submitted an exhibit, which I would point out
`is more about what could happen in the
`future. I -- you know, I -- I don't know for
`sure whether there is a joint venture, but I
`would say that even if there was, it is
`irrelevant to the pertinent issue here which
`has to do with the control of this -- you
`know, these proceedings. And I also
`report --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`30
`
` JUDGE McNAMARA: I understand. The
`issue -- I think -- I think there are two
`questions. There's one, of course, about
`real party-in-interest, and then there's the
`issue of privity.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Right.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: And that's why I
`think the Patent Owner's counsel said the --
`they were asking for discovery concerning the
`corporate management structure as opposed to
`the discovery relative to the preparation of
`drafts and petitions and the IPR, which --
`which -- which is, perhaps, drawn to a
`slightly different focus.
` So in any case, though, so I'm just
`trying to get -- we're probably not going to
`make a ruling on this during this call.
`We'll probably take it under advisement. But
`I'm just trying to make sure I understand
`what the parties' positions are and the --
`and the scope of the discovery that's being
`sought.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`31
`
` Of course, that would come up more
`specifically in a motion if we -- Motion for
`Discovery if we authorize it.
` The other question, and this has to do
`with the -- aside from the addresses and the
`telephone numbers that are apparently in some
`dispute as to what they really are, is there
`any other basis that the Patent Owner has for
`seeking discovery on the relationship between
`Vizio and Amtran?
` MR. ZOLTICK: I think there are
`some other -- well, the original exhibits
`that were put into the record where there
`were documents that were -- I believe it was
`in the industry magazine where they were
`referring to Vizio as being the sales arm of
`Amtran. And when we -- we learned that that
`was -- that Petitioner was taking issue with
`that, we went and did some further
`investigation from these -- the records, the
`UCC filings and the Federal -- its FEIN
`database that Westlaw, you know, aggregates
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`32
`
`when you do a Company Investigator report.
`And that's when we discovered, and I
`understand that Petitioner's disputing it,
`but -- but I'm just telling you what's in
`those records, that there's a common, you
`know, business address, 39 Tesla. And the
`report, you know, indicates that Amtran is
`there as well as Vizio Services. They have
`the same address, and then it says, "Shared
`phone number."
` So, I -- you know, I'm just -- so we're
`basing our request for authorization to file
`the motion on the information that we -- that
`we have. It's not that Petitioner can't
`dispute it. But -- but that's the evidence
`that we have that is giving rise to this
`request.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
` MR. ZOLTICK: So beyond -- beyond
`the information about Vizio being the sales
`arm of Amtran, and there's some other things
`underneath that about some, you know, stock
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of Teleconference
`Conducted on February 28, 2018
`
`33
`
`ownership in the company, that Amtran owns
`15 percent of Vizio's stock and so on, but --
`b
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
