PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`VIZIO, INC., )
` Petitioner )
` ) Case No.
`vs. ) IPR2018-00437
`NICHIA CORPORATION, )
` Patent Owner ) Patent No.
`______________________________) 9,537,071 B2
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
` November 7, 2018
`
`REPORTED BY: CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR No. 13393
`JOB NO. 150890
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`VIZIO Exhibit 1016
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Nichia Corp.
`IPR2018-00437
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`VIZIO, INC., )
` Petitioner )
` ) Case No.
`vs. ) IPR2018-00437
`NICHIA CORPORATION, )
` Patent Owner ) Patent No.
`______________________________) 9,537,071 B2
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
` November 7, 2018
`
`REPORTED BY: CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR No. 13393
`JOB NO. 150890
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`VIZIO Exhibit 1016
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Nichia Corp.
`IPR2018-00437
`
`
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`
`Page 2
`
` November 7, 2018
` 12:02 p.m.
`
` PTAB conference call, held before
`Administrative Patent Judges William V. Saindon,
`Sally C. Medley, and Nathan A. Engels, before Carrie
`LaMontagne, a certified shorthand reporter for the
`state of California.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00002
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` ROPES & GRAY
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1900 University Avenue
` East Palo Alto, California 94303
` BY: GABRIELLE HIGGINS, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER BONNY, ESQ.
`
` ROTHWELL FIGG
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 607 14th Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: MARTIN ZOLTICK, ESQ.
` MICHAEL JONES, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00003
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` JUDGE SAINDON: Hello, this is Judge
`Saindon. This is a conference call for
`IPR2018-00437. With me on the line are Judges
`Engles and Medley. I can hear a lot of feedback and
`static. So if the parties don't mind muting
`themselves when they're not talking, that would
`help.
` I'd like to do a quick roll call. Patent
`owner.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yes, your Honor, it's
`Marty Zoltick and Michael Jones for patent owner
`Nichia.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Welcome to the
`call.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Thank you, your Honor.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Petitioner.
` MS. HIGGINS: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`This is Gabrielle Higgins and Christopher Bonny for
`petitioner Vizio.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Welcome to the
`call.
` Has either party secured a court reporter?
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor, there is a
`court reporter on the line.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00004
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Welcome. What I'd
`like to ask the parties to do is whoever was
`responsible for the court reporter to have the
`transcript, once it's complete, uploaded as an
`exhibit. And then also after the panel is off line
`and the call is over, if the parties don't mind
`staying on for just a moment to ask the court
`reporter if there's any spellings or any issues like
`that that can be clarified. All right. Let's get
`started.
` I have the e-mail in front of me. I'd like to
`take the issue in series. We'll start with the one
`patent owner brings up regarding some IDSes as well
`as invalidity contentions of petitioner in the
`district court.
` So patent owner, if you don't mind going first,
`just give us a quick background of what exactly is
`going on here. Thank you.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Sure. Thank you, your
`Honor. It's Marty Zoltick.
` So this first issue is basically a request for
`the board's guidance. We filed a contingent motion
`to amend with some substitute claims. We are aware
`of 37 CFR 42.11 is duty of candor. There are
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00005
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`information disclosure statements that were filed
`during prosecution of the 071 patent, which is in
`the IPR, but there are also a number of related
`applications in which IDSes were filed. And in
`addition in the corresponding patent infringement
`lawsuit, the petitioner Vizio filed invalidity
`contentions.
` After considering the issue, we wanted to make
`a record in the IPRs. These IDSes and the
`invalidity contentions, we -- looking at the, I
`guess, what's available regarding the filing of this
`type of information in IPRs in connection with
`motions to amend the substitute claims, we weren't
`sure what the best way was to do it.
` I had my law clerk reach out to the board's law
`clerk. It was about a week or a few days after we
`filed the motion to amend to seek some guidances
`with respect to how to do it. That went around for
`a bit in terms of trying to get some information
`from the law clerk.
` In the interim we provided to Vizio, to
`petitioner, the IDSes and their own invalidity
`contentions and just said, you know, we are waiting
`to get some guidance with respect to how we can put
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00006
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`these into the record in the IPRs. And then at some
`point, I think it was maybe two weeks ago, the law
`clerk got back and said, you know, we should raise
`this issue in an e-mail to trials, which is what we
`did.
` We also consulted with Vizio's counsel, and our
`idea was that we could put these in as exhibits and
`file an updated exhibit list, but counsel for
`petitioner didn't agree that that would be the
`appropriate way to do it. So we thought we would
`raise the issue, you know, with your Honors and see
`if we could get some input about what to do.
` And I can say that part of what gave rise to
`the concern was a decision that we were aware of
`when we were doing the research, MLB Advanced Media
`versus Front Row Technologies, IPR2017-1127, which
`was really the only decision we could find that had
`an IDS being filed, you know, in this type of
`situation.
` And in that case the board -- there was
`actually a motion to strike and the exhibits were
`stricken, and so we thought that we would seek
`guidance as to how to proceed in this case in view
`of that.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00007
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer
`them, but I think that's where we are at present
`with respect to this issue.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. I have one question
`and then we'll go over to petitioner.
` So you mentioned that MLB case, I think I
`heard, with the motion to strike and documents
`similar to what you were -- you wish to file now
`were stricken. I'm just wondering if you couldn't,
`so I don't have to look up it right now and spend
`the time, why were those stricken?
` MR. ZOLTICK: One of the reasons was that
`they weren't mentioned in the motion to amend. And
`then there was also 1,100 references, approximately
`1,100 references and copies, it says, of a large
`subset of foreign patent and non-patent literature
`references.
` And, in addition, the patent owner said that it
`did not believe that any of the listed references
`were material of the patentability of that claim and
`not even relevant to the proceeding for any other
`purpose. So in view of all of that, the board
`struck those exhibits from being entered into the
`record.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00008
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` JUDGE SAINDON: And to be clear, you're
`just looking to file the IDSes themselves, not the
`actual exhibits listed therein?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Exactly, the IDSes
`themselves and then the invalidity contentions
`without the exhibits.
` JUDGE SAINDON: I see. Okay. Let's hear
`from petitioner.
` MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, your Honor.
` So first, to be clear, patent owner informed
`petitioner that it might seek to file additional
`exhibits. The first we heard of this was
`October 15, which is roughly a month after patent
`owner filed its contingent motion to amend. And,
`you know, at that time I suggested to patent owner
`that if he wanted to do so that they should e-mail
`the board, and he didn't do so until much later. I
`understand that he says he contacted a law clerk at
`the PTAB.
` In any event, petitioner opposes patent owner's
`request to file the new exhibits now because the
`requested filings are late. And patent owner hasn't
`shown why the information, which these IDSes are
`numerous and they came hundreds -- references to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00009
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`hundreds of references, patent owner hasn't shown
`why the information could not have been filed
`earlier, and allowing the late filing now would
`prejudice the petitioner.
` As an additional matter, we also told patent
`owner that we believe its request to file new
`exhibits was a request to file supplemental
`information under 37 CFR 42.123 in that we believed,
`regardless, patent owner should request
`authorization from the board to file a motion to
`submit late information and that patent must show,
`as it's set forth in the rule, why the supplemental
`information reasonably could not have been obtained
`earlier and it hasn't done so.
` Patent owner cannot show, we believe, that it
`couldn't have filed these exhibits earlier because
`it had all this information prior to filing its
`contingent motion to amend, which was September 18.
`And while there's at least one information
`disclosure that's dated after the deadline for
`patent owner's motion to amend, all of the cited
`references were known to the patent owner before its
`motion to amend.
` We believe that allowing the patent owner to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00010
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`file exhibits after the motion to amend deadline
`would prejudice petitioner because, as I said, they
`referenced hundreds of prior art references,
`including at least some new references.
` In fact, one of the information disclosure
`statements has not been public. It is in connection
`with the pending patent application that was not
`made public until October 18, well after patent
`owner had filed its motion to amend.
` Patent owner hasn't explained why it hasn't
`filed these exhibits earlier in order to give the
`petitioner the full amount of time which is already,
`in our view, not enough time to consider them prior
`to our briefing.
` Additionally, patent owner hasn't shown that
`the proposed new exhibits need to be filed in this
`IPR. Patent owner represented in an e-mail to
`petitioner that it is, quote, "not aware that any of
`the information in these exhibits is material to the
`patentability of the substitute claims," and that is
`an e-mail dated October 26.
` So then if we go to the MLB Advanced Media
`decision, which is IPR2017-01127, that's paper 24,
`we see there that, as patent owner says, the board
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00011
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`expunged uncited exhibits, including IDSes where the
`patent owner stated that it did not believe that any
`of the listed references are material to the
`patentability of the amended claims.
` So it's petitioner's position that patent owner
`could have filed these exhibits earlier, chose not
`to do so, and is doing so now in an attempt to drop
`references to hundreds of exhibits into this
`proceeding late in the game to prejudice the
`petitioner.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Could you expand on the
`prejudice aspect that you just mentioned, please.
` MS. HIGGINS: Sure. The prejudice, your
`Honor, is the timing of this request, months, excuse
`me, after, excuse me, patent owner filed its motion
`to amend where they identified, you know, eight new
`substitute claims and over 21 amendments.
` And it's only after that now that they're
`requesting to put in exhibits, IDSes, that have
`hundreds of references, and, in fact, the prejudices
`that some of these references were contained in that
`nonpublic pending patent application IDS and so were
`not previously available to the petitioner.
` JUDGE SAINDON: What about the invalidity
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00012
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`contentions separate from the IDS, is that a
`different way to look at it?
` MS. HIGGINS: The invalidity contentions
`are a different document than the various IDSes that
`the patent owner has proposed to file. And they
`were filed in an underlying suit involving Vizio and
`so we're not claiming that at least based on what's
`identified there that that is new.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Let's go back to
`patent owner.
` Anything that you would like to respond to?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Well, a couple things. On
`the prejudice issue, we don't believe there's any
`prejudice at all to the petitioner. They were aware
`for months, if not years, of all of these
`references, as far as we know, perhaps with the
`exception of what Ms. Higgins mentioned regarding
`this one not public history that had five new
`references in the IDS that was out, you know,
`after -- in fact, it was after the motion to amend
`was filed, as Ms. Higgins mentioned. So we wouldn't
`have been able to put that in with the motion to
`amend in any case.
` Secondly, we're not aware of any, you know,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00013
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`sort of timing requirement with respect to 37 CFR
`42.11. We got the information together and it was,
`I think, less than a week after we filed the motion
`to amend that we tried to get some guidance as to
`how to put this in.
` So, you know, we tried to figure out the best
`way to put it in. We don't think it falls within
`what would be considered supplemental evidence. So,
`again, we're looking for guidance as to how to put
`it in.
` And, look, the third point is maybe we don't
`necessarily need to put it in because we aren't
`aware that the information that is in these IDSes
`and the invalidity contentions is material to the
`patentability to substitute claim.
` But I know how the duty of candor works, and my
`practice is -- our practice is that we would rather
`err on the side of putting it in the record so that
`the board has a reference to it if it wants to make
`reference to it. And certainly, as I said before,
`petitioner is aware of this information. And to the
`extent there's five references out of maybe hundreds
`that are listed that it isn't aware of, you know,
`all the more reason to put it in.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00014
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` So that's our position with respect to, you
`know, this issue.
` JUDGE SAINDON: So, Counsel, is this
`really evidence? You're just submitting documents
`to what, to meet your duty of candor to the
`petitioner or to the office?
` MR. ZOLTICK: I guess the duty of candor
`would extend to the office, right? And whether it
`is or isn't evidence is a good question. We thought
`that out of an abundance of caution that it made
`sense to have in the record of this IPR, you know,
`these IDSes as well as petitioner's own invalidity
`contentions. So that's why we sought to put them
`in.
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, may I raise two
`points?
` JUDGE SAINDON: Yes, please.
` MS. HIGGINS: I did want to point out that
`with respect to the nonpublic information disclosure
`statement, which counsel is correct that it did not
`become public until after filing the motion to
`amend. But that nonpublic IDS was filed by patent
`owner in the patent office in June, June 13, which
`is prior to the September 18 date when it filed its
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00015
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`motion to amend.
` So certainly it was aware of the art contained
`in that IDS, and that information could not have
`been available to us until raised by patent owner
`here.
` And, also, just in connection with the Major
`League Baseball IPR, which is the one decision that
`we were able to find for the very reason that patent
`owner is stating here that he's not aware that the
`hundreds of references cited are material, that's
`the reason why the panel in MLB decided that the
`references should be expunged.
` MR. ZOLTICK: If I may have one more point
`in response.
` We're not prosecuting those patent
`applications. So, you know, we're not trying to
`hide the ball to sit on something until now. We
`also set out to try and find these IDSes in the
`related case, and so we found them, you know, when
`they were public.
` And then in view of that and in consideration
`of our understanding of the duty of candor, and,
`again, not that we're aware that it's material
`patentability of the substitute claims, but out of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00016
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`an abundance of caution, we at least wanted to put
`petitioner on notice of it and then raise the issue
`with the board.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you. So just
`to summarize, you don't believe that there's
`necessarily anything material in here. You're
`describing trying to extinguish your duty of candor
`before the office by making us aware of these IDSes
`in these other proceedings before another portion of
`the office and also the invalidity contentions?
` MR. ZOLTICK: That is exactly it, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. What I'd like to do
`is take a quick break here for the panel to chat
`about this. We'll be back in about five minutes.
` (Pause in the proceeding.)
` JUDGE SAINDON: Thank you for your
`patience. This is Judge Saindon. The panel is back
`online.
` Just real quick, do we have somebody from
`patent owner on the line?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yes, your Honor,
`Marty Zoltick.
` JUDGE SAINDON: And petitioner?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00017
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor,
`Gabrielle Higgins is here.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Great. So the
`panel has conferred and we are not inclined to allow
`patent owner to file the documents. We'll provide a
`specific explanation in an order, which we'll file
`in due course. And, of course, if patent owner, you
`believe we misapprehended or overlooked something,
`you know, just file [indiscernible] for rehearing
`and we'll reconsider.
` With that, let's move onto the second issue.
`Petitioner was requested additional pages for the
`contingent motion to amend.
` With that, petitioner why don't you start out
`with that one.
` MS. HIGGINS: Sure, your Honor. Thank
`you.
` So first I wanted to start out by saying that,
`you know, the informative -- the Western Digital
`decision, which we all know is an important
`decision, does state that the parties may contact
`the board to request additional pages or briefing
`with respect to motions to amend.
` And here petitioner has requested 25 additional
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00018
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`pages for its opposition to patent owner's
`contingent motion to amend claims. And I would say
`after we sent the e-mail to the board, we actually
`came across a decision, Westinghouse, which I'll get
`to in a minute.
` But we would say that although we have framed
`the request as a request for additional pages, an
`additional word count limit of 10,000 words would
`also be acceptable to the petitioner. And we're
`getting that from the Westinghouse decision. In
`fact, that was the approach recently taken by the
`panel in Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. That's
`IPR2017-00580, paper 25 of this year.
` And in the Westinghouse IPR, the petitioner
`requested a word limit that was equivalent to the
`words allowed for a petition, that is 14,000 words
`under 37 CFR 42.24. In particular in that decision
`we see that the petitioner was pointing to this in
`view of Aqua Products, and indeed the board
`referenced Aqua Products when it did grant the
`10,000 words to the petitioner.
` And specifically in Westinghouse the board
`authorized petitioner 10,000 words for its
`opposition and the patent owner 5,000 words for the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00019
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`reply. And here the board -- we respectfully
`request that the board respectively grant Vizio's
`request for 25 additional pages or 10,000 words
`because we believe they're needed to address prior
`art under 103, and we also believe that there are
`112 issues to be addressed.
` And we believe that we need these additional
`pages or words due to the volume of patent owner's
`proposed claim amendments. So if the panel looks
`for patent owners Exhibit 2020, that's two zero, two
`zero, you'll see that the situation here is actually
`more complex than Westinghouse.
` Patent owner here is proposing eight substitute
`amended claims, including two lengthy independent
`claims. And collectively the proposed substitute
`claims include at least 21 amendments, that's 25 new
`or modified claim limitations.
` And it's for this reason and the burden
`shifting that's occurred post Aqua Products that
`Vizio respectfully requests that the board grant 25
`additional pages, that's a total of 50 pages, or a
`total word count of 10,000 words for its opposition
`to patent owner's motion to amend.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, a few questions
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00020
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`before we go over to patent owner.
` Have you begun drafting this paper yet? Do you
`know you actually need this much space or is this
`looking to the future?
` MS. HIGGINS: No, your Honor, this is the
`situation where we are indeed heavily into the
`drafting process and we know we can't do it within
`the 25-page limit; and, frankly, I don't know that
`we can do it within the 50, you know, page limit or
`10,000 words.
` We're trying to request, you know, something
`that's reasonable here where we believe we can set
`forth, you know, the prior art and in addition to
`that address the 112 issues that we've identified.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you. Let's
`go over to patent owner.
` MR. JONES: Thank you, your Honor. This
`is Michael Jones for patent owner.
` I'd like to respond on three points, the first
`being the reference to Aqua Products. We don't
`think that has any bearing on what's going on here;
`and indeed on the memorandum from Judge Ruschke
`following Aqua Products, November 21, 2017, he
`specifically mentions that the board will continue
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00021
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`its current briefing practice, including the page
`limits of the briefs. So we don't think that has
`any bearing here.
` Counsel mentioned a few times that there were
`eight new claims and 21 amendments. And while I'm
`not entirely sure how they arrived at the 21 number,
`I think it's worth looking at what these eight new
`amendments are. Some simply changed dependency.
`Some fixed a typo; for instance, the word laborers
`is replaced with layers. So I think that while what
`they're saying may be technically true, I'm not sure
`it's entirely reflective of the scope of our
`amendments.
` Indeed, the scope of the amendments is pretty
`succinctly laid out in our motion to amend at
`page 2. We summarized the amendments made of the
`dependent claims. They're pretty few in number.
`This is not a huge number of amendments or
`significant substantive changes. So I'm happy to
`talk about what those are, but it's pretty well laid
`out in the motion to amend.
` This seems like a pretty typical case and we
`didn't hear anything that would suggest what we
`think is sort of an extraordinary measure doubling
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00022
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`the page limits from 25 to 50 that would sort of
`warrant that. As counsel alluded to, it would
`effectively be a new petition, and that doesn't seem
`all too consistent with the just speedy and
`inexpensive resolution, which is sort of the guiding
`point for these IPR proceedings.
` I'm not familiar with the Westinghouse case.
`This is the first we're hearing of it, but -- yeah,
`and I'm looking at a summary of it, and it says that
`there are two sets of proposed substitute claims,
`one for a certain priority date and an entirely new
`set for a second priority date.
` Again, I'm just looking at a summary because
`this is the first we're hearing about the case. But
`that seems like a pretty clear distinction on why
`they would need twice the number of pages if there's
`two alternative sets.
` So, you know, we're happy to answer any
`questions, but nothing we heard, we think, justifies
`going from 25 to 50 pages. That seems like quite a
`bit.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Patent owner, given that
`you would also get, you know, more pages on your
`reply, are you amenable to some amount of additional
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00023
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`pages or words?
` MR. JONES: Your Honor, one thing I would
`like to say is that, you know, we tried very hard to
`stay within the page limits in our opening. We
`narrowed our arguments, we narrowed our amendments,
`and we stuck to the 25 pages in our motion to amend.
`So we think it would be most appropriate that they
`in turn stick to the 25 pages in response.
` We already sort of narrowed the scope of what
`we're doing. That being said, if the board thinks
`that there's an appropriate amount, you know, we
`would like to hear what that is.
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, may I briefly
`respond?
` JUDGE SAINDON: Yes, go ahead.
` MS. HIGGINS: First of all, I did want to
`point out that the Western Digital case is still
`informative. And while we agree there are default
`page limits, it is certainly within the realm of
`what it says in Westinghouse that we may contact the
`board.
` We invite the board to look at Exhibit 2020.
`We do believe this is more complex than Westinghouse
`where there were two sets of six claims that were
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00024
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`very, very similar because they were dealing with
`the swear behind issue.
` And the other thing that we think is
`significant here is that petitioner has to address
`every limitation, okay, not just the 21 amendments,
`and we do think that this is akin to sort of a
`petition within a petition in a proceeding, which is
`why in Westinghouse the petitioner was looking at it
`from that perspective and requested 14,000 words and
`got 10,000 words.
` Finally, as you will see in our briefing, while
`patent owner was able to stay within the 25-page
`limit, as we set forth in the objections that we
`filed, we believe patent owner violated the rules by
`actually putting material -- the support for its
`claims in the claims listing, which is expressly
`prohibited by Western Digital. So we need to
`address that too. And so we actually think that
`10,000 words or 25 additional pages is very
`reasonable.
` MR. JONES: Your Honors, if I may just
`respond quickly.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Sure.
` MR. JONES: Counsel suggested that they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00025
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`have to respond in every limitation. That's always
`the case with a motion to amend and the rules came
`up with 25 pages. There's, again, nothing unique or
`special about that.
` As to their assertion regarding incorporation
`or improper tables, I'm not sure we agree, but we
`filed supplemental evidence. And this is not the
`mechanism for which to address that kind of
`objection.
` I'm happy to answer any questions. That's all
`from patent owner.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Thank you. Okay. I think
`the panel's going to take a minute to talk about
`this issue and we'll get back to you in a few
`minutes. Thank you.
` MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
` (Pause in the proceeding.)
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. This is Judge
`Saindon. The panel is back online.
` We have conferred and we've decided we would
`like to take a closer look at that Westinghouse case
`before making any ruling. So, therefore, our ruling
`will come in the order along with our ruling for the
`first issue, which will come out in due course.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00026
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
` I will say, however, that in general -- and
`I've given this advice to petitioners and patent
`owners for all briefs, background information,
`summaries of case law, unless it's very much on
`point, those types of things we don't really find
`that valuable very often unless it's really core to
`the issues. So focusing on just getting down to the
`issue, I think, can save a lot of pages.
` But with that, we will issue a more definitive
`ruling once we have a chance to look at that case.
`All right. With that we have addressed the two
`issues raised by the parties.
` Is there anything else that the parties would
`like to discuss today?
` MR. ZOLTICK: This is Marty Zoltick for
`patent owner. We don't have anything else for
`today. Thank you.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.
` And petitioner, did I hear a no?
` MS. HIGGINS: Nothing here, your Honor.
`And thank you for your guidance.
` JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Great. Well, the
`panel is going to adjourn. If the parties don't
`mind staying on for a moment to talk to the court
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00027
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`reporter about any spellings or any other issues.
`Thank you. This call is adjourned.
` MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Thank you.
` (Proceedings adjourned at 12:40 p.m.)
` * * * * *
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1016 Page 00028
`
`
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 11/7/18
`
` REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`Pag
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
