·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - -
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6· ·HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,· · · ·) Case IPR2018-00465
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · ) Patent No. 8,624,550
`
`·8· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · ·) Case IPR2018-00472
`
`·9· ·FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS ) Patent No. 8,232,766
`
`10· ·INTERNATIONAL LLC,· · · · · · ·) Case IPR2018-00487
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· ) Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`12· · - -· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· ·)
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`16· · · · · · BEFORE JON TORNQUIST, JOANNE M. KOKOSKI,
`
`17· · · · · · · RAE LYNN GUEST, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
`
`18· · · · · · ·PAUL KORNICZKY AND CHRISTOPHER OGDEN,
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:00 A.M.
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`
`24· · · · · · TERI J. NELSON
`
`25· · · · · · CSR NO. 7682, RPR
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 1
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - -
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6· ·HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,· · · ·) Case IPR2018-00465
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · ) Patent No. 8,624,550
`
`·8· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · ·) Case IPR2018-00472
`
`·9· ·FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS ) Patent No. 8,232,766
`
`10· ·INTERNATIONAL LLC,· · · · · · ·) Case IPR2018-00487
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· ) Patent No. 7,239,111
`
`12· · - -· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· ·)
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`16· · · · · · BEFORE JON TORNQUIST, JOANNE M. KOKOSKI,
`
`17· · · · · · · RAE LYNN GUEST, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
`
`18· · · · · · ·PAUL KORNICZKY AND CHRISTOPHER OGDEN,
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:00 A.M.
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`
`24· · · · · · TERI J. NELSON
`
`25· · · · · · CSR NO. 7682, RPR
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 1
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Reporter's Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`·2· ·before Jon Tornquist, Joanne M. Kokoski, Rae Lynn Guest,
`
`·3· ·Lynne E. Pettigrew, Paul Korniczky and Christopher Ogden,
`
`·4· ·Administrative Patent Judges, Wednesday, June 6, 2018,
`
`·5· ·10:00 A.M., before Teri J. Nelson, CSR No. 7682, RPR,
`
`·6· ·pursuant to Notice.
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·APPEARANCES (All Telephonic):
`
`·9
`
`10· ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES:
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE JON TORNQUIST
`
`12· · · · · · JUDGE JOANNE M. KOKOSKI
`
`13· · · · · · JUDGE RAE LYNN GUEST
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE LYNNE E. PETTIGREW
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE PAUL KORNICZKY
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE CHRISTOPHER OGDEN
`
`17
`
`18· ·FOR PETITIONER HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.:
`
`19· · · · · · COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`20· · · · · · BY:· DAVID A. GARR, ESQ.
`
`21· · · · · · One CityCenter
`
`22· · · · · · 850 Tenth Street, NW
`
`23· · · · · · Washington, DC 20001-4956
`
`24· · · · · · 202-662-6000
`
`25· · · · · · dgarr@cov.com
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 2
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (Continued)(All Telephonic):
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR PETITIONER HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. (Continued):
`
`·4· · · · · · COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`·5· · · · · · BY:· ANUPAM SHARMA, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · · · 333 Twin Dolphin Drive
`
`·7· · · · · · Redwood Shores, California 94065-1418
`
`·8· · · · · · 650-632-4700
`
`·9· · · · · · asharma@cov.com
`
`10· · · · · · -and-
`
`11· · · · · · COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`12· · · · · · BY:· MICHAEL E. BOWLUS, ESQ.
`
`13· · · · · · One Front Street
`
`14· · · · · · San Francisco, California 94111-5356
`
`15· · · · · · 415-591-6000
`
`16· · · · · · mbowlus@cov.com
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 3
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (Continued)(All Telephonic):
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR PATENT OWNER FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
`
`·4· ·INTERNATIONAL LLC:
`
`·5· · · · · · IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`·6· · · · · · BY:· H. ANNITA ZHONG, ESQ.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·JASON G. SHEASBY, ESQ.
`
`·8· · · · · · 1800 Avenue of the Stars
`
`·9· · · · · · Suite 900
`
`10· · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`
`11· · · · · · 310-277-1010
`
`12· · · · · · hzhong@irell.com
`
`13· · · · · · jsheasby@irell.com
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 4
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · 10:00 A.M.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Good afternoon.
`
`·5· · · · · · This is Judge Tornquist, and with me are
`
`·6· ·Judges Kokoski, Guest, Pettigrew, Korniczky and Ogden.
`
`·7· · · · · · This is a call for IPR2018-465, -472 and -487.
`
`·8· · · · · · Do we have Petitioner on the line?
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Yes.
`
`10· · · · · · Good afternoon.
`
`11· · · · · · It's lead counsel for Petitioner Huawei, David
`
`12· ·Garr, with Covington here in DC.
`
`13· · · · · · Also on the line is backup counsel Anupam
`
`14· ·Sharma, as well as our associate Michael Bowlus.
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Welcome.
`
`16· · · · · · Do we have Patent Owner?
`
`17· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`18· · · · · · This is Annita Zhong, and together with me on
`
`19· ·the line is Jason Sheasby.
`
`20· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Welcome.
`
`21· · · · · · And do we have a court reporter on the line?
`
`22· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`23· · · · · · Patent Owner has retained a court reporter, and
`
`24· ·we will file the transcript once we get it.
`
`25· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Thank you very much.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 5
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · And please file the transcript in each of the
`
`·2· ·three cases that we're discussing here today.
`
`·3· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes, will do.
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Petitioner requested
`
`·5· ·this call to request authorization to file a three-page
`
`·6· ·reply to the preliminary response in each case.
`
`·7· · · · · · Petitioner, do you want to explain what it is
`
`·8· ·you're looking for and why you think there's good cause
`
`·9· ·for reply here?
`
`10· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Sure.
`
`11· · · · · · So this relates to the three IPRs filed by
`
`12· ·Huawei on related patents, '550, '766 and the '111.
`
`13· · · · · · And as just additional background, we actually
`
`14· ·filed four different IPR petitions on this family of
`
`15· ·patents, and they were all filed on January 11th and
`
`16· ·12th, but based on the -- sort of the timing of when the
`
`17· ·notices of filing date were issued, they -- the
`
`18· ·preliminary responses have been spread out a little bit
`
`19· ·over a series of a few weeks.
`
`20· · · · · · So the three that were -- requested this call
`
`21· ·about related to POPRs that were filed by the Patent
`
`22· ·Owner at various points in May.
`
`23· · · · · · In the fourth IPR, the POPR is due to be filed
`
`24· ·next week, but we requested this call because of
`
`25· ·mischaracterizations that we saw in the three preliminary
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 6
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·responses that have been filed thus far about testimony
`
`·2· ·by a District Court expert for Samsung Electronics.
`
`·3· · · · · · Samsung's not a party to these proceedings.
`
`·4· · · · · · It's, rather, one of four companies that have
`
`·5· ·been sued by the Patent Owner in Texas and -- you know,
`
`·6· ·who have filed various petitions of their own before the
`
`·7· ·Board.
`
`·8· · · · · · It's not a real party in interest.· It's had no
`
`·9· ·role in preparing the IPRs we're talking about today.
`
`10· · · · · · And the -- the language that we're requesting
`
`11· ·this about is -- is essentially the same in all the
`
`12· ·preliminary responses.
`
`13· · · · · · As an example, I'll direct Your Honors to the
`
`14· ·preliminary response in the IPR on the '111 patent.· This
`
`15· ·is IPR2018-487, Paper 6, and the relevant language is on
`
`16· ·page 7 of that document.
`
`17· · · · · · And what it does, there's a -- one full
`
`18· ·paragraph there beginning "Indeed, in the litigation,
`
`19· ·this preliminary response attached to Yu's testimony from
`
`20· ·a District Court expert for Samsung, James Garney," and
`
`21· ·it asserts that this testimony is highly relevant to
`
`22· ·these proceedings because, quote, "Huawei has simply
`
`23· ·adapted various IPRs already filed by Samsung in the
`
`24· ·instant petition."
`
`25· · · · · · It then string cites to nine Samsung IPRs with
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 7
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·the implication being that these were copied by us and
`
`·2· ·should be treated as such by the Board, both seeking to
`
`·3· ·impute expert testimony of a different party as well as I
`
`·4· ·think perhaps raising the specter of a general plastics
`
`·5· ·issue.
`
`·6· · · · · · We see this as a misrepresentation.
`
`·7· · · · · · Not only are our petitions based on their own
`
`·8· ·grounds of unpatentability with their analysis and their
`
`·9· ·own expert declarations by a different expert, but most
`
`10· ·critically, perhaps, of the nine IPRs that are string
`
`11· ·cited in here that we supposedly adapted to form our
`
`12· ·petitions, seven of the nine were actually filed after we
`
`13· ·filed our petitions in early January.
`
`14· · · · · · So there's some overlap, of course, in terms of
`
`15· ·some of the prior art references used in the various IPRs
`
`16· ·that have been filed against this family of patents by --
`
`17· ·by different Petitioners.
`
`18· · · · · · That's not surprising.
`
`19· · · · · · All of these parties and more are engaged in
`
`20· ·District Court litigation in Texas where, you know,
`
`21· ·invalidity contentions have been served.
`
`22· · · · · · Naturally, the IPRs draw from some of the same
`
`23· ·references, but that doesn't mean that our petitions were
`
`24· ·somehow adaptive from petitions filed by Samsung,
`
`25· ·especially given the fact that ours were filed before
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 8
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·theirs.
`
`·2· · · · · · And for these reasons, we think it's a
`
`·3· ·mischaracterization, improper to seek to impute the
`
`·4· ·Samsung testimony to the Petitioner here, and we think
`
`·5· ·good cause exists for a short reply, no more than I said
`
`·6· ·three pages, two or three, because this is not an issue
`
`·7· ·we could have addressed in our petitions.· We had no way
`
`·8· ·of knowing that the Patent Owner would attempt to use
`
`·9· ·testimony against us based on another party's expert in a
`
`10· ·District Court case based on IPRs, most of which hadn't
`
`11· ·even been filed when we filed our petitions, and that's
`
`12· ·why we're requesting authorization for a short
`
`13· ·pre-institution reply essentially to address these
`
`14· ·mischaracterizations and to lay out the -- the timeline
`
`15· ·of when all these IPRs were filed.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· So let me just
`
`17· ·understand what it is you're looking to do.
`
`18· · · · · · Are you looking to cite to any additional
`
`19· ·evidence in this case?
`
`20· · · · · · MR. GARR:· No.
`
`21· · · · · · It would just be a three-page reply.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`23· · · · · · MR. GARR:· I mean it would -- it would cite to
`
`24· ·evidence.
`
`25· · · · · · We wouldn't -- we wouldn't submit anything
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 9
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·additional as new evidence.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. GARR:· It would just cite to the petitions
`
`·4· ·and briefs that have been filed.
`
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· So only to documents
`
`·6· ·that are already in the case and that have already been
`
`·7· ·discussed by the parties?
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. GARR:· That's right.
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· And the purpose of
`
`10· ·that, this filing, is to differentiate your case from the
`
`11· ·previous two IPRs in '110 and '111 or from all of these
`
`12· ·seven or however many cases there are here?
`
`13· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Right.
`
`14· · · · · · There are -- there are nine cases for Samsung --
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Right.
`
`16· · · · · · MR. GARR:· -- that have been identified and to
`
`17· ·explain why our petitions are not adaptations, to use the
`
`18· ·quote of theirs, both based on the -- the difference
`
`19· ·in -- in grounds of evidence relied upon as well as the
`
`20· ·timeline showing that ours came first in most cases.
`
`21· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Now, why -- why would we need
`
`22· ·this if we just are going to go on the substance of each
`
`23· ·case and whatever was filed and discussed in the
`
`24· ·petitions and the like?
`
`25· · · · · · What is the purpose of the reply in this?
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 10
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. GARR:· The -- the purpose is just to avoid
`
`·2· ·a -- a -- a confusion point as to suggest that ours were
`
`·3· ·a -- a copy of the others.· I want to just make sure
`
`·4· ·that's not unclear.
`
`·5· · · · · · And I -- I will say if -- if there's a concern
`
`·6· ·with, you know, we don't need the briefing on this, we'd
`
`·7· ·also be happy to just submit this as a -- a table showing
`
`·8· ·the -- the different IPRs that are at issue here, the
`
`·9· ·timeline and the grounds of them.
`
`10· · · · · · It's essentially just to avoid any confusion of
`
`11· ·an -- on an issue which I -- I think is potentially this
`
`12· ·paragraph without that extra explanation could
`
`13· ·potentially be misunderstood.
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`15· · · · · · Patent Owner, do you want to respond?
`
`16· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`17· · · · · · This is Annita here.
`
`18· · · · · · So regarding whether they adapted or not, I
`
`19· ·would just like to point out all three IPRs involve a
`
`20· ·Dougherty/Shiga combination which is at issue at
`
`21· ·IPR2018-00110.
`
`22· · · · · · And if you look at the reasoning for their
`
`23· ·purported combination, it's exactly the same as at issue
`
`24· ·in the IPR2018-00110.
`
`25· · · · · · So I would take IPR2018-00465 as an example.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 11
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · The same language appears in the other two.
`
`·2· · · · · · So what they said the reason for combinability
`
`·3· ·with Dougherty and Shiga is that it would -- the
`
`·4· ·Dougherty/Shiga combination would have also been a
`
`·5· ·logical choice to a POSITA at least because Shiga's
`
`·6· ·fourth mode signal could easily be distinguished from USB
`
`·7· ·standard signals without interfering with a standard USB
`
`·8· ·signaling.
`
`·9· · · · · · That's exactly the same reasoning in the pending
`
`10· ·IPR2018-00110 as well 00111 as Your Honors have found in
`
`11· ·the institution decisions in the IPR2018-00111.
`
`12· · · · · · And if we go back to Theobald and Shiga, which
`
`13· ·they say is not at issue in the two early filed ones, but
`
`14· ·if you look at the reasoning behind that is also exactly
`
`15· ·the same as stated in the IPR2018-00110.
`
`16· · · · · · So again taking IPR2018-00465 in example and
`
`17· ·looking at page 46 to 47 of petition, what they argued is
`
`18· ·that a POSITA would have known that the SE1 state would
`
`19· ·be a logical choice for conveying information about
`
`20· ·device without interfering with the USB signaling, and
`
`21· ·that was the -- the reasoning for combining Theobald and
`
`22· ·the USB 2.0 com- -- combination.
`
`23· · · · · · So again, when we say they adapt the same
`
`24· ·reasoning and that they adapt the IPR, we are talking
`
`25· ·about the underlying reasoning for the combinability.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 12
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Whether they collaborated with Samsung or not
`
`·2· ·beforehand, we do not know that, and they do not deny
`
`·3· ·that they -- there is some collaboration going on.
`
`·4· · · · · · Also with regard --
`
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Well, thank you.
`
`·6· · · · · · You're -- you're going into somewhat of the
`
`·7· ·merits of the petition.
`
`·8· · · · · · We can read those.
`
`·9· · · · · · Do you have any concerns with them just filing a
`
`10· ·chart as a reply showing the -- how these cases relate
`
`11· ·and their dates?
`
`12· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· As far as they don't go into the
`
`13· ·details as to the merits of the case as to why their case
`
`14· ·is distinguishable, if they only want to file chart to
`
`15· ·say "IPR2018-00110 is filed on this date, theirs is filed
`
`16· ·on that date," that, we do not have a concern.
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· I'm going to let you
`
`18· ·keep going in a second.
`
`19· · · · · · But Patent Owner, is that what you were asking
`
`20· ·for as a possibility is a chart to show the related
`
`21· ·nature of these cases?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Right, and identifying some of the
`
`23· ·relevant details just -- such as who the Petitioners are,
`
`24· ·who the experts are and what various grounds have been
`
`25· ·asserted.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 13
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· But you -- would you
`
`·2· ·need to go into the specifics or the arguments?
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. GARR:· We would not be seeking to make
`
`·4· ·substantive arguments.
`
`·5· · · · · · And the -- I -- I -- I get that the Patent Owner
`
`·6· ·is -- is sort of making a more nuanced, perhaps,
`
`·7· ·argument, but we want to make sure that what's in that
`
`·8· ·paragraph, which I think is -- is different from what we
`
`·9· ·just heard, is not misinterpreted.
`
`10· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`11· · · · · · So -- so let's go back to you, Patent Owner.
`
`12· · · · · · Do you have any concerns, then, with that
`
`13· ·representation of what they want to file?
`
`14· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· If they don't go into the merits of
`
`15· ·the case, they just want to say "Here are the patents" --
`
`16· ·"the IPRs that are filed so far, here are the parties" --
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And then which experts and
`
`18· ·what art is in play here?
`
`19· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· What -- what grounds without going
`
`20· ·into -- for example, if they just say "Theobald plus
`
`21· ·USB 2.0 validate with Shiga," that is fine with us, but
`
`22· ·we -- we are concerned about especially what we have seen
`
`23· ·other proceedings is a patent -- the Petitioners trying
`
`24· ·to use reply to actually argue the merits of the case and
`
`25· ·bridge the gap, and that's what we don't -- we find it
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 14
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·unfair and objectionable.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`·3· · · · · · Okay.· Patent Owner, did you want to add
`
`·4· ·anything extra?
`
`·5· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`·6· · · · · · Regarding the Garney testimony, I would like to
`
`·7· ·point out that Huawei actually demanded that transcript
`
`·8· ·before they filed the -- the petition, they had the
`
`·9· ·transcript in hand for about two or three weeks before
`
`10· ·they filed it, so they know the contents of what's going
`
`11· ·on, and they could have addressed it, especially given
`
`12· ·the testimony is directly contradicting the arguments
`
`13· ·they have made.
`
`14· · · · · · So everything is foreseeable, as far as we're
`
`15· ·concerned, and Garney's testimony, in our mind, is also
`
`16· ·directly on point because it provides -- it reflects
`
`17· ·what -- how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`18· ·have understood the SE1's effect on USB signaling and its
`
`19· ·interference.
`
`20· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Let's go back to
`
`21· ·Petitioner.
`
`22· · · · · · Do you have anything to add or --
`
`23· · · · · · MR. GARR:· We -- we, of course, disagree on the
`
`24· ·merits.
`
`25· · · · · · We're not seeking to get into those here.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 15
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · If the Board wants to hear from us on those
`
`·2· ·points, we're happy to discuss them.
`
`·3· · · · · · I would just like to make one clarification.
`
`·4· · · · · · I heard from Patent Owner that we agree that
`
`·5· ·there's been some coordination on the IPRs.
`
`·6· · · · · · That's not true.
`
`·7· · · · · · There hasn't been.
`
`·8· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Let's go to the
`
`·9· ·specifics of what you're trying -- or hoping to file as a
`
`10· ·reply here, then.
`
`11· · · · · · It sounds like the parties aren't in
`
`12· ·disagreement, then, that the filing of a chart or
`
`13· ·something to that effect showing the -- what IPRs are in
`
`14· ·play, what expert testimony, just bulk who the expert was
`
`15· ·and what the art involved in, sounds like both parties
`
`16· ·are fine with that.
`
`17· · · · · · Is that correct, Petitioner?
`
`18· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Yes.
`
`19· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`20· · · · · · And that's correct, Patent Owner?
`
`21· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`23· · · · · · Okay.· Petitioner, do you have anything to add
`
`24· ·before the Panel conferences?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. GARR:· I -- I would just note that -- that I
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 16
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·mentioned there is a fourth one that's slated to come up
`
`·2· ·soon.· I think the preliminary response is due next week.
`
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Yeah.
`
`·4· · · · · · I'm aware of that.
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Right.
`
`·6· · · · · · We're -- well -- well, we have to wait and see
`
`·7· ·what happens, but it's the same issue as in the
`
`·8· ·preliminary response.
`
`·9· · · · · · Just as a -- as a note, we would probably seek
`
`10· ·authorization to do the same thing there.
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· We'll -- we'll deal
`
`12· ·with that when it comes up, but what's the IPR number
`
`13· ·just so we're all on the same page?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. GARR:· I think that's 2018-00485.
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Great.
`
`16· · · · · · Okay.· Anything else from Petitioner?
`
`17· · · · · · MR. GARR:· No.
`
`18· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`19· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`20· · · · · · And Patent Owner?
`
`21· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Nothing from Patent Owner.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`23· · · · · · The Panel will confer briefly, and then we will
`
`24· ·come back online.
`
`25· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 17
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Thank you.
`
`·2· · · · · · (Pause in proceedings.)
`
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· The Panel is back
`
`·4· ·online.
`
`·5· · · · · · Do we still have Petitioners?
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Yes.
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And Patent Owner?
`
`·8· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And if I could confirm that
`
`10· ·the court reporter is still on the line?
`
`11· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`12· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Great.
`
`13· · · · · · Okay.· The Panel having conferred, Petitioner,
`
`14· ·we are going to authorize you to file a chart.· You can
`
`15· ·file it as an exhibit in this case, and with it, just
`
`16· ·note that this -- the filing was authorized on this call,
`
`17· ·and of course there will be a transcript, and make sure
`
`18· ·that it's filed in all the cases as well.
`
`19· · · · · · And Petitioner, we would just remind you, there
`
`20· ·will be a transcript of the -- as well, but to stay
`
`21· ·within the confines of what we've agreed to here on this
`
`22· ·call as to what the contents of that chart will be.
`
`23· · · · · · Okay.· Petitioner, any questions?
`
`24· · · · · · MR. GARR:· No.
`
`25· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 18
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.
`
`·2· · · · · · And Patent Owner?
`
`·3· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· No.
`
`·4· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Your -- Your Honor, this is Jason
`
`·6· ·Sheasby.
`
`·7· · · · · · With your permission, can I -- I'm not going to
`
`·8· ·make any argument.
`
`·9· · · · · · I just did want to connect the dots for the --
`
`10· ·the Panels, which is that Samsung and ZTE have tried to
`
`11· ·make a similar argument, we had argument last week before
`
`12· ·the Board on that, and that's in IPR2018-00215.
`
`13· · · · · · I'm not going to say any more than that, but
`
`14· ·I -- I did want to disclose to you that -- that your --
`
`15· ·that other Panel that have engaged this issue as well.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`17· · · · · · We're aware of that call and that -- that Panel.
`
`18· · · · · · So thank you very much.
`
`19· · · · · · Okay.
`
`20· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`21· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Any other -- anything from
`
`22· ·Patent Owner now that they -- we had Petitioner -- or
`
`23· ·Petitioner from -- now that we had Patent Owner chime in
`
`24· ·a bit?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. GARR:· What's -- when -- when we say "the
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 19
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·same issue there," what -- what do you mean by that?
`
`·2· · · · · · I was not on the call.
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· There was -- I'm -- ZTE and
`
`·4· ·Samsung have also tried to object to the gilt- -- to the
`
`·5· ·Garney testimony and to request a reply.
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Let's -- let's -- let's do
`
`·7· ·this.
`
`·8· · · · · · Let's not put this on this call.
`
`·9· · · · · · Counsel, you guys can discuss.
`
`10· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· I understand.
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· And Patent Owner, you can let
`
`12· ·them know what that IPR number was and maybe just the
`
`13· ·general background.
`
`14· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· I'm so sorry, Your Honor. I
`
`15· ·apologize.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· No problem.
`
`17· · · · · · Okay.· Anything else?
`
`18· · · · · · Pat- -- Petitioner?
`
`19· · · · · · MR. GARR:· I -- I -- I guess I'm -- I'm happy to
`
`20· ·discuss that issue.
`
`21· · · · · · I would just say that if -- if there is a reply
`
`22· ·authorized in that proceeding along the lines of what we
`
`23· ·are discussing here, we may have a request to be able to
`
`24· ·address things in a similar way.
`
`25· · · · · · I'm not sure what the issue is.
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 20
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · We'll discuss that offline.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· We can discuss that if
`
`·3· ·it's ever relevant at another time.
`
`·4· · · · · · Okay.· Anything from Patent Owner?
`
`·5· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Nothing.
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE TORNQUIST:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`·7· · · · · · With that, this call is adjourned.
`
`·8· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. GARR:· Thanks.
`
`10· · · · · · Good afternoon.
`
`11· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Thank you.
`
`12· · · · · · You too.
`
`13· · · · · · (Proceedings adjourned at 10:21 A.M.)
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 21
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`·1· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA· · · ·)
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) ss.
`
`·3· ·COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES· · ·)
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · I, TERI J. NELSON, CSR NO. 7682, RPR, in and for
`
`·6· ·the State of California, do hereby certify:
`
`·7· · · · · · That said proceedings were recorded
`
`·8· ·stenographically by me at the time and place therein
`
`·9· ·named, and thereafter transcribed, and the same is a
`
`10· ·true, correct and complete transcript of said
`
`11· ·proceedings.
`
`12· · · · · · I further certify that I am not interested in
`
`13· ·the event of the action.
`
`14· · · · · · WITNESS MY HAND this 11th day of June, 2018.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · TERI J. NELSON
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CSR No. 7682, RPR
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 22
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2018—p 23
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00465
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 23
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2018—p 24
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00465
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 24
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2018—p 25
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00465
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 25
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2018—p 26
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00465
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 26
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2018—p 27
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00465
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 27
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2018—p 28
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00465
`
`FISI Ex 2018-p 28
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00465
`
`
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
