`
`·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 2016-p 1
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 2
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 3
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 4
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 5
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 6
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 7
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 8
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 9
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 10
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 11
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 12
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 13
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 14
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 15
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 16
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 17
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 18
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 19
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 20
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 21
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`·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 2016-p 22
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2016—p 23
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00487
`
`FISI Ex 2016-p 23
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2016—p 24
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00487
`
`FISI Ex 2016-p 24
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2016—p 25
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00487
`
`FISI Ex 2016-p 25
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2016—p 26
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00487
`
`FISI Ex 2016-p 26
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2016—p 27
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00487
`
`FISI Ex 2016-p 27
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`
`
`FISI Ex 2016—p 28
`Huawei v FISI
`|PR2018—00487
`
`FISI Ex 2016-p 28
`Huawei v FISI
`IPR2018-00487
`
`