PTAB conference call - 9/24/18
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` GOOGLE LLC,
` Petitioner
` vs.
` SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
` Patent Owner
`
` PTAB IPR CONSOLIDATED CONFERENCE CALL
` IPR2018-01047, 01048, 01049, 01101, 01051, 01052,
` 01094, 01095, 01102, 01116, and 01117.
` September 24, 2018
`
`REPORTED BY: CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR No. 13393
`JOB NO. 148437
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1039
`GOOGLE v. SEVEN NETWORKS
`IPR2018-01047
`
`Page 1 of 42
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` GOOGLE LLC,
` Petitioner
` vs.
` SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
` Patent Owner
`
` PTAB IPR CONSOLIDATED CONFERENCE CALL
` IPR2018-01047, 01048, 01049, 01101, 01051, 01052,
` 01094, 01095, 01102, 01116, and 01117.
` September 24, 2018
`
`REPORTED BY: CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR No. 13393
`JOB NO. 148437
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1039
`GOOGLE v. SEVEN NETWORKS
`IPR2018-01047
`
`Page 1 of 42
`
`
`
` PTAB conference call - 9/24/18
`
`Page 2
`
` September 24, 2018
` 4:31 p.m.
`
` PTAB conference call, held before
`Administrative Patent Judges Joni Y. Chang,
`Thu A. Dang, Karl D. Easthom, Robert J. Weinschenk,
`Jacqueline T. Hartlow, and Thomas L. Giannetti,
`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
`
`Page 2 of 42
`
`
`
` PTAB conference call - 9/24/18
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 3
`
` LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1880 Century Park East
` Los Angeles, CA 90067
` BY: NATHAN LOWENSTEIN, ESQ.
` KENNETH WEATHERWAX, ESQ.
` JASON LINGER, ESQ.
` and
` BROOKS KUSHMAN
` 1000 Town Center
` Southfield, MI 48170
` BY: SANGEETA SHAH, ESQ.
`
` FINNEGAN
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, VA 20190
` BY: ERIKA HARMON ARNER, ESQ.
` BY: RACHEL EMSLEY, ESQ.
` and
`
`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
`
`Page 3 of 42
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` PTAB conference call - 9/24/18
`APPEARANCE CONTINUED:
` PAUL HASTINGS
` 875 15th Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
` DANIEL ZEILBERGER, 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
`
`Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
` JUDGE CHANG: Good afternoon, this is
`Joni Chang, Administrative Patent Judge at the
`patent trademark office. Judges Tu Dang,
`Karl Easthorn, Robert Weinschenk, and
`Jacqueline Hartlow are also on the call with me.
`Judge Thomas Giannetti will be joining us later
`because his own hearing is running late.
` This is a consolidated conference call for 11
`cases involving Petitioner Google and Patent Owner
`Seven Networks, specifically the case numbers are
`IPR2018, dash, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1101, 1051, 1052,
`1094, 1095, 1102, 1116, and 1117. At this time I
`would like to take a roll call starting with the
`patent owner.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Patent owner from
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax. We have Nathan Lowenstein,
`Kenneth Weatherwax, and Jason Linger.
` JUDGE CHANG: Thank you. Petitioner.
` MS. ARNER: Hello, your Honor, from
`Petitioner Google on we have Erika Arner. I'm lead
`counsel for Google about half of the petitions. I'm
`joined by Rachel Emsley, both of the Finnegan law
`firm. Also on the line are Naveen Modi, lead
`counsel for Google in the other IPRs and his back-up
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`counsel, Dan Zeilberger.
` JUDGE CHANG: Thank you so much.
` Is everyone for the parties present?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, for petitioner.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: I'm not sure if
`Sangeeta Shah, who is from Brooks Kushman, is on the
`line, but she may join as well.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Do you want us to
`wait a minute or two?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: I think if we can wait
`maybe just wait one minute. After that I think we
`should proceed onward.
` JUDGE CHANG: Sure.
` (Pause in the proceeding.)
` JUDGE CHANG: Can we start now?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Absolutely.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Great. The purpose
`of this call is to discuss the real
`party-in-interest issues raised by the patent owner
`in its preliminary response and several other
`procedural matters.
` To be clear on the record, we do not have an
`expanded panel in these cases. The six of us from
`the board are judges on different panels for these
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`11 proceedings. For efficiency and consistency, we
`appear together on this consolidated call.
` We will follow up with an order and it will be
`also helpful for the petitioner to file a transcript
`so that the record will be clear.
` First, we will begin with the RPI issue.
`Patent owner filed a preliminary response in each of
`the 11 proceeding except for the case 1094 and 1095.
`We'll talk about that issue later. But let's focus
`on the real party-in-interest issue.
` In this petition petitioner identified Google
`as the sole real party-in-interest. Patent owner
`argued in its preliminary responses that the
`petition failed to identify all real
`parties-in-interest. According to patent owner,
`Google's parent company, Alphabet and XXVI Holdings,
`Incorporated, as well as Samsung which also should
`have been named as real parties-in-interest.
` We generally accept petitioner's initial
`identification of real parties-in-interest unless
`the patent owner presents some evidence to support
`that a named party should be identified as a real
`party-in-interest. The petitioner, to be clear, has
`the burden of persuasion on this issue. So we would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 7 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`like the petitioner's counsel to summarize briefly
`your position on this real party-in-interest
`position.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
`I appreciate the board reaching out. Google
`appreciates you convening this call. And in light
`of challenges raised regarding the RPI issue in the
`preliminary responses, Google requested the board's
`authorization to file a reply in order to submit its
`position and evidence on the RPI issue.
` In summary, Google's position is that the
`originally identified RPI information in the
`petition is correct, and Google would like to submit
`a reply as has been done in other cases where RPI
`challenges have been raised by the patent owner to
`order to submit evidence that the board may consider
`in making its real party-in-interest determinations.
` The standard for such a reply is good cause and
`good cause for such a reply exists here for several
`reasons. One of them is the recent case law from
`the federal circuit on the RPI issue that was
`decided after the petitions were filed, in
`particular the Worlds and AIT versus RPX cases.
` In addition, the reply is warranted to enable
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 8 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`Google to address the patent owner's arguments that
`the petitions are, quote, "incomplete" and, quote,
`"must be dismissed" due to the alleged RPI naming.
`Also, there's good cause because the recent cases
`have focused the RPI framework specifically on the
`relationship between the third parties who are
`unnamed and the petition and Google, according to
`even the federal circuit, is in the best position to
`provide that evidence.
` In similar situations the board has found good
`cause and granted a pre-institution reply to the
`petitioners along with the evidence necessary to
`help the board make the resolution. And, therefore,
`google would contest the arguments made in the
`preliminary response and request a reply in order to
`respond on paper.
` JUDGE CHANG: How many pages and how long
`is the request of -- replying?
` MS. ARNER: Sure. So Google would propose
`that the reply be authorized at 15 pages in order to
`give Google space to reply to the arguments, which
`are -- they're actually two, if not three separate
`RPI arguments in the preliminary response. So we
`would ask for 15 pages.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
` For the time, as you noted, your Honor, there
`are many proceedings where this argument has been
`made and there are still a few of the proceedings in
`which the due dates have not yet arrived for the
`preliminary responses.
` The last of the preliminary responses, as I
`understand it, is due on October 18. And so Google
`would propose to file its reply shortly after that
`date, for example, October 22. That would allow
`over a month until the first of the institution
`decisions are due, which I believe the first one of
`those is due November 27.
` JUDGE CHANG: Yeah, that doesn't give the
`board enough time. As you mentioned, there's a lot
`of cases here and there's a lot of substantive
`issues.
` MS. ARNER: There are, you're right. And
`the reason for that proposal is really that because
`these identical or very similar arguments are being
`made in most of the preliminary responses and so it
`seems like it might be unfair to Google to file a
`reply sort of midstream when Seven still has
`preliminary responses to come, and so we thought it
`might be clearest if it was sort of all the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`preliminary responses, then all the replies. But we
`are amenable to a faster schedule for the reply
`briefing if the board refers that.
` JUDGE CHANG: Yeah, if we prefer a faster
`briefing schedule, what would your proposal be?
` MS. ARNER: So then a faster proposed
`schedule would not wait for those preliminary
`responses in the later due date cases. So we would
`suggest a reply to be filed by October 5, which
`would give us just under two weeks to prepare those
`replies.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Is there anything
`else before I turn it over to the patent owner to
`get his comments?
` MS. ARNER: I'd just like to make sure. I
`mentioned it, but to make sure that it's included as
`far as the scope of what might be in the reply, as
`has been done in other cases, Google would file a
`rely together with evidence and that might require a
`protective order, but we assume that the parties can
`work that out, but there would be evidence coming in
`along with the reply from Google.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. That sounds good.
`Let me ask you one question. At least briefly when
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`we review the files in these 11 cases, we just want
`to make it clear that the issue is under 312,
`Section 35 USC 312 and not 315(b). So if we
`authorize the petitioner to amend their mandatory
`notice to add a named party as real
`party-in-interest, would something like that help
`petitioner?
` MS. ARNER: You're right, your Honor, that
`there is no 315 argument or issue here. Google's
`petitions were filed before any arguable one-year
`bar, and it's quite possible that that mandatory
`notice update would be something that would help
`Google.
` It's our position at this time that there are
`no other RPIs. But to the extent we needed to do
`that, we think that would be the appropriate remedy
`and that would not cause a change in the filing date
`due to the way the board's treated that in the past.
`But that's a pleading requirement, not a bar date
`requirement and it's something that the petitioner
`can update if needed and if there's been no evidence
`of bad intent or any prejudice to the patent owner's
`ability to respond, which there isn't here.
` JUDGE CHANG: Well, I want to make it
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 12 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`clear that, you know, all these proceedings is -- on
`these proceedings is at a preliminary stage and we
`want to resolve this issue most efficiently and
`consistently.
` So the authorization to correct a mandatory
`notice without changing a filing date, we're only
`going to authorize that if it's timely filed with
`the reply. After that time period, that type of
`update to the mandatory notice may be -- will
`cause -- the filing date might change.
` So there's panels that have denied the
`petition. We're giving the petitioner the
`opportunity to amend the mandatory notice, to add
`the named parties now, but it's not conditional and
`it will not be extend later.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. So I understand that it
`will not be extended. So if Google needs to update
`mandatory notices to add an unnamed RPI but if that
`is filed by the time of the reply that's being
`authorized that that would be granted without
`changing the filing date; but if it's filed later,
`it may or may not be granted?
` JUDGE CHANG: Yes.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. If I could ask one
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`other thing before I stop is I just want to give
`Naveen Modi a chance if he has anything because he's
`lead counsel in the other Google cases before we go
`to the patent owners.
` Naveen, did you anything? Please feel free.
` MR. MODI: Yes, this is Naveen Modi. I
`don't really have anything on these cases. Judge
`Chang, you mentioned that you were going to talk
`about the 1094 and 1095 cases as some point. We can
`wait on those until you're ready to discuss those.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
` MR. MODI: Thank you.
` JUDGE CHANG: Is there anything else from
`the petitioner's side before I turn it over to the
`patent owner's side? No. Okay.
` Patent owner's counsel, do you have any
`comments regarding this issue?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Yes, there were a lot of
`issues discussed, and I want to address --
` JUDGE CHANG: Briefly, please, because we
`already have your brief in front of us. So this is
`not a call for deciding the merits of the case.
`It's more for procedural issues.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: I'd like to start with
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 14 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`what I consider to be the most important of many
`important issues, which is the notion that the
`petitioner should be permitted to amend its
`designation of real parties-in-interest.
` First of all, we do believe that this is a
`315(b) issue because --
` JUDGE CHANG: We read your brief. We read
`your brief and your position. We'll take that under
`advisement, and we will address to that in our
`order.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: If I may, however, I'd
`like to make the record clear because I think this
`may be an appealable issue.
` JUDGE CHANG: We understand. You preserve
`that in your brief. So please make it briefly.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Okay. So that's the
`first issue. The second issue seems as if this is a
`Lomentum, sort of, based reasoning. I'm referring
`to the Lomentum case, of course. I think it's
`fairly clear that Lomentum is readily
`distinguishable from this case because in Lomentum
`what happened was the petition, when it was filed,
`correctly named all real parties at interest.
` Subsequent to that, there was a change in the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 15 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`structure of the petition and then at a later point
`the petitioner, sua sponte of its own accord,
`revised its designation of the real
`party-in-interest. In that case there was no 315(b)
`issue because the petitioner Lomentum had never been
`sued or served based upon the complaint.
` So this is obviously a very distinct case.
`There were all kinds of good reasons why in Lomentum
`the petitioner there should have been allowed to
`amend its mandatory notices, none of which exist
`here. I would commend to the board's attention the
`Sirius case, which is IPR2018-00690, which addressed
`exactly this issue in the wake of AIT.
` I would commend the board the I.M.L. versus Wag
`Acquisition case, IPR2016-01658, which also
`addresses this issue. So in short, we have a case
`where there wasn't some innocent mistake. We're
`talking about the most sophisticated party on earth
`represented by the most sophisticated counsel on
`earth.
` Clearly, they knew the stakes of failing to
`name all RPIs. Clearly, they had all the case law
`we cited in our brief available to them, and
`clearly, they could have named all correct real
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 16 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`parties-in-interest had they wanted to. They
`didn't. They took the risk. And I think they
`should be left with that.
` With respect to a reply brief, we had a meet
`and confer with Google on Thursday of last week, and
`in that meet and confer we agreed that they should
`be allowed to file a reply provided that we were to
`have a sur-reply of equal length. We disagreed as
`to the length of the reply.
` In accord with Ms. Arner's request -- they
`requested 15 pages -- we reviewed the board's
`positions in the past. We found eight cases that
`permitted a five-page reply and we found eight cases
`that allowed for a seven-page reply. So in accord
`with those decisions, that's what we offered Google,
`either a five page or seven page, if that's what was
`needed to reach a compromise, provided we have a
`sur-reply.
` We did not hear back from Google with respect
`to that proposal. We did not hear any objection to
`the sur-reply or the length of that sur-reply on
`that call, although in all honestly, I don't know
`what their position is on that issue.
` We also discussed the scope of the evidence, if
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 17 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`any, that should be permitted in the reply brief and
`there is some water under the bridge on this issue.
`There have been at least five cases which the board
`has said basically that the reply should either
`present no new evidence, just the evidence that was
`addressed in the patent owner preliminary response.
` And what we said to Google was we would allow
`Google -- we would agree that the reply should be
`able to discuss any evidence we discussed in our
`response, additionally any evidence that's publicly
`available that we would have had available to us.
` So that was the proposal that we made. To the
`extent that the evidence proffered was more
`extensive than that, we think we would be -- or
`should be allowed, I should say, ample discovery to
`discover the truth of the matter rather than just
`permitting Google to put forward its most favorable
`position with its availability to pick and choose
`which evidence to present without allowing us the
`corresponding ability to discover additional facts
`that may be more advantageous to our position.
` Now, there are two other issues that I wanted
`to raise. So one was there are slight differences
`in the discussion of the RPI issue from case to case
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 18 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`and that's a bi-product of evolving case law. So if
`you look at some of the earlier responses that we
`filed, it wasn't a discussion of the Worlds case and
`it wasn't of the Sirius case because those cases had
`not issued as of yet.
` We did discuss both in the 1102 preliminary
`responses and perhaps others. We were able to just
`get in a discussion of Worlds in the 1116 and 1117
`responses. We couldn't discuss either in the first
`[indiscernible] because neither case existed at that
`time.
` So I'd like the board's guidance as to whether
`we should submit some additional briefing just on
`the new case law that has come out which we find
`quite significant. That's one issue.
` The other issue in the Samsung cases -- and I
`believe it's the same six judges, if I'm not
`mistaken -- in those cases --
` JUDGE CHANG: Yeah, but I think the e-mail
`to the parties make the mistake of listing the
`Samsung cases.
` (Simultaneous speaking.)
` JUDGE CHANG: The attorney representing
`the petitioner in those cases is not before us in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 19 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`this phone call. That would be improper ex parte
`communication. So if you don't mind, we can save
`that discussion in another call with all the parties
`present.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: That's fine. I was
`mostly, to that last point, just trying to flag the
`issue because I think it will come up, and we're
`happy to confer with both Samsung and Google. I
`think it may bear upon this discussion of additional
`briefings. That's why I thought to raise it.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Thank you. Anything
`else?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Not unless there are
`other questions or unless Ms. Shaw has something to
`add?
` MS. SHAH: No. I'm fine, your Honor.
` JUDGE CHANG: Thank you. I would like to
`take a few minutes to confer with my panel members,
`but before that, Petitioner, did you have any
`rebuttal comments?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, I guess one or two.
`There were a lot of things raised. As far as the
`procedural questions that your Honors were looking
`for, the page limit for Google's rely, I reiterate
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 20 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`our request for 15 pages. I have not canvassed
`every single case that the patent owner's counsel
`listed the page numbers for, but here I would
`venture a bet that they did not have three different
`RPI arguments about three different non-named RPIs.
`So in order to respond to those arguments and the 25
`pages that Seven sent in its preliminary response, I
`think 15 page is a reasonable amount for Google.
` Google does not object to a sur-reply for
`Seven. I think that was clear, but just to make
`sure. It was mentioned that, you know, wasn't sure
`what Google's position was, and Google does not
`object to a sur-reply. And to the extent there's
`additional briefing requests on the World case, I
`would think the sur-replies would allow for that.
` As far as the scope of the evidence, I can
`give, if the board needs, I can give some examples
`of where a petitioner's evidence was permitted in
`the exact procedure we're proposing.
` JUDGE CHANG: That's okay.
` MS. ARNER: If you need those, I have
`those.
` JUDGE CHANG: That's okay. Let's go back
`to the patent owner.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 21 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
` How many pages of a sur-reply or you want the
`same amount as the reply?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: We would like the same
`amount and that was the concept that we discussed
`with Google in the meet and confer. We didn't
`receive any objection to that.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. With that, please let
`me confer with my panel for a few minutes. The
`parties may stay on the line while I put my phone on
`mute. Okay. Thank you.
` MS. ARNER: Thank you.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Thank you.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. This is Joni Chang.
`The panel decided to grant the petitioner
`authorization to file a reply, 15 pages, and it's
`due October 5. And also if petitioner wishes to
`correct their mandatory notice to add those
`allegedly unnamed parties, they can do so before or
`on October 5.
` Okay. And as to the evidence, petitioner can
`file any evidence to support their argument in the
`reply because the petitioner has the burden of
`persuasion. To show that it actually has identified
`all real party-in-interest in each proceeding.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 22 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
` Is there any questions regarding that?
` MS. ARNER: None from me.
` Naveen, do you have any questions?
` MR. MODI: I don't, other than, your
`Honor, to remind you that we still need to talk
`about the 1094 and 1095 cases.
` JUDGE CHANG: Yeah, we will. We will talk
`about them.
` Okay. I just want to clarify that the
`petitioner has the authorization to update the
`mandatory notice as to add some or all the real
`party-in-interest in the mandatory notice, and it's
`due October 5. Okay.
` And as to the sur-reply, the panel have decided
`to grant the patent owner a sur-reply in each of the
`cases that the petitioner files a reply, and it's
`limited to seven pages, and no additional evidence
`at this time. Okay.
` Any questions regarding that? And also,
`regarding the updated case law, the patent owner can
`submit that in their sur-reply.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: I have no questions. I
`think my objections that I made earlier still stand,
`of course. And the issue --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 23 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
` JUDGE CHANG: We know that.
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: -- not to discuss on this
`call, I think may bear upon the additional evidence,
`but I'll raise that through the normal channels and
`perhaps we can revisit that issue.
` JUDGE CHANG: That sounds good.
` If nothing else regarding this issue, I'd like
`to move on to the next issue.
` MS. ARNER: May I ask one question just to
`clarify what you I just said.
` JUDGE CHANG: Sure.
` MS. ARNER: And that is on the
`authorization for the petitioner to update mandatory
`notices to add some or all of the -- of additional
`RPIs on or before October 5. If that's done, then
`as we discussed before, that would not change the
`filing date of the petitioner; is that right?
` JUDGE CHANG: Yes, that's right. So for
`example, if Google decided to name the parent
`company but not Samsung in their updated mandatory
`notice before October 5 -- or on October 5, then
`that mandatory notice will not -- if it's timely
`filed will not change the filing date accorded and
`Google can file a reply as to the arguments that the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 24 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`patent owner raised as to Samsung.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. Thank you for the
`clarification. And did you say when the sur-reply
`would be due?
` JUDGE CHANG: Yeah, I have not. Five
`business days from the filing of the reply.
` Is that sufficient, patent owner?
` MR. LOWENSTEIN: Well, the only thing I
`was going to ask if the petitioner submits
`declarations, we would like the ability to depose
`the declarants. And, obviously, if we were to do
`that, I don't think we could do that within five
`days, but that's what we would ask. And we would
`ask for a suitable modification to allow for
`depositions if, in fact, the petitioner submits one
`or more declarations.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. We'll address to that
`issue when it arises.
` MS. ARNER: If we can just mention from
`the petitioner's standpoint that's not typically the
`procedure in the cases where declaration evidence
`has been put in in an RPI challenged in this way.
`That is not usually a deposition prior to
`institution, but rather like the other declarations
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 25 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`put in by the petitioner in the petition, for
`example, the depositions are held until after
`institution. We would submit that's how this would
`be handled in this case.
` JUDGE CHANG: I'm not going to address
`that issue until we see the reply and the supporting
`evidence. We'll decide that later.
` MS. ARNER: Okay.
` JUDGE CHANG: We can have another call if
`that is needed.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. Thank you.
` JUDGE CHANG: You're welcome. So the next
`issue is as we mentioned earlier, patent owner filed
`a preliminary response in all of the 11 cases except
`in 1094 and 1095.
` We, the panel, want to consistently decide this
`issue; and without submitting the argument in those
`two cases, the patent owner appears to present
`inconsistent positions, and I would like to ask the
`patent owner at this time why in those two cases the
`arguments are not raised.
` MS. SHAH: In 1094 and 1095 we disclaimed
`the challenged claims and so that was, in fact, the
`reason why there was no preliminary response filed
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 26 of 42
`
`
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`at all.
` JUDGE CHANG: I'm sorry, can you repeat
`that. I apologize.
` MS. SHAH: Sure. Hold on one second. Can
`you hear me better now?
` JUDGE CHANG: Yes.
` MS. SHAH: Okay. Sorry about that.
` So in 1094 and 1095 we disclaimed the
`challenged claim in both of those IPRs, which then
`led to the, you know, decision not to proceed
`forward with the file of preliminary responses, and,
`you know, which has been consistent with why these
`arguments didn't appear on 1094 and 1095, not for
`any other reason.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay I guess maybe I didn't
`see it in the record.
` Did you file any disclaimers with us in the
`IPR?
` MS. SHAH: We have filed a disclaimer in
`the prosecution of the case. If you like we can
`equally file a disclaimer and make it a record with
`the board as well.
` JUDGE CHANG: Yeah, the rules require that
`when there's an IPR challenging the patent, actually
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 27 of 42
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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 - 9/24/18
`the request for disclaimer should be filed with us
`so that we can decide whether to authorize that
`request or not.
` So can you file a disclaimer which you filed
`and also a request for authorization for the
`disclaimer within five business days?
` MS. SHAH: Absolutely.
` JUDGE CHANG: That would be great. Thank
`you so much.
` So then in those two cases the patent owner
`is -- all the claims, I'm assuming. So, therefore,
`the petitioner doesn't need to file a reply in those
`two cases; is that correct?
` MS. SHAH: Correct.
` JUDGE CHANG: Any of the RPI issues?
` MS. SHAH: That's correct.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Thank you for the
`clarification. I'll make sure that my order will
`give you that authorization to file the request for
`disclaiming the challenged claims. And also, if you
`want to file early then -- order, you can do so.
` MS. SHAH: Okay. Very good. Can I
`clarify one thing. Is it five business days from
`today or from when the order issues?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 28 of 42
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
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
