Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ____________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
` SLING TV, L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`
` DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`
` DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
` REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ____________
`
` Case IPR2018-01331
`
` Case IPR2018-01342
`
` ____________
`
` Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, GARTH D. BAER,
`
` and NABEEL U. KHAN,
`
` Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` Telephonic Hearing
`
` September 3, 2019
`
` 2:00 P.M.
`
`Job No.: 25984
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`DISH 1035
`Sling TV v. Realtime
`IPR2018-01342
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ____________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
` SLING TV, L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`
` DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`
` DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
` REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ____________
`
` Case IPR2018-01331
`
` Case IPR2018-01342
`
` ____________
`
` Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, GARTH D. BAER,
`
` and NABEEL U. KHAN,
`
` Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` Telephonic Hearing
`
` September 3, 2019
`
` 2:00 P.M.
`
`Job No.: 25984
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`DISH 1035
`Sling TV v. Realtime
`IPR2018-01342
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner:
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`
` Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`BY: PHILIP X. WANG, ESQ.
`
` C. JAY CHUNG, ESQ.
`
` pwang@raklaw.com
`
` jchung@raklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Sling TV and Dish Network:
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`
` 1000 Maine Avenue SW, 10th Floor
`
` Washington, DC 20024
`
`BY: ADAM R. SHARTZER, ESQ.
`
` BRIAN LIVEDALEN, ESQ.
`
` KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`
` shartzer@fr.com
`
` livedalen@fr.com
`
` renner@fr.com
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 3
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Arris Solutions:
`
`BAKER BOTTS, LLP
`
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1500
`
` Austin, Texas 78701-4078
`
`BY: JENNIFER LIBRACH NALL, ESQ.
`
` BRIAN OAKS, ESQ.
`
` jennifer.nall@bakerbotts.com
`
` brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Google:
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
` 875 15th Street NW
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`BY: PHILLIP CITROEN, ESQ.
`
` phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Comcast:
`
`FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL
`
` 235 Montgomery Street
`
` San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`BY: DANIEL CALLAWAY, ESQ.
`
` dcallaway@fbm.com
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`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
`
` JUDGE BAER: Good afternoon. This is
`
` Judge Baer from the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
` Board, and with me on the line are Judges
`
` Cherry and Kahn.
`
` This call is in reference IPR2018-1331 and
`
` 2018-1342. These all involve the same Patent
`
` Owner, Realtime Adaptive. We have also got
`
` then Petitioners Sling and Dish, RS Google and
`
` Comcast.
`
` We are here to address Patent Owner's
`
` request to either terminate these petitions and
`
` postpone all deadlines until resolution of
`
` their request.
`
` First, what we are going to do is get some
`
` appearances. And as you-all discovered in
`
` making your introductions, we have got a bit of
`
` a full house here, so I will try and keep
`
` everybody straight.
`
` Let's start with Patent Owner, Realtime.
`
` If you would go ahead and please state your
`
` appearance.
`
` MR. WANG: Good afternoon, your Honors.
`
` This is Philip Wang, counsel for Patent Owner,
`
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC. I'm joined by
`
` my colleague, Jay Chung.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Mr. Wang.
`
` And now let's start with Petitioners Sling
`
` and Dish.
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Hi. Good afternoon, your
`
` Honors. This is Adam Shartzer, on behalf of
`
` the Sling and Dish Petitioners from Fish &
`
` Richardson, and with me today on the call is my
`
` partner, Brian Livedalen.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Mr. Shartzer.
`
` Now let's go with Petitioner Arris,
`
` please.
`
` MS. NALL: Hello. This is Jennifer Nall
`
` with Baker Botts on behalf of Petitioner Arris.
`
` And on the call with me, I have Brian Oaks, a
`
` partner of mine at Baker Botts.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Ms. Nall.
`
` And let's go to now Petitioner Google,
`
` please.
`
` MR. CITROEN: Thank you, your Honors.
`
` This is Phillip Citroen, on behalf of
`
` Petitioner Google, at Paul Hastings.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you, counsel.
`
` And last but not least, Petitioner
`
` Comcast, please.
`
` MR. CALLAWAY: Good afternoon, your
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` Honors. This is Dan Callaway from Farella
`
` Braun & Martel for Petitioner Comcast.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Mr. Callaway.
`
` I think that is everybody. I thought we
`
` have a heard we have a court reporter.
`
` Who was that retained the court reporter,
`
` please?
`
` THE REPORTER: It is TransPerfect. I'm so
`
` sorry. Fish & Richardson.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you.
`
` I think I got everybody. If there is
`
` somebody who has not been accounted for, now
`
` would be the time to speak up.
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Your Honor, this is Adam
`
` Shartzer on behalf of the Dish and Sling
`
` Petitioners. I also inadvertently left off my
`
` partner, Carl Renner, who is also joined the
`
` call this afternoon.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Great. Thank you.
`
` All right. With that, I think we are
`
` ready to begin.
`
` As I said, we are here to discuss
`
` potential termination, in view of our recent
`
` decision in Go Pro versus 360 Heros. I think
`
` what we will do is start with the Patent Owner,
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` since this would be your motion.
`
` So why don't you tell us what it is that
`
` you are seeking, if you would, please.
`
` MR. WANG: Thank you, your Honors. This
`
` is Philip Wang on behalf of Patent Owner.
`
` To just give a very high-level overview,
`
` we know that your Honor doesn't want to hear a
`
` full oral argument. But our request would
`
` apply to both the 01331 and 1342 IPRs.
`
` And as your Honors know, Patent Owner, we
`
` argue that Petitioners were time barred in both
`
` the Preliminary Response and in our Patent
`
` Owner Response.
`
` The panel found that Section 315(b) did
`
` not apply because Patent Owner lacks standing
`
` at the time of the complaint, and that was
`
` briefed in a couple of rounds of briefing.
`
` But we think that the Board's precedential
`
` decision that was very recently issued on
`
` August 23rd, sort of overruled the Board's
`
` finding, and it even cited the IPRs in this
`
` case. And it held that the one year time bar
`
` under Section 315(b) has no exceptions for
`
` standing, just as Patent Owner argued.
`
` And so Patent Owner believes, we believe
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` that under this new precedent, Petitioners were
`
` and are time barred, and that the IPRs should
`
` not have been instituted.
`
` And based on that decision, we would
`
` request an opportunity to brief these issues
`
` more fully, and submit some kind of written
`
` request to terminate both IPR proceedings. And
`
` then as well to promote efficiency for all
`
` parties as well as the Board, we would ask that
`
` the deadlines be postponed until our motion is
`
` acted upon.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you, Mr. Wang.
`
` Do you want to address the joined
`
` petitions and parties now? Or would you like
`
` to wait until we hear from them first?
`
` MR. WANG: Sure, your Honor. I can
`
` address that very briefly.
`
` So, in IPR 1331, the only joined
`
` petitioner is Petitioner Arris. And they were
`
` also time barred at the time of their joinder
`
` motion.
`
` And so we -- we think that that doesn't
`
` change the calculus at all.
`
` As to the other joined Petitioners in
`
` 1342, the 1342 IPR, Google and Comcast, Patent
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` Owner certainly never waived any arguments
`
` about the one year time bar, and we think that
`
` termination of the 01342 IPR is appropriate and
`
` that IPR should not have been instituted.
`
` If there is more specific arguments about
`
` joinder, certainly that -- that would be
`
` appropriate to resolve in briefing.
`
` JUDGE BAER: So is this your position,
`
` Mr. Wang, that neither Google nor Comcast would
`
` have been time barred at the time of their
`
` filing their petitions, the joinder petitions,
`
` is that correct?
`
` MR. WANG: I believe that is correct, your
`
` Honor.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. Let's hear.
`
` MR. WANG: And sorry, your Honor.
`
` One more thing to -- one more quick point
`
` is that certainly at the time that they filed
`
` their joinder petitions, they were aware of
`
` sort of the time bar issue that we raised for
`
` these specific IPRs. They saw our briefing.
`
` They knew kind of the state of the law with the
`
` Click-to-Call decision. And so, in our view,
`
` they sort of took the risk that what we said
`
` would happen did happen.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. I mean, my guess is
`
` that they also saw our institution decisions on
`
` those, so -- but we will wait to hear from them
`
` on that.
`
` So let's start with Petitioners Sling and
`
` Dish. Mr. Shartzer.
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Good afternoon, your
`
` Honors.
`
` So addressing the issues raised by the
`
` Patent Owner here, this issues that we find
`
` ourselves in, where the Go Pro has come out,
`
` yet we are a prior matter is a issue of
`
` Realtime's own making.
`
` The Go Pro decision does not apply in this
`
` case in view of the Board's standard operating
`
` procedures. I will direct the Board's
`
` attention -- I know the Board doesn't have the
`
` benefit of prior briefing on this before the
`
` call, but Standard Operating Procedure 2,
`
` Section 3, Subpart D states that a precedential
`
` decision is binding Board authority in
`
` subsequent matters involving similar facts or
`
` issues.
`
` Now, Patent Owner concedes that our case
`
` was cited in the Go Pro decision. It is
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` clearly -- it is clear that our decision, or
`
` our case and our institution is a prior matter.
`
` And I will note that the Go Pro panel did
`
` not cite this particular institution decision
`
` and state that it was overruling it.
`
` It merely cited it because the other
`
` parties had cited this matter in their earlier
`
` briefing to the POP panel.
`
` Your Honors, we believe this case, or this
`
` matter should proceed to a final written
`
` decision. And as I mentioned earlier, this is
`
` problem of Realtime's own making, and that is
`
` so because Realtime did not pursue a rehearing
`
` request off of the institution decision.
`
` The POP panel operating procedures were
`
` available to Realtime at the time of the
`
` institution decision, but it decided to allow
`
` the rehearing time frame to elapse.
`
` And thus, it seems to have conceded that
`
` the issue would at least be decided at some
`
` point -- if it were to be decided at all, it
`
` would be decided at some future point.
`
` Here that should be the final written
`
` decision. And then if the -- if the Board is
`
` going to move forward and consider Realtime's
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` request, I would note that the Go Pro decision,
`
` while it ought not to apply here, it did note
`
` that there were matters where the one-year bar
`
` perhaps should be tolled in issues of filing
`
` with respect to bad faith.
`
` The Go Pro decision noted the need for
`
` discovery on those issues, and we would ask for
`
` discovery on issues with respect to bad faith
`
` and equitable tolling before any briefing
`
` process were to occur should the Board decide
`
` to retroactively apply the Go Pro decision.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay.
`
` Let's go now to Petitioner Arris. It
`
` seems to me that you are relatively similarly
`
` situated as Sling and Dish.
`
` Anything you want to add to that?
`
` MS. NALL: Your Honor, this is Jennifer
`
` Nall. Thank you for letting us speak.
`
` With respect to Arris, we would request a
`
` chance to possibly do briefing on whether or
`
` not Realtime has waived the -- its objection to
`
` Arris -- its petition, Arris's own petition
`
` being time barred.
`
` Realtime, when we filed our petition and
`
` we filed our joinder motion, Realtime said that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` it was preserving the time bar issue with
`
` respect to Dish and Sling, but did not object
`
` to Arris's petition as being time barred.
`
` Other than that, we are fully aligned with
`
` Dish and Sling.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And Ms. Nall, I know you
`
` filed your petition on February 27th. Do you
`
` happen to have the date of our institution
`
` decisions handy? I can look it up, if you
`
` don't.
`
` MS. NALL: No, your Honor. I don't have
`
` it. Sorry.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Give me just a moment. It
`
` looks like we instituted just before then on
`
` January 31st.
`
` Okay. Let's move next to Petitioner
`
` Google.
`
` MR. CITROEN: Thank you, your Honors.
`
` This is Philip Citroen, on behalf of
`
` Petitioner Google.
`
` So we certainly oppose Realtime's request
`
` to the extent that the request is that the
`
` proceeding be terminated as to the other
`
` petitioners in the 1342 proceeding. So that
`
` would be Google and Comcast. You know, at a
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` minimum, in our minds, if this proceeding is
`
` terminated as to Dish and Sling, it should
`
` continue as to Google and Comcast.
`
` I believe counsel for Realtime conceded
`
` earlier on the call that there is no argument
`
` against Google and Comcast that their petitions
`
` were not timely filed. That is, there was no
`
` complaint violating any infringement against
`
` Google and Comcast more than a year before they
`
` filed their IPR petitions.
`
` And just I would also like to note that
`
` the Go Pro case doesn't address this particular
`
` situation that we have here, which where is
`
` where you have joined parties, Google and
`
` Comcast, that are now being argued should be
`
` terminated as well.
`
` The Go Pro case did not address that
`
` particular situation. So we don't think it is
`
` applicable, at least with respect to Google and
`
` Comcast.
`
` So we see this situation, you know,
`
` similar to a settlement in a joined proceeding
`
` where a petitioner in the joined proceedings
`
` settle with the Patent Owner.
`
` Like in that situation, a joined
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` petitioner that is not part of the settlement
`
` should be permitted to maintain the
`
` proceedings. We think that should govern here
`
` as well. Google and Comcast should be able to
`
` go forward.
`
` And just from a fairness standpoint,s
`
` well, your Honor, the Board especially lately
`
` has impressed about petitioners to just reduce
`
` the number of petitions challenging a patent to
`
` avoid serial petitions and for efficiency
`
` reasons and so forth.
`
` And that is exactly what Petitioners
`
` Google and Comcast did here. We followed the
`
` board's guidance, and what they had asked the
`
` parties to do here, and filed their own
`
` petitions and requested joinder with the
`
` Petitioners here, Sling and Comcast.
`
` So, you know, now, terminating proceedings
`
` as to Google and Comcast would be, you know, it
`
` would be unfair in our mind and extremely
`
` prejudicial to us, given that we were doing
`
` what the Board has really asked petitioners to
`
` do in these types of proceedings where there
`
` are a lot of defendants that have been accused
`
` of infringement.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` JUDGE BAER: And Mr. Callaway, anything
`
` for add for Petitioner Comcast?
`
` MR. CALLAWAY: Thank you, your Honors.
`
` Comcast opposes termination of
`
` IPR2018-1342. And we echo the remarks made by
`
` Google's counsel, with whom we believe we are
`
` similarly situated.
`
` Thank you.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And for Petitioner Google,
`
` has been Google sued? Is there a 315 date at
`
` all in play here?
`
` MR. CITROEN: Your Honor, I believe there
`
` is. But we filed the petition well within the
`
` one-year deadline.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And that is in both cases?
`
` I'm sorry. Just the 1342 case then, correct?
`
` MR. CITROEN: Correct. Just the 1342
`
` proceeding.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And the same question to
`
` Comcast, any potential 315(b) issues for you?
`
` Has Comcast been sued?
`
` MR. CALLAWAY: No, your Honor.
`
` Comcast filed its original IPR and request
`
` for joinder well within the one-year time bar
`
` period.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. And if I could go back
`
` to Mr. Shartzer for Sling and Dish, could you
`
` speak to any opposition, if you have any,
`
` towards Patent Owner's request to delay -- I
`
` think it is going to be Patent Owner's
`
` sur-reply is what is up next in both of these
`
` cases, but to delay the pending due date while
`
` we would get briefing on this issue?
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Your Honor, we would oppose
`
` that request because it would inconsistent with
`
` our belief that the proceedings should still
`
` proceed forward towards final written decision
`
` on the schedule that the Board authorized at
`
` the institution in January 2019.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay, thank you.
`
` And let's go back to Patent Owner
`
` Realtime.
`
` Anything you would like to say in
`
` response, really to any of the petitioners'
`
` comments?
`
` MR. WANG: Sure. Sure, your Honor.
`
` So there were a lot of comments and a lot
`
` of nuances, and so I think what we would
`
` reaffirm is our request that these issues be
`
` properly presented to the board through
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` briefing, and we also think that delaying
`
` deadlines or somewhat would certainly be
`
` reasonable, like under Section 315(a)(11), the
`
` board can extend the deadline for the final
`
` written decision for up to six months for good
`
` cause and in cases of joinder.
`
` And certainly the Board's precedential
`
` decision in Go Pro, which is on all fours with
`
` our case, I don't say that lightly, but it is
`
` directly on all fours would at least constitute
`
` good cause.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. And Patent Owner, if
`
` we were to grant briefing on this, do you have
`
` a sense of what kind of length you would like?
`
` It doesn't mean we will give it to you, but can
`
` you tell us what kind of length you would like?
`
` MR. WANG: Do you mean page length, your
`
` Honor?
`
` JUDGE BAER: Yes.
`
` MR. WANG: To be honest, we haven't given
`
` that a lot of thought. I think we would be
`
` amenable to whatever your Honors prefer.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And as far as schedule goes,
`
` do you have a sense of when you would be ready
`
` to submit that brief?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` Again, that doesn't mean that's what we
`
` will grant, but I would like to hear what you
`
` have to say on the issue.
`
` MR. WANG: Sure, your Honor.
`
` I mean, our intention is not to delay
`
` anything. We would just like to present this
`
` issue properly before the Board and get
`
` resolution on it. And I think we would be able
`
` to put together a brief next week.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. And let me give
`
` Petitioners a chance to address those two
`
` issues.
`
` If we were to grant briefing, do you have
`
` any input on how much briefing you think you
`
` would need and what sort of schedule would work
`
` for that briefing?
`
` Let's start with Petitioners Sling and
`
` Dish.
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Your Honor, Adam Shartzer
`
` for Sling and Dish.
`
` With respect to the amount of briefing, if
`
` we look back at what the Go Pro panel, the POP
`
` panel did with the briefing there, they did
`
` something a little different. They had
`
` simultaneous exchanges of two sets of briefings
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` from the Petitioner and Patent Owner. In
`
` total, it was 25 pages of briefing.
`
` So we would request for Petitioners at
`
` least a 25-page opposition to address some
`
` significant issues of statutory interpretation,
`
` Click-to-Call, the viability of this process
`
` under the APA. Some very kind of thorny issues
`
` that we would have to address in those 25
`
` pages.
`
` And then we would request 21 days from the
`
` brief that Realtime would file in order to put
`
` that together.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And Mr. Shartzer, would that
`
` 21 days then affect potentially the schedule,
`
` assuming we disagree with you about the
`
` schedule not be delayed? Would you understand
`
` that that 21 days would push out -- would push
`
` out the additional scheduling that we have
`
` already got scheduled? Would it still be your
`
` position that you wanted the 21 days?
`
` MR. SHARTZER: If it pushes the schedule?
`
` JUDGE BAER: Yes. If it would push the
`
` schedule the same amount of time that you would
`
` be asking for?
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Yes. I think we would
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` still ask for 21 days, even if it were to push
`
` our schedule slightly off. Although I think
`
` we -- I would imagine that Patent Owner can
`
` agree that we could brief these issues
`
` simultaneously as the substance of the
`
` Institutions decision and the substance of the
`
` issues before the Board proceeds towards the
`
` final written decision.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. Let's go to Petitioner
`
` Arris. Anything we need to know about
`
` scheduling and briefing?
`
` MS. NALL: Your Honor, this Jennifer Nall
`
` for Petitioner Arris.
`
` Arris does not need -- can join Dish and
`
` Sling for the most part. We probably would
`
` need a half page to a page for our own issue.
`
` And other than that, we can fully -- we imagine
`
` that we can fully join with Dish and Sling.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. And Petitioner Google,
`
` any thoughts on the same subject?
`
` MR. CITROEN: Thank you, your Honors.
`
` I think in terms of timing and page
`
` length, we are open to whatever the Board
`
` believes is necessary here.
`
` I think the one point that Google would
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` like to make is that we obviously would like an
`
` opportunity to respond to any briefing that is
`
` filed by Realtime.
`
` And I know this is a joined proceeding,
`
` and the order in place granting joinder states
`
` that papers should be consolidated unless the
`
` Board authorizes separate papers.
`
` And I do believe that this might be a
`
` situation where Google should have a separate
`
` response, or at least a combined response with
`
` Comcast, given we are similarly situated with
`
` Comcast.
`
` But we believe a separate paper would be,
`
` would be necessary here, given the facts and
`
` the situation is slightly different here with
`
` respect to Petitioners Google and Comcast.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Yes, I think you are correct.
`
` Are you saying, though, that you would be
`
` willing to file a joint brief with Petitioner
`
` Comcast?
`
` MR. CITROEN: Yes, we would be open to
`
` that, if Comcast is as well.
`
` JUDGE BAER: All right. Let's hear from
`
` Petitioner Comcast.
`
` MR. CALLAWAY: Thank you, your Honors.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` This is Dan Callaway.
`
` Comcast would be amenable to filing a
`
` joint brief on this issue with Google, as
`
` counsel for Google mentioned. We think it is
`
` appropriate in this instance that the joined
`
` parties have an opportunity to weigh in. But
`
` we would be happy to do so with Google, since
`
` we believe we are similarly situated.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. With that I think --
`
` is there anything that any of the parties want
`
` to add before we -- before we wrap up here?
`
` Let's start with Patent Owner, Realtime.
`
` MR. WANG: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
`
` So, as I mentioned, we are amenable to the
`
` page limits that the Board feels is
`
` appropriate. However, we do think that it is
`
` important that we have sufficient pages to
`
` respond to all of the different petitioners'
`
` arguments.
`
` So we would ask that Patent Owner be
`
` granted sufficient pages in reply to sort of
`
` respond to the different arguments, whether it
`
` is one consolidated brief or separate
`
` briefings.
`
` JUDGE BAER: And just to clear up one
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` issue, Mr. Shartzer and Ms. Nall, would
`
` Petitioners Sling and Dish and Arris, are
`
` you-all prepared to agree to file a joint brief
`
` for Dish, Sling, and Arris, given that they
`
` seem to be similarly situated here?
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Your Honor, this is Adam
`
` Shartzer for Dish and Sling.
`
` Dish and Sling will not agree to that. We
`
` actually do see Arris's issues as significantly
`
` different. And so we would respectfully
`
` request that we be able to brief our particular
`
` issues separately from any of the other
`
` Petitioners.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. Ms. Nall, any thoughts
`
` on that to add?
`
` MS. NALL: Your Honor, if Dish and Sling
`
` need their own brief, Arris is willing to file
`
` its own brief as well.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. With that, I'm going
`
` to hold the line, go off the line here for a
`
` minute while we confer, so if you will hang
`
` with us for just a moment, please.
`
` (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` which the following proceedings were held:)
`
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. The Panel is back.
`
` Thanks for your patience.
`
` What we are going to issue an order in the
`
` next few days addressing this issue. We are
`
` going to get briefing on this issue, and we
`
` will lay out in our order exactly what the
`
` schedule will be and what the page limitations
`
` for that will be.
`
` We are also going to -- we are not going
`
` to delay things indefinitely but we are going
`
` to push things out. And we will update the
`
` schedule with -- we will issue an updated
`
` scheduling order as well with those new dates.
`
` So, again, the Panel will issue an order
`
` in the next few days addressing the briefing on
`
` this issue, what briefs we are going to allow
`
` and the dates for the briefing and the -- those
`
` details.
`
` And then we will also issue an updated
`
` scheduling order with new dates for our -- our
`
` pending dates for the briefing and the oral
`
` hearing.
`
` So I think that is all we have from our
`
` side.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`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
`
` Does counsel for Patent Owner, Adaptive
`
` Realtime, have any questions about what we are
`
` going to do from here?
`
` MR. WANG: No questions. Thank you, your
`
` Honors.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Thank you.
`
` And counsel for Petitioners Sling and
`
` Dish?
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Yes, your Honor, just one
`
` issue.
`
` Earlier when the Board took arguments, we
`
` had made a request if the Board was inclined to
`
` take briefings to allow further discovery of
`
` Realtime with respect to any issues of bad
`
` faith, the types of issues that were identified
`
` by the Go Pro panel on page 23 of the POP
`
` panel's decision.
`
` Is the Board order going to address that
`
` request?
`
` JUDGE BAER: It will not. So the way that
`
` would proceed would be after we issue that
`
` order, you would make a request to file a
`
` motion for additional discovery and we would
`
` decide on that at that point.
`
` I will tell you we would be very hesitant
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
` to issue -- to grant that request, but whether
`
` you do it or not is up to you.
`
` MR. SHARTZER: Thank you, your Honor. I
`
` appreciate it.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Does counsel for -- let's
`
` see, we are on Arris, have any questions?
`
` MR. OAKS: Your Honor, Ms. Nall had to
`
` drop. This is Brian Oaks, and Arris does not
`
` have any further questions.
`
` JUDGE BAER: Great.
`
` And counsel for Google, any questions?
`
` MR. CITROEN: No, you
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
