throbber
PAGES 1 - 11
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., JUDGE
`
`)
`IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD.,
`)
`ET AL.
` )
` PLAINTIFFS, ) NO. C-15-3752 HSG
` )
` VS. ) THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2019
` )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS ) OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
`CO., LTD., ET AL., )
`) MOTION TO LIFT STAY
` DEFENDANTS. )
`____________________________)
`IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD.,
`)
`ET AL.
`)
` )
` PLAINTIFFS, ) NO. C-15-3755 HSG
` )
` VS. ) THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2019
` )
`APPLE, INC.,
`) OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
`)
`) MOTION TO LIFT STAY
` DEFENDANTS. )
`____________________________)
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`APPEARANCES:
`
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`FOR PLAINTIFFS:
`2101 CEDAR SPRINGS RD., STE. 1000
`
`DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
`
` BY: JASON D. CASSADY, ESQUIRE
`
`R. SETH REICH JR., ESQUIRE
`
`
`(APPEARANCES CONTINUED)
`
`REPORTED BY: DIANE E. SKILLMAN, CSR 4909, RPR, FCRR
` OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`1
`
`

`

` 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`FOR PLAINTIFFS: HOPKINS & CARLEY
`
`70 SOUTH FIRST STREET
`
`SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
` BY: JOHN V. PICONE III, ESQUIRE
`
`
`
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`FOR DEFENDANT
`SAMSUNG: 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE
`
`NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
` BY: TODD M. FRIEDMAN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`300 NORTH LASALLE STREET
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654
`
` BY: DAVID ROKACH, ESQUIRE
`
`
`FOR DEFENDANT SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP
`APPLE: 2475 HANOVER STREET
`
`PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94307
` BY: BUZZ FRAHN, ESQUIRE
` MIKE MOREY, ESQUIRE
`
`
`
`
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`2
`
`

`

` 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
`
`3
`
`THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2019
`
`2:02 P.M.
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`THE CLERK: CALLING C-15-3752, IXI MOBILE LIMITED, ET
`
`AL. VERSUS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, LIMITED, ET AL. AS WELL AS
`
`C-15-3755 IXI MOBILE LIMITED, ET AL. VERSUS APPLE, INC.
`
`PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR APPEARANCES FOR THE
`
`RECORD, PLEASE.
`
`MR. FRAHN: BUZZ FRAHN OF SIMPSON THATCHER FOR THE
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE. I'M JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUE MIKE MOREY.
`
`THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
`
`MR. FRIEDMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. TODD
`
`FRIEDMAN FROM KIRKLAND & ELLIS ON BEHALF OF SAMSUNG. AND WITH
`
`ME IS MY COLLEAGUE DAVID ROKACH ALSO FROM KIRKLAND & ELLIS.
`
`THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
`
`MR. PICONE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. JOHN
`
`PICONE, HOPKINS & CARLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.
`
`THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
`
`MR. CASSADY: AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. JASON CASSADY
`
`OF CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF. ALSO WITH
`
`ME MY ASSOCIATE SETH REICH.
`
`THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
`
`ALL RIGHT. IS THAT IT? SO WE ARE HERE FOR A HEARING ON
`
`THE MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY. AND THEN WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
`
`WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IF I DO LIFT THE STAY.
`
`HAVING REVIEWED THE PAPERS, I'LL HEAR FROM THE PARTIES
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`3
`
`

`

` 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
`
`4
`
`BRIEFLY, BUT I THINK THE PLAINTIFFS SUMMED IT UP VERY WELL
`
`WHEN THEY SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I FEEL THIS IS A TEXTBOOK
`
`EXAMPLE OF THE FAILURE OF GOOD INTENTIONS IN STAYING A CASE
`
`PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF IPR. AND NOW WE HAVE A CIRCUMSTANCE
`
`WHERE THE INITIAL IPR IS COMPLETED AND AT SOME LEVEL IT HAD
`
`THE DESIRED EFFECT, AND THEN IT SLIMMED THE CASE DOWN TO ONE
`
`ASSERTED CLAIM, BUT IN THE MEANTIME THERE WAS AN EX PARTE
`
`REEXAMINATION AND THEN SCORES OF OTHER CLAIMS HAVE NOW BEEN
`
`GENERATED. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THOSE WILL BE ADDED
`
`TO THIS CASE VIA AMENDMENT, AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE BY
`
`A MOTION, BUT THERE'S NO PROSPECT REALISTICALLY OF
`
`STREAMLINING OR HONESTLY A TIMELY RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE AT
`
`THIS POINT.
`
`WE COULD END UP WITH THIS CASE STAYED FOR ANOTHER THREE
`
`YEARS. AND ON BALANCE, I THINK IT'S TIME TO MOVE THIS CASE
`
`FORWARD. AND THE FACTS THAT MOTIVATED THE STAY WHEN I ENTERED
`
`IT, WELL INTENTIONED AS THEY WERE, HAVE JUST NOT BORNE OUT AND
`
`THE BALANCE HAS SHIFTED. WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS CASE. IT'S
`
`GOING TO TAKE POTENTIALLY YEARS TO RESOLVE AS IT IS EVEN FROM
`
`NOW.
`
`THAT'S MY VERY STRONG IMPRESSION. I WILL LET ANYONE MAKE
`
`A RECORD THAT YOU'D LIKE TO.
`
`MR. FRAHN: YOUR HONOR, BUZZ FRAHN FOR APPLE. AND
`
`SINCE YOU SORT OF STATED THE TENTATIVE IN A WAY THAT IS
`
`ADVERSE TO US, IF IT'S OKAY, I WILL START.
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`5
`
`I WOULD URGE YOUR HONOR TO MAYBE CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE
`
`OUTCOME, AND HERE'S WHY. OF THE 41 CLAIMS THAT WERE
`
`ORIGINALLY ASSERTED IN THIS CASE, 40 OF THEM ARE DEAD. THE
`
`41ST IS TERMINALLY ILL. IT HAS BEEN REJECTED ON FOUR SEPARATE
`
`GROUNDS. THAT'S CLAIM 10 OF THE '532 PATENT. AND THAT REEXAM
`
`IS GOING TO PLAY OUT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
`
`ON THE SCORES OF CLAIMS THAT IXI RECEIVED THROUGH ITS EX
`
`PARTE REVIVAL OF THE '033 AFTER THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETELY
`
`KILLED AS TO ALL OF ITS ASSERTED CLAIMS, WE ARE GOING TO KNOW
`
`FROM THE PTAB BY JUNE WHETHER THE IPR'S THAT APPLE FILED AS
`
`SOON AS IT POSSIBLY COULD, NINE MONTHS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF
`
`THOSE CLAIMS, WE WILL KNOW BY JUNE WHETHER THOSE WOULD BE
`
`INSTITUTED OR NOT.
`
`THE CONCERNS ABOUT JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY, WASTE OF
`
`RESOURCES, AND INCONSISTENT RESULTS WOULD BE EQUALLY PRESENT
`
`NOW AS THEY WERE WHEN THE COURT ENTERED THE ORIGINAL STAY. IF
`
`THE COURT IS TO ADJUDICATE INVALIDITY ISSUES ON THOSE SCORES
`
`OF CLAIMS WHILE A PARALLEL PROCEEDING IS GOING ON AT THE PTAB,
`
`IT CERTAINLY RISKS WASTING A LOT OF YOUR TIME AND A LOT OF THE
`
`PARTIES' TIME AS WELL IF THE PTAB COMES OUT TO A RESOLUTION,
`
`AS WE THINK THEY WILL, TO REJECT THOSE CLAIMS.
`
`SO I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO MAINTAIN THE STAY, YOU KNOW,
`
`AT LEAST UNTIL WE HAVE FURTHER INSIGHT IN THE SHORT-TERM WITH
`
`WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE PATENT OFFICE.
`
`THE COURT: I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THE THEORY,
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`6
`
`AND IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL THEORY, WAS THAT STAY FOR A FINITE
`
`AMOUNT OF TIME, THE IPR HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A CERTAIN
`
`AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THAT RESOLUTION THAT CAN
`
`THEN BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.
`
`A, I HAVE NOW REALIZED IT DRAGS OUT TO COVER THE TERM OF
`
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPEAL AND POTENTIALLY CERT PETITION, AND
`
`I TAKE YOUR POINT AND I WISH THAT IT HAD WORKED AND IT WOULD
`
`WORK, BUT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY AN INHERENT TENSION BETWEEN
`
`SIMULTANEOUS JURISDICTION AND THIS COURT AND IN THE PTAB OVER
`
`THE INVALIDITY ISSUES. AND AT THIS POINT I CAN'T CONCLUDE
`
`THAT WHAT IS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AN INDEFINITE STAY
`
`OF THIS MATTER IN DEFERENCE TO THAT ONE IS APPROPRIATE.
`
`MR. FRAHN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE ONE THING THAT SORT
`
`OF HAS BOTHERED ME ABOUT THIS AS I WAS LOOKING AT IT WAS THAT
`
`YOU COULD HAVE IMAGINED ONE CASE IN WHICH WE FILED THE IPR,
`
`THE ORIGINAL SET OF IPR'S, THE COURT GRANTED THE STAY, THOSE
`
`PROCEEDED, EVERYTHING DIED EXCEPT CLAIM 10 OF THE '532, AND
`
`THEN WE CAME BACK HERE AND WE'RE LITIGATING THAT. AND THAT
`
`MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BUT FOR IXI'S FILING
`
`OF THE '033 REEXAM RIGHT AFTER --
`
`THE COURT: THAT WASN'T INAPPROPRIATE, WAS IT? THEY
`
`TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM.
`
`MR. FRAHN: IT'S HIGHLY, HIGHLY IRREGULAR FOR A
`
`PATENT OWNER TO PUT THEIR OWN PATENT INTO REEXAM WHEN THEY
`
`HAVE LOST AN IPR ON ALL OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS AND THEY FILED
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`7
`
`A NOTICE OF APPEAL ON THAT.
`
`SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
`
`IN THE BUT-FOR WORLD, BUT I THINK YOU CAN IMAGINE A SITUATION
`
`IN WHICH WE WOULD BE BACK HERE LITIGATING JUST CLAIM 10 OF THE
`
`'532 PATENT.
`
`THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT THE DIRECTION WE HAVE GONE, AND WHAT
`
`BOTHERS ME WAS THAT IT WAS THE TRIGGER -- THE TRIGGERING
`
`EFFECT FOR WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW WAS THIS EX PARTE REEXAM
`
`THAT IXI PURSUED. AND NOW, BECAUSE THEY INTENTIONALLY HAVE
`
`CREATED THIS ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITY IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE NOW
`
`ALSO, IF YOUR HONOR CARRIES THROUGH WITH YOUR INITIAL THOUGHT,
`
`THEY ARE GOING TO BE OPENING UP ANOTHER FRONT HERE BY
`
`SUCCEEDING IN LIFTING THE STAY AS A RESULT OF THE COMPLEXITY
`
`OR THE CRISIS THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CREATED.
`
`TO ME, THAT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT.
`
`THE COURT: THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT ABOUT THIS
`
`PROCESS THAT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME EITHER.
`
`ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS?
`
`MR. CASSADY: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, JASON CASSADY ON
`
`BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR.
`
`ALL I WOULD SAY IS, YOUR HONOR HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
`
`NOTHING IXI DID IN THIS CASE IS NEFARIOUS OR SOME KIND OF MAD
`
`SCIENTIST IN THE BASEMENT DOING SOMETHING EVIL.
`
`THEY USED THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS THAT ARE
`
`GRANTED TO THEM AS PATENT HOLDERS. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`8
`
`THE PATENT OFFICE HAS GIVEN CLEAR DIRECTION IN CASES SAYING,
`
`IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE THE IPR PROCESS OF AMENDING CLAIMS DUE
`
`TO ITS TIME LIMITS IS FAIR, YOU CAN FILE REEXAMINATIONS TO DO
`
`IT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IXI DID IN THIS CASE.
`
`WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, IF APPLE AND SAMSUNG WANTED TO AVAIL
`
`THEMSELVES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, THEY DID THAT.
`
`AVAILING YOURSELF OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS COMES WITH
`
`CONSEQUENCES. AND THOSE CONSEQUENCES, NAMELY, ARE THAT THE
`
`CASE WAS STAYED, THERE WAS TIME TO GO FORWARD IN THESE
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE
`
`MEANTIME. AND IT'S NOT IRREGULAR FOR SOMEONE TO USE THOSE
`
`PARTICULAR ACTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
`
`THAT'S ALL I WOULD SAY.
`
`THE COURT: I TAKE YOUR POINT. I ALSO STAND BY MY
`
`FEELING THAT THERE IS AN INEFFICIENCY IN THIS, AND THERE'S AN
`
`INHERENT GAME-PLAYING QUALITY TO IT ON EVERYONE'S PART. IT'S
`
`NOT DISPARAGING, IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF EVERYONE'S STRATEGIC
`
`DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES
`
`THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM HERE AND IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`PROCESS.
`
`SO I'M GOING TO GRANT THE MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY. I WILL
`
`ISSUE A SHORT WRITTEN ORDER CONFIRMING THAT, BUT IT WON'T BE
`
`MUCH LONGER THAN WHAT I JUST LAID OUT.
`
`NOW, THEN, THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT WE DO WITH THE SCORES
`
`OF NEW CLAIMS. THE PLAINTIFFS SUGGEST I OUGHT TO JUST DEAL
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`9
`
`WITH THAT ON THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.
`
`THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. YOU NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO
`
`AMEND IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH
`
`THE DEFENDANT THAT WE OUGHT TO FRONT LOAD THAT PROCESS, SET A
`
`PROMPT SCHEDULE FOR DETERMINING THAT ISSUE, AND THEN MOVE THIS
`
`CASE. WE JUST HAVE TO MOVE THE CASE.
`
`SO -- AND I -- WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN TERMS OF TIMING?
`
`LOOKS LIKE 14 DAYS TO FILE, THEN 14 DAYS TO OPPOSE, 7 DAYS TO
`
`REPLY, AND THEN I THINK YOU OUGHT TO TALK SERIOUSLY AND MEET
`
`AND CONFER ABOUT SHORTENING TIME. I JUST DON'T SEE ANY REASON
`
`TO BUILD IN MORE DELAY BY VIRTUE OF THE AVAILABLE NOTICE DATE.
`
`AND THEN I'LL DECIDE. AND THEN WE'LL JUST NEED TO GET A
`
`SCHEDULE IN PLACE AND MOVE THE CASE FORWARD. AND THE
`
`PROCEEDINGS AND THE PTAB WILL PROCEED ON A PARALLEL TRACK.
`
`I GUESS THE OTHER -- SO TODAY WE'LL -- THE MOTION IS
`
`GRANTED AS OF TODAY. SO THOSE -- THAT OUGHT TO GIVE YOU YOUR
`
`TIME FRAMES YOU'VE AGREED ON IN TERMS OF THE BRIEFING. AND
`
`THEN JUST MEET AND CONFER AND PROPOSE A HEARING DATE ON
`
`SHORTENED TIME. AND IF I'M AVAILABLE, I'LL HEAR IT. IF I
`
`CAN'T, THEN I'LL GIVE YOU AN ALTERNATIVE DATE.
`
`I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE PARTIES HAD REFERRED TO THE IDEA
`
`OF TRYING TO DO AN EARLY MAGISTRATE JUDGE SETTLEMENT
`
`CONFERENCE, ALTHOUGH EARLY IS AN OXYMORON IN A CASE WITH A
`
`2015 NUMBER, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THE PARTIES ARE MUTUALLY
`
`INTERESTED IN DOING?
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`10
`
`MR. FRAHN: YOUR HONOR, BUZZ FRAHN FOR APPLE.
`
`THAT WAS -- I BELIEVE WE ORIGINALLY SAID THAT IN THE
`
`ORIGINAL CMC STATEMENT, AND WE SAW NO REASON TO CHANGE THAT.
`
`SO IF AVAILABLE, I ALWAYS BELIEVE IN HAVING THOSE
`
`CONVERSATIONS.
`
`IT'S AN ITERATIVE PROCESS. SO THE MORE TIMES YOU HAVE
`
`THOSE CONVERSATIONS THE MORE LIKELY YOU ARE THAT SOMETHING
`
`WORKS OUT.
`
`MR. CASSADY: MANY OF THE JUDGES I'VE WORKED WITH
`
`ALWAYS SAID EARLY AND OFTEN WITH TALKING BETWEEN THE PARTIES
`
`ON THIS KIND OF ISSUE IS GOOD, SO WE WOULD AGREE FOR SURE.
`
`MR. FRAHN: OBVIOUSLY, YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR
`
`MY FRIENDS AT SAMSUNG, BUT --
`
`MR. FRIEDMAN: WE ARE OF THE SAME OPINION, YOUR
`
`HONOR.
`
`THE COURT: I AM OF THE VIEW THAT MAKING THAT
`
`REFERRAL MAKES SENSE, AND I WILL DO THAT.
`
`DO THE PARTIES HAVE A PARTICULAR MAGISTRATE JUDGE YOU
`
`WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE, OR IS A
`
`GENERAL REFERRAL FINE?
`
`MR. FRAHN: YOUR HONOR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND TO GIVE
`
`US A FEW DAYS TO SEE IF WE COULD AGREE ON SOMEBODY. WE CAN
`
`TRY THAT, AND OTHERWISE A GENERAL REFERRAL WOULD BE
`
`ACCEPTABLE.
`
`THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE SAY BY WHAT, A WEEK FROM
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`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
`
`11
`
`TODAY? IF THERE IS A JOINT REQUEST, THEN YOU CAN MAKE IT.
`
`AND JUST GIVE ME A BRIEF FILING THAT SAYS THE PARTIES AGREE,
`
`IF AVAILABLE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
`
`WITH MAGISTRATE A, B, OR C.
`
`MR. FRAHN: OKAY.
`
`THE COURT: IF THE ANSWER IS THERE'S NO AGREEMENT,
`
`THEN I WILL DO A GENERAL REFERRAL.
`
`MR. FRAHN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
`
`THE COURT: SO I THINK THEN ALL I WILL BE WAITING FOR
`
`FOR NOW IS THE BRIEFING TO BE COMPLETE ON THE MOTION FOR LEAVE
`
`TO AMEND AND YOUR PROPOSED HEARING DATE FOR THAT.
`
`THE CLERK: AND THE PROPOSED HEARING DATE, SHOULD
`
`THAT BE E-FILED BY WAY OF A STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER?
`
`THE COURT: IT SHOULD. AND IDEALLY TRY TO SET IT FOR
`
`A THURSDAY THAT I'M AVAILABLE EVEN IF THE DAY'S FULL IN TERMS
`
`OF THE CALENDAR, I WILL CONSIDER SETTING IT, BUT THURSDAY IS
`
`PREFERRED.
`
`ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE FOR TODAY?
`
`MR. CASSADY: NOTHING FROM THE PLAINTIFF, YOUR HONOR.
`
`MR. FRAHN: NOTHING FROM APPLE, YOUR HONOR.
`
`MR. FRIEDMAN: NOTHING FROM SAMSUNG. THANK YOU.
`
`THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL LOOK FOR THE FILINGS.
`
`(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 2:15 P.M.)
`
`
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
` I, DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL REPORTER FOR THE
`
`UNITED STATES COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY
`
`CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE
`
`RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, CSR 4909, RPR, FCRR
`
`TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019
`
`DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`IXI IP, LLC Exhibit 2006
`IPR2019-00125, Apple Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC
`12
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket