`
`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
`
`