·1
`
`·2· · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·3· · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · BASF CORPORATION,· · · · )
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · Petitioner,· · ) Case IPR2019
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · v.· · · · · · · · · · · ·)Patent RE38, 844
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, )
`·9· · LLC,· · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`10· · · · · · · Patent Owner.· )
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · Minutes of Telephonic Hearing held
`
`14· · on Monday, April 1, 2019, commencing at 11:00
`
`15· · a.m.
`
`16· · BEFORE:· ·JUDGE CHRISTOPHER CRUMBLEY
`· · · · · · · · JUDGE JON TORNQUIST
`17· · · · · · · JUDGE DONNA PRAISS
`· · · · · · · · (Via Telephone)
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BASF-1029
`IPR2019-00202
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · APPEARANCES ON COUNSEL:
`
`·3· · On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · · Lori A. Gordon, Esq.
`· · · · · Steven W. Peters, Esq.
`·5· · · · James P. Brogan, Esq.
`· · · · · KING & SPALDING, LLP
`·6· · · · 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`· · · · · Suite 200
`·7· · · · Washington, D.C. 20006
`· · · · · (Via Telephone)
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10· · On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
`11· · · · Brian Buroker, Esq.
`· · · · · Spencer Ririe, Esq.
`12· · · · GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
`· · · · · 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
`13· · · · Suite 200
`· · · · · Washington, D.C. 20036
`14· · · · (Via Telephone)
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·3· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· This is Case
`
`·4· · · · IPR2019-00202 between BASF and
`
`·5· · · · Ingevity South Carolina
`
`·6· · · · · · · Do we have counsel for BASF on
`
`·7· · · · the line?
`
`·8· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Yes, your Honor.
`
`·9· · · · Lori Gordon from King & Spalding. I
`
`10· · · · am here with Steven Peters and Jim
`
`11· · · · Brogan, and I apologize for my
`
`12· · · · connection.· I am dialing in remotely.
`
`13· · · · I have someone working to hopefully
`
`14· · · · address the connection issues.
`
`15· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Okay, and I
`
`16· · · · appreciate that as someone who has had
`
`17· · · · connection issues in the past, but if
`
`18· · · · one of your co-counsel would step up
`
`19· · · · and jump in if you get too broken up,
`
`20· · · · I would appreciate that.
`
`21· · · · · · · And do we have the Patent Owner's
`
`22· · · · attorney?
`
`23· · · · · · · MR. BUROKER:· ·Your Honor, this
`
`24· · · · is Brian Buroker and Spencer Ririe is
`
`25· · · · also on the line with me.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·And who
`
`·3· · · · retained the reporter for today?
`
`·4· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Petitioner did,
`
`·5· · · · your Honor.
`
`·6· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Okay, Ms.
`
`·7· · · · Gordon, if you would do me a favor and
`
`·8· · · · just file the transcript when you get
`
`·9· · · · it?
`
`10· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Yes, we will, your
`
`11· · · · Honor.· Thank you.
`
`12· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·What w have
`
`13· · · · here is a request for authorization
`
`14· · · · for a reply brief to the preliminary
`
`15· · · · response that the Petitioner wants to
`
`16· · · · file, so I will give the floor to you
`
`17· · · · first Ms. Gordon, to ask for the
`
`18· · · · briefing you want.
`
`19· · · · · · · I appreciate you letting us know
`
`20· · · · just sort of the number of pages you
`
`21· · · · are looking for, the time line you are
`
`22· · · · looking to file in, and, obviously,
`
`23· · · · the subject matter of what you want to
`
`24· · · · address in the brief.
`
`25· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Thank you, your
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · Honor.
`
`·3· · · · · · · So Petitioner requests leave to
`
`·4· · · · reply to Patent Owner's preliminary
`
`·5· · · · response on two very brief points:· If
`
`·6· · · · cause exists in this case to grant
`
`·7· · · · Petitioner's request because Patent
`
`·8· · · · Owner mischaracterized the law of
`
`·9· · · · obviousness as it relates to
`
`10· · · · inherency.· It also mischaracterized
`
`11· · · · Petitioner's arguments.
`
`12· · · · · · · In the petition, Petitioner
`
`13· · · · demonstrated that our primary
`
`14· · · · reference, Baylar (ph), uses the same
`
`15· · · · two state solutions at issue as the
`
`16· · · · 844 patent claims, including the use
`
`17· · · · of a· honeycomb for the subsequent
`
`18· · · · volume.
`
`19· · · · · · · The secondary reference part
`
`20· · · · discloses a method of making this
`
`21· · · · honeycomb.· And what the 844 patent
`
`22· · · · did was created a new metric which it
`
`23· · · · called the IAC to describe its
`
`24· · · · volumes.· And this is not and was not
`
`25· · · · a term of art.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · So Petitioner demonstrated that
`
`·3· · · · the recited IAC value was inherent
`
`·4· · · · in Baylar in part, because, first, the
`
`·5· · · · 844 admitted that honeycomb made using
`
`·6· · · · Parr had a certain dilution with low
`
`·7· · · · IAC value, and that Parr's preferred
`
`·8· · · · honeycomb has a greater dilution.
`
`·9· · · · Meaning that the IAC value would be
`
`10· · · · lower, in fact, in Parr.
`
`11· · · · · · · And what Patent Owner did was
`
`12· · · · cherry pick language from the Federal
`
`13· · · · Circuit Honeywell case and presented
`
`14· · · · it out of context creating the
`
`15· · · · impression that its claims cannot be
`
`16· · · · obvious as a matter of law based on
`
`17· · · · Petitioner's reliance on inherency to
`
`18· · · · establish the IAC value.
`
`19· · · · · · · And Patent Owner mischaracterizes
`
`20· · · · both Petitioner's arguments and
`
`21· · · · actually contorts the findings of
`
`22· · · · Honeywell.· They argue that the
`
`23· · · · capacity limitation recited in the
`
`24· · · · claim cannot be inherent in Honeywell,
`
`25· · · · even though volumes with such a low
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · capacity existed.
`
`·3· · · · · · · And Patent Owner further argued
`
`·4· · · · that Paceda (ph) would not have
`
`·5· · · · expected a low capacity volume to
`
`·6· · · · perform well for the application
`
`·7· · · · disclosed in the 844 patent.· But that
`
`·8· · · · is not our argument, and, in fact, it
`
`·9· · · · is not the law.
`
`10· · · · · · · The Honeywell case said what is
`
`11· · · · important regarding properties that
`
`12· · · · may be inherent but unknown is whether
`
`13· · · · they are unexpected.· And Petitioner
`
`14· · · · argued that it was inherent that
`
`15· · · · Parr's honeycomb had this low IAC
`
`16· · · · value --
`
`17· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Ms. Gordon, you
`
`18· · · · broke up there.· You may want to skip
`
`19· · · · back two or three sentences and try
`
`20· · · · again.
`
`21· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· Patent Owner argued
`
`22· · · · that the low capacity limitations
`
`23· · · · accepted in the claim cannot be
`
`24· · · · inherent under Honeywell, because even
`
`25· · · · though these volumes with low capacity
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · existed, Paceda would not have
`
`·3· · · · expected a low capacity value to
`
`·4· · · · perform well for the application
`
`·5· · · · disclosed in the 844 Patent.
`
`·6· · · · · · · But that is not Petitioner's
`
`·7· · · · argument or the law.· In fact,
`
`·8· · · · Honeywell's finding is what is
`
`·9· · · · important regarding properties that
`
`10· · · · may be inherent but unknown is whether
`
`11· · · · they are unexpected.· And Petitioner
`
`12· · · · argued that it was inherent that
`
`13· · · · Parr's honeycomb had a low IAC value;
`
`14· · · · therefore, under the reasoning of
`
`15· · · · Honeywell, the question is whether the
`
`16· · · · recited IAC was unexpected, which
`
`17· · · · Petitioner demonstrated, and Patent
`
`18· · · · Owner admitted in his own patent, was
`
`19· · · · not unexpected due to the metric
`
`20· · · · dilution of carbon.
`
`21· · · · · · · And, in fact, what Patent Owner
`
`22· · · · has essentially done was create a new
`
`23· · · · burden on Petitioner arguing that it
`
`24· · · · was our burden to demonstrate that the
`
`25· · · · inherent property was expected.· But,
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · in fact, that that's not the law.
`
`·3· · · · · · · The Petitioner could not have
`
`·4· · · · anticipated that Patent Owner would
`
`·5· · · · mischaracterize the case law and
`
`·6· · · · create a new burden on Petitioner,
`
`·7· · · · and, furthermore, mischaracterized our
`
`·8· · · · argument, which was very
`
`·9· · · · straightforward.
`
`10· · · · · · · Now Petitioner recognizes that
`
`11· · · · the Board understands the law of
`
`12· · · · obviousness and inherency, but in
`
`13· · · · cases like this, Petitioner has good
`
`14· · · · cause and, in fact, in the Neptune
`
`15· · · · Generics' case this last month, the
`
`16· · · · Board granted Petitioner a reply to
`
`17· · · · appeal PR in a similar situation where
`
`18· · · · the Patent Owner mischaracterized the
`
`19· · · · law of obviousness.
`
`20· · · · · · · Thank you, your Honor.
`
`21· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Do you have a
`
`22· · · · cite for that Neptune Generics' case?
`
`23· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Yes, I do.· It is
`
`24· · · · IPR2019136, page 111.
`
`25· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·And maybe you
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · said it and I just missed it, what are
`
`·3· · · · you seeking in terms of filing
`
`·4· · · · timeline and pages?
`
`·5· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Yes, your Honor.
`
`·6· · · · · · · So because the issue that we
`
`·7· · · · would like to address is very narrow,
`
`·8· · · · we would be seeking a five-page brief
`
`·9· · · · and we would only be seeking five
`
`10· · · · business days to file.
`
`11· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· All right.
`
`12· · · · · · · Mr. Buroker, do you want to
`
`13· · · · respond?
`
`14· · · · · · · MR. BUROKER:· ·I do, your Honor.
`
`15· · · · · · · I would like to say that we don't
`
`16· · · · think that good cause has been shown
`
`17· · · · in this case.· It is very rare for the
`
`18· · · · Board to grant leave for a reply to a
`
`19· · · · preliminary Patent Owner's response
`
`20· · · · when the argument is that the law has
`
`21· · · · been mischaracterized.· And the law
`
`22· · · · has not been mischaracterized.
`
`23· · · · · · · We stand by the statements in our
`
`24· · · · brief.· We cited and quoted from
`
`25· · · · Honeywell directly.· It is a
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · subsequent case, the 2017 opinion to
`
`·3· · · · the Parr case that the Petitioner
`
`·4· · · · cited.· And the case that Petitioner
`
`·5· · · · cited, the Parr case, makes very clear
`
`·6· · · · that if you are using inherency with
`
`·7· · · · an obviousness context, it should be
`
`·8· · · · very narrow and limited, and that
`
`·9· · · · there is a very high burden.
`
`10· · · · · · · And what the Honeywell case goes
`
`11· · · · on to say in 2017 is to add more
`
`12· · · · clarity on what that burden requires,
`
`13· · · · and that's what we are pointing out,
`
`14· · · · that they hadn't met their burden,.
`
`15· · · · · · · And we don't mischaracterize
`
`16· · · · their argument.· Of course, that is up
`
`17· · · · to the Panel to decide, but that's
`
`18· · · · again an issue for you all to decide
`
`19· · · · and I don't think subsequent briefing
`
`20· · · · is really necessary at this point.
`
`21· · · · · · · You can read the briefs, you can
`
`22· · · · read the law, and decide whether or
`
`23· · · · not what they are saying is true. I
`
`24· · · · don't know what the benefit of five
`
`25· · · · additional pages for them to make
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · argument about the law, which was
`
`·3· · · · their burden in the first place.
`
`·4· · · · The question is why they didn't
`
`·5· · · · address Honeywell in the first
`
`·6· · · · instance, when it is a more recent
`
`·7· · · · recitation of what has to be shown to
`
`·8· · · · do inherency within an obviousness
`
`·9· · · · context.
`
`10· · · · · · · Again, why did they not address
`
`11· · · · that case in their initial petition if
`
`12· · · · that was their main argument, which it
`
`13· · · · is.· So that's why we don't think a
`
`14· · · · reply is appropriate in these
`
`15· · · · circumstances.
`
`16· · · · · · · If your Honors disagree and are
`
`17· · · · inclined to grant a reply, we would
`
`18· · · · respectfully request a similar length
`
`19· · · · sur-reply.· But, again, we don't think
`
`20· · · · that it is necessary under the facts
`
`21· · · · presented here.
`
`22· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·You mentioned
`
`23· · · · the sort of the legal issues.· My
`
`24· · · · understanding was that Petitioner also
`
`25· · · · wants to address what they claim are
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · mischaracterizations of their
`
`·3· · · · position.
`
`·4· · · · · · · Can I have your response on that?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·Obviously, you don't think you
`
`·6· · · · mischaracterized, but if there is even
`
`·7· · · · indication that there was, why you
`
`·8· · · · think a response is not valid at this
`
`·9· · · · point?
`
`10· · · · · · · MR. BUROKER:· ·Well, when we
`
`11· · · · talked to them about this, it seemed
`
`12· · · · the two were tied together.· Their
`
`13· · · · argument is we mischaracterized their
`
`14· · · · argument and that that's why our
`
`15· · · · citation to Honeywell didn't apply.
`
`16· · · · So I don't even really appreciate why
`
`17· · · · we supposedly mischaracterized their
`
`18· · · · argument.
`
`19· · · · · · · I see them as two -- the same
`
`20· · · · issue.· The initial e-mail about
`
`21· · · · seeking a sur-reply seemed to present
`
`22· · · · them as the same issue.· So, again, I
`
`23· · · · don't think that we have
`
`24· · · · mischaracterized their argument, and I
`
`25· · · · see it tied up with whether the law is
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · correct or not.
`
`·3· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· Okay.
`
`·4· · · · · · · Ms. Gordon, I will give you the
`
`·5· · · · last word as the party seeking relief
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Is there anything you want to
`
`·7· · · · address?
`
`·8· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Yes.
`
`·9· · · · · · · I think essential to this is
`
`10· · · · Patent Owner's mischaracterizing of
`
`11· · · · Petitioner argument.· And there was an
`
`12· · · · absolute mischaracterization.
`
`13· · · · · · · We argued that the low IAC value
`
`14· · · · was that which is inherent, and they
`
`15· · · · switched it, in fact, morphing it into
`
`16· · · · almost a secondary consideration
`
`17· · · · argument, arguing that it was the use
`
`18· · · · of this low IAC value and the
`
`19· · · · subsequent volume and that nobody
`
`20· · · · expected it to perform well.
`
`21· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Ms. Gordon, I
`
`22· · · · don't understand.
`
`23· · · · · · · If this is the argument you made
`
`24· · · · in the petition and they
`
`25· · · · mischaracterized it in the preliminary
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · response, why can't we just look at
`
`·3· · · · the briefs, and reading your petition,
`
`·4· · · · know what you argued.· I don't
`
`·5· · · · understand why further briefing is
`
`·6· · · · warranted in that situation.
`
`·7· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·Because I think
`
`·8· · · · what Patent Owner has done has taken
`
`·9· · · · this one step further, and to clarify
`
`10· · · · this for the Board, what they have
`
`11· · · · done is tried to take Honeywell, and
`
`12· · · · although they did cite directly, you
`
`13· · · · can cite directly to a case and still
`
`14· · · · mischaracterize the application.· And
`
`15· · · · that's what they have done.
`
`16· · · · · · · So we seek to clarify this for
`
`17· · · · the Board in our subsequent briefing,
`
`18· · · · and to also address this notion where
`
`19· · · · they have created this additional
`
`20· · · · burden where they place the burden on
`
`21· · · · Petitioner to establish the IAC value
`
`22· · · · was expected.· And that's just not the
`
`23· · · · case law.
`
`24· · · · · · · So we understand that the Board
`
`25· · · · can review the briefs and appreciate
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · the Board can recognize where the
`
`·3· · · · issues lie, but we also acknowledge
`
`·4· · · · that the Board in past cases has
`
`·5· · · · granted a reply to the preliminary
`
`·6· · · · response on the same point where there
`
`·7· · · · has been mischaracterizations of the
`
`·8· · · · law on obviousness as it relates to
`
`·9· · · · the facts of the case.
`
`10· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Is there a
`
`11· · · · reason why you didn't address
`
`12· · · · Honeywell in your petition if it is a
`
`13· · · · case that is relevant to the issue
`
`14· · · · that's at issue in this case?
`
`15· · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· ·We have cited case
`
`16· · · · law to support our arguments, and we
`
`17· · · · have cited what we most on point
`
`18· · · · cases.· We did not expect that the
`
`19· · · · Patent Owner would pick the Honeywell
`
`20· · · · case and recite it and try to use its
`
`21· · · · language out of context in the way
`
`22· · · · that they did.
`
`23· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·I think I have
`
`24· · · · heard enough.· I will take a quick
`
`25· · · · second to confer with the panel, so I
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · will put you on hold and we will be
`
`·3· · · · back in just a minute.
`
`·4· · · · · · · (Whereupon, at this time, the
`
`·5· · · · Panel conferred off the record.)
`
`·6· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·The Panel is
`
`·7· · · · back on the line.
`
`·8· · · · · · · We have conferred and we are
`
`·9· · · · going to take Petitioner's request
`
`10· · · · under advisement.· We want to look at
`
`11· · · · the briefing a little bit closer and
`
`12· · · · also pull the Neptune case that
`
`13· · · · Petitioner cited and possibly some
`
`14· · · · other relevant Board cases on the
`
`15· · · · issue before deciding what we want to
`
`16· · · · do.
`
`17· · · · · · · So we will get back to you fairly
`
`18· · · · quickly.· I know that the clock is
`
`19· · · · ticking on this case so we will get an
`
`20· · · · order out to you fairly quickly on the
`
`21· · · · request, and if further briefing is
`
`22· · · · warranted, we will put the issues we
`
`23· · · · want addressed and limitations in the
`
`24· · · · order.
`
`25· · · · · · · Is there anything else we need to
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · discuss while we are on the phone
`
`·3· · · · today?
`
`·4· · · · · · · MR. BUROKER:· ·Nothing more from
`
`·5· · · · Patent Owner.
`
`·6· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·Ms. Gordon?
`
`·7· · · · · · · MR. PETERS:· ·This is Steve
`
`·8· · · · Peters.· We are still on.
`
`·9· · · · · · · Nothing else from Petitioner,
`
`10· · · · your Honor.
`
`11· · · · · · · JUDGE CRUMBLEY:· ·All right. I
`
`12· · · · appreciate everyone's time.· Look for
`
`13· · · · an order from us in the near future.
`
`14· · · · · · · Thank you very much.
`
`15· · · · · · · (Time noted:· 11:20 a.m.)
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · C E R T I F I C A T I O N
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · ·I, Margaret Eustace, a
`
`·5· · Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, within
`
`·6· · and for the State of New York, do hereby
`
`·7· · certify that I reported the proceedings in
`
`·8· · the within-entitled matter, via telephone
`
`·9· · conference, on Monday, April 1, 2019, and
`
`10· · that this is an accurate transcription of
`
`11· · these proceedings.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
`
`13· · hereunto set my hand this 1st day of April,
`
`14· · 2019.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · MARGARET EUSTACE
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Telephonic Hearing
`April 01, 2019
`
`clarify
`
`clarity
`clear
`
`15:9,16
`11:12
`
`11:5
`
` B
`
`3:4,6
`
`back
`
`based
`
`BASE
`
` 2
`
`7:19 17:3,7,17
`6:16
`
`clock
`
`17:18
`
`closer
`
`17:11
`
`11:2,11
`2017
`
`
`
`
`844
`8:5
`
`5:16,21 6:5 7:7
`
` A a
`
`bsolute
`
`14:12
`
`accepted
`
`7:23
`
`acknowledge
`add
`11:11
`
`additional
`15:19
`
`16:3
`
`11:25
`
`address
`
`3:14 4:24
`
`10:7 12:5,10,25 14:7
`15:18 16:11
`
`addressed 17:23
`
`co—counse1
`
`3:18
`
`confer
`
`16:25
`
`conferred 17:5,8
`
`connection 3:12,14,17
`consideration 14:16
`
`6:14 11:7
`context
`12:9 16:21
`
`contorts
`
`6:21
`
`correct
`
`14:2
`
`counse1
`
`3:6
`
`Baylar
`benefit
`
`5:14 6:4
`11:24
`
`bit
`
`17:11
`
`Board 9:11,16 10:18
`15:10,17,24 16:2,4
`17:14
`
`Brian 3:24
`
`briefing 4:18 11:19
`15:5,17 17:11,21
`
`briefs
`
`11:21 15:3,25
`
`create
`
`8:22 9:6
`
`Brogan
`broke
`
`3:11
`7:18
`
`broken
`
`3:19
`
`8:23,24 9:6
`burden
`11:9,12,14 12:3
`15:20
`
`Buroker 3:23,24
`10:12,14 13:10
`business
`10:10
`
`created 5:22 15:19
`
`creating 6:14
`CRUMBLEY 3:3,15 4:2,
`6,12 7:17 9:21,25
`10:11 12:22 14:3,21
`16:10,23 17:6
`
`0:10
`
`days
`decide
`
`existed
`
`admitted 6:5 8:18
`
`advisement
`
`17:10
`
`anticipated 9:4
`
`apologize
`
`3:11
`
`7:6 8:4
`
`appeal
`
`9:17
`
`application
`15:14
`
`apply
`
`13:15
`
`argue
`
`6:22
`
`argued 7:3,14,21 8:12
`14:13 15:4
`
`arguing 8:23 14:17
`
`7:8 8:7 9:8
`argument
`10:20 11:16 12:2,12
`13:13,14,18,24
`14:11,17,23
`
`arguments
`16:16
`
`art
`
`5:25
`
`5:11 6:20
`
`attorney 3:22
`authorization 4:13
`
`a11ed 5:23
`
`capacity 6:23 7:2,5,
`22,25 8:3
`carbon
`8:20
`
`Carolina
`
`3:5
`
`case
`
`3:3 5:6 6:13
`
`7:10 9:5,15,22 10:17
`11:2,3,4,5,10 12:11
`15:13,23 16:9,13,14,
`15,20 17:12,19
`
`cases
`17:14
`
`9:13 16:4,18
`
`cherry 6:12
`Circuit
`6:13
`
`circumstances
`
`12:15
`
`citation 13:15
`
`cite 9:22 15:12,13
`
`cited 10:24 11:4,5
`16:15,17 17:13
`claim 6:24 7:23 12:25
`
`claims
`
`5:16 6:15
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
` D 1
` C c
`
`11:17,18,22
`
`deciding 17:15
`demonstrate
`8:24
`
`demonstrated 5:13 6:2
`8:17
`
`describe
`
`5:23
`
`dialing 3:12
`dilution 6:6,8 8:20
`
`directly 10:25 15:12,
`13
`
`disagree
`disclosed
`
`12:16
`
`7:7 8:5
`
`discloses
`
`5:20
`
`due
`
`8:19
`
` E 1
`
`e—mail
`
`3:20
`
`essential
`
`14:9
`
`essentially
`establish
`
`8:22
`
`6:18 15:21
`
`7:2 8:2
`
`

`

`length
`
`12:18
`
`letting
`lie 16:3
`
`4:19
`
`limitation
`
`6:23
`
`limitations
`17:23
`
`7:22
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`April 01, 2019
`
` I
`
`IAC 5:23 6:3,7,9,18
`7:15 8:13,16 14:13,
`18 15:21
`
`7:11 8:9
`
`limited 11:8
`
`Lori
`
`3:9
`
`low 6:6,25 7:5,15,22,
`25 8:3,13 14:13,18
`lower
`6:10
`
` M 6
`
`made
`
`:5 14:23
`
`main
`
`make
`
`12:12
`
`11:25
`
`makes
`
`11:5
`
`making
`matter
`
`5:20
`
`4:23 6:16
`
`6:9
`
`important
`
`impression
`inclined
`
`including
`indication
`
`6:15
`
`12:17
`
`5:16
`
`13:7
`
`Ingevity 3:5
`
`inherency 5:10 6:17
`9:12 11:6 12:8
`
`6:3,24 7:12,
`inherent
`14,24 8:10,12,25
`14:14
`
`initial
`
`12:11 13:20
`
`instance
`
`12:6
`
`IPR2019—00202
`
`3:4
`
`IPR2019136
`
`9:24
`
`exists
`
`5:6
`
`expect
`
`16:18
`
`expected 7:5 8:3,25
`14:20 15:22
`
` F
`
`6:10 7:8 8:7,21
`fact
`9:2,14 14:15
`facts
`12:20 16:9
`
`fairly 17:17,20
`favor
`4:7
`
`Federal
`
`6:12
`
`file 4:8,16,22 10:10
`
`filing 10:3
`
`finding 8:8
`
`findings
`
`6:21
`
`five—page
`floor
`4:16
`
`10:8
`
`number
`
` N 1
` L 6
`
`language
`law 5:8 6:16 7:9 8:7
`
`:12 16:21
`
`9:2,5,11,19 10:20,21
`11:22 12:2 13:25
`
`narrow
`
`0:7 11:8
`
`Meaning
`mentioned
`
`met
`
`11:14
`
`12:22
`
`method
`
`5:20
`
`metric
`
`5:22 8:19
`
`minute
`
`17:3
`
`mischaracterization
`14:12
`
`mischaracterizations
`13:2 16:7
`
`mischaracterize
`11:15 15:14
`
`9:5
`
`mischaracterized 5:8,
`10 9:7,18 10:21,22
`13:6,13,17,24 14:25
`mischaracterizes
`6:19
`
`mischaracterizing
`14:10
`
`issue
`
`5:15 10:6 11:18
`
`13:20,22 16:13,14
`17:15
`
`3:14,17 12:23
`issues
`16:3 17:22
`
` J
`
`Jim 3:10
`
`JUDGE 3:3,15 4:2,6,12
`7:17 9:21,25 10:11
`12:22 14:3,21 16:10,
`23 17:6
`
`3:19
`jump
`
`
`
`
`missed
`
`10:2
`
`month
`
`9:15
`
`morphing
`
`14:15
`
`15:23 16:8,16
`leave
`5:3 10:18
`
`legal
`
`12:23
`
`Neptune
`notion
`
`9:14,22 17:12
`15:18
`
`4:20
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
` G
`
`Generics'
`
`9:15,22
`
`give
`
`4:16 14:4
`
`9:13 10:16
`good
`Gordon 3:8,9 4:4,7,
`10,17,25 7:17,21
`9:23 10:5 14:4,8,21
`15:7 16:15
`
`grant
`
`5:6 10:18 12:17
`
`granted 9:16 16:5
`
`greater
`
`6:8
`
` H h
`
`eard 16:24
`
`high 11:9
`hold 17:2
`
`honeycomb 5:17,21
`6:5,8 7:15 8:13
`
`6:13,22,24
`Honeywell
`7:10,24 8:15 10:25
`11:10 12:5 13:15
`
`15:11 16:12,19
`
`8:8
`Honeywell's
`Honor 3:8,23 4:5,11
`5:2 9:20 10:5,14
`Honors
`12:16
`
`

`

`requests
`
`requires
`
`5:3
`
`11:12
`
`respectfully
`
`12:18
`
`respond 10:13
`
`4:15 5:5
`response
`10:19 13:4,8 15:2
`16:6
`
`retained
`
`4:3
`
`review
`
`15:25
`
`Ririe
`
`3:24
`
` S
`
`secondary 5:19 14:16
`seek
`15:16
`
`seeking 10:3,8,9
`13:21 14:5
`
`sentences
`
`7:19
`
`shown
`
`10:16 12:7
`
`similar
`
`9:17 12:18
`
`situation 9:17 15:6
`
`skip 7:18
`solutions
`
`5:15
`
`sort
`
`4:20 12:23
`
`South
`
`3:5
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`April 01, 2019
`
`possibly 17:13
`PR 9:17
`
`preferred 6:7
`
`preliminary 4:14 5:4
`10:19 14:25 16:5
`
`present
`
`13:21
`
`presented 6:13 12:21
`
`primary 5:13
`
`4:1 5:1
`Proceedings
`6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1 10:1
`11:1 12:1 13:1 14:1
`15:1 16:1 17:1
`
`properties
`
`7:11 8:9
`
`property 8:25
`
`pull
`
`17:12
`
`put
`
`17:2,22
`
`:15 12:4
`
` O o
`
`bvious
`
`6:16
`
`5:9 9:12,
`obviousness
`19 11:7 12:8 16:8
`
`opinion 11:2
`order
`17:20,24
`
`5:8 6:11,19
`Owner
`7:3,21 8:18,21 9:4,
`18 15:8 16:19
`
`3:21 5:4
`Owner's
`10:19 14:10
`
`Paceda
`
`:4 8:2
`
`pages
`
`4:20 10:4 11:25
`
`11:17 16:25
`panel
`17:5,6
`
`Parr
`Parr's
`
`6:6,10 11:3,5
`6:7 7:15 8:13
`
`part
`
`5:19 6:4
`
`party 14:5
`
`3:17 16:4
`
` Q 8
` P 7
`
`question
`16:24
`
`quick
`
`quickly
`
`quoted
`
`17:18,20
`10:24
`
`tied 13:12,25
`
`past
`
`3:21 5:4,7,16,
`patent
`21 6:11,19 7:3,7,21
`8:5,17,18,21 9:4,18
`10:19 14:10 15:8
`16:19
`
`perform
`Peters
`
`7:6 8:4 14:20
`
`3:10
`
`petition 5:12 12:11
`14:24 15:3 16:12
`
`Petitioner 4:4,15
`5:3,12 6:2 7:13
`8:11,17,23 9:3,6,10,
`13,16 11:3,4 12:24
`14:11 15:21 17:13
`
`ph
`
`5:14 7:4
`
`pick 6:12 16:19
`
`place
`
`12:3 15:20
`
`11:20 13:9
`point
`16:6,17
`
`pointing
`
`points
`
`position
`
`11:13
`
`5:5
`
`13:3
`
`relevant
`
`16:13 17:14
`
`reliance
`
`6:17
`
`relief
`
`14:5
`
`remotely 3:12
`
`reply 4:14 5:4 9:16
`10:18 12:14,17 16:5
`
`term 5:25
`
`terms
`
`10:3
`
`reporter
`
`4:3
`
`4:13 5:7
`request
`12:18 17:9,21
`
`ticking 17:19
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`Spalding 3:9
`
`3:24
`Spencer
`stand 10:23
`
`state 5:15
`
`statements
`
`10:23
`
`step 3:18 15:9
`Steven
`3:10
`
`straightforward 9:9
`
`subject
`
`4:23
`
`5:17 11:2,
`subsequent
`19 14:19 15:17
`
`support
`
`16:16
`
`supposedly
`
`13:17
`
`12:19 13:21
`sur—reply
`switched 14:15
`
` T t
`
`alked 13:11
`
` R 1
`
`rare
`
`0:17
`
`read
`
`11:21,22
`15:3
`
`reading
`reason 16:11
`
`reasoning 8:14
`recent
`12:6
`
`recitation 12:7
`
`recite 16:20
`
`recited 6:3,23 8:16
`
`recognize
`
`16:2
`
`recognizes
`record 17:5
`
`9:10
`
`Petitioner's 5:7,11
`6:17,20 8:6 17:9
`
`reference 5:14,19
`relates
`5:9 16:8
`
`

`

`Telephonic Hearing
`April 01, 2019
`
`time
`
`4:21 17:4
`
`timeline
`
`10:4
`
`today 4:3
`
`transcript
`true 11:23
`
`4:8
`
` U u
`
`nderstand 14:22
`
`15:5,24
`
`
`
`understanding 12:24
`understands
`9:11
`
`unexpected 7:13 8:11,
`16,19
`unknown
`
`7:12 8:10
`
` V v
`
`alid 13:8
`
`volume
`
`5:18 7:5 14:19
`
`volumes
`7:25
`
`5:24 6:25
`
` W w
`
`arranted 15:6 17:22
`
`word
`
`14:5
`
`working
`
`3:13
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`