`· · ·------------------------------------------X
`·2
`
`·3· ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· ·------------------------------------------X
`
`·5· ·COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner.
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · -vs-
`
`·9
`
`10· ·ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`
`11· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`12· ·-------------------------------------------X
`
`13· · · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2019-00231
`
`14· · · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2019-00232
`
`15· · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 9,369,741
`
`16· ·-------------------------------------------X
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Via Teleconference)
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · ·March 11, 2019
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·2:00 P.M.
`20
`
`21
`· · ·B E F O R E: BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent
`22· ·Judge
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Comcast, Ex-1026
`Comcast v. Rovi
`IPR2019-00231
`
`1
`
`
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S
`·2
`·3
`· · · · BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
`·4· · · · · Attorneys for Petitioner
`·5· · · · · 1100 13th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
`· · · · · · Washington D.C., 20005
`·6
`· · · · · · BY: FREDERIC M. MEEKER, ESQ.
`·7
`·8
`·9
`10· · · STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX. P.L.L.C.
`· · · · · · Attorneys for Patent Owner
`11
`· · · · · · 1100 New York Avenue, NW
`12· · · · · Washington D.C., 20005
`13· · · · · BY: RYAN RICHARDSON, ESQ., and
`· · · · · · · · JASON EISENBERG
`14· · · · · · · (Via Phone)
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· ·arranged for the court reporter,
`·2· ·please file the transcript of the call
`·3· ·as an exhibit?
`·4· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· We will, Your
`·5· ·Honor.· This is Petitioner.
`·6· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Thank you.· Let's
`·7· ·start by asking Petitioner the reason
`·8· ·for the call today?
`·9· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· The call, is we
`10· ·would like to file a Reply, Your
`11· ·Honor, on two specific grounds for
`12· ·which we believe there to be good
`13· ·cause.· And the two grounds are
`14· ·whether an ITC action should preclude
`15· ·the filing of a IPR petition under the
`16· ·General Plastic factors.· And the
`17· ·second, whether a Petitioner must show
`18· ·a subjective belief in the correctness
`19· ·of the construction that is set forth
`20· ·in the petition.
`21· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.· And you're
`22· ·asking for a 5-page reply in the two
`23· ·cases?· The 231 and the 232; is that
`24· ·correct?
`25· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Hello everyone.
`·2· · This is a call in IPR2019-00231 and
`·3· · 232.· Both IPR's involve challenges to
`·4· · US Patent No. 9,369,741 B2. Petitioner
`·5· · is Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
`·6· · Patent Owner is Rovi Guides
`·7· · Incorporated.· I am Administrative
`·8· · Patent Judge Parvis.· Vice-Chief
`·9· · Judge Fink, and Judges Eastholm and
`10· · Bayne are also on the line.
`11· · · · ·Who is representing Petitioner
`12· · today?
`13· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Fred Meeker, Your
`14· ·Honor.
`15· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· And who is
`16· ·representing Patent Owner?
`17· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· This is Ryan
`18· ·Richardson and Jason Eisenberg, Your
`19· ·Honor.
`20· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Good afternoon.
`21· ·Has anyone arranged for a court
`22· ·reporter?
`23· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Yes, Your Honor.
`24· ·Jessica from Epiq Reporting is on.
`25· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· The party that
`
`·1· ·We can file that very quickly.· You
`·2· ·know, within a few days.
`·3· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· There are -- this
`·4· ·is one patent.· There are a total of 6
`·5· ·patents involving -- that have been
`·6· ·challenged by Comcast.· And they are
`·7· ·involving, I would say, 25, 26
`·8· ·additional IPR's.· Would Petitioner,
`·9· ·if Patent Owner were to file similar
`10· ·arguments and other preliminary
`11· ·responses, would Petitioner be seeking
`12· ·reply and brief's in all those cases?
`13· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Your Honor, I
`14· ·believe there are a total of 35
`15· ·petitions spanning 8 patents in this
`16· ·series of cases.· So in the second
`17· ·petition that Rovi -- Patent Owner's
`18· ·Response, Rovi filed, they did not
`19· ·raise the General Plastics issue.
`20· ·They didn't raise the same defense,
`21· ·with regard to ITC proceedings.· Nor
`22· ·did they raise this concept
`23· ·subjective, good faith response.· So I
`24· ·think it's premature for us to
`25· ·determine whether or not we would seek
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· ·a reply in those cases.· They actually
`·2· ·raise different issues, without having
`·3· ·seen them first.
`·4· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· So you're
`·5· ·requesting right now to file the reply
`·6· ·in which case?
`·7· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· The 741 case, Your
`·8· ·Honor.
`·9· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· There is two
`10· ·IPR's in progress.
`11· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Correct.
`12· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· So do you want to
`13· ·file --
`14· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· It would be in both
`15· ·of those cases we would file that
`16· ·reply.· They raise similar issues in
`17· ·both cases.
`18· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.· I will
`19· ·give Patent Owner a chance to respond.
`20· · · · Patent Owner would you like to
`21· ·respond to Petitioner's argument?
`22· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· Thank you, Your
`23· ·Honor.· It's not a whole lot of new
`24· ·information, at least to this point.
`25· ·The number and the scope of a filings
`
`·1· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· Yes,
`·2· ·absolutely.· And thank you again, Your
`·3· ·Honor.· At this point, we would like
`·4· ·to, obviously remind the Board, that
`·5· ·there needs to be some sort of showing
`·6· ·of good cause that is required to
`·7· ·warrant a reply to Patent Owner's
`·8· ·Response both in these proceedings and
`·9· ·in all other proceedings, as well.
`10· ·And we have tried to be amenable to
`11· ·the Petitioner up till this point.· To
`12· ·see if we can come to agreement on
`13· ·what that good cause may be.· However,
`14· ·we have not seen any good cause set
`15· ·forth.· There is various case law that
`16· ·actually is right on point for both of
`17· ·the two issues that Patent Owner
`18· ·wishes to address in its reply.· I can
`19· ·give the Board those citations, if you
`20· ·would like?· The first one is
`21· ·IPR-2018-00264.· And in that
`22· ·particular proceeding, the exact same
`23· ·issues, Point 1, were addressed.
`24· ·Those being arguments related to the
`25· ·325d, 314 and the General Plastic
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`·1· ·by Petitioner is correct.· We would
`·2· ·just add the fact that, you know,
`·3· ·there will be slight differences
`·4· ·between our various filings in
`·5· ·different cases.· Some of the
`·6· ·deficiencies that we note in our
`·7· ·various P.O. P.R.'s are more evident
`·8· ·or more apparent in certain
`·9· ·proceedings and require more prominent
`10· ·discussion with one person's of the
`11· ·other.· So there won't be exact
`12· ·duplication across the P.O. P.R.'s.
`13· ·We are trying to leverage the
`14· ·similarities as much as possible
`15· ·across everything.
`16· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.· Did Patent
`17· ·Owner oppose the five page reply in
`18· ·231 and 232; is that correct?
`19· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· That's correct,
`20· ·Your Honor.
`21· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Does Patent Owner
`22· ·want to respond to what Petitioner
`23· ·said so far with respect to the -- to
`24· ·allow that reply in those two
`25· ·proceedings?
`
`·1· · factors.· In that case, the Board
`·2· ·found that, you know, merely
`·3· ·wanting --
`·4· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Is this in your
`·5· ·Preliminary Response?· Sorry.· Were
`·6· ·these cases mentioned in your
`·7· ·Preliminary Response?
`·8· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· So this
`·9· ·particular IPR proceeding was not.
`10· ·However, the underlining case law, the
`11· ·325d to 314 arguments, when they are
`12· ·proper and when they are not proper
`13· ·were addressed in the P.O. P.R.
`14· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.
`15· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Your Honor, I don't
`16· ·believe we have been given an
`17· ·opportunity to articulate our good
`18· ·cause.· We would be happy to do that,
`19· ·if you would like?· I think we just
`20· ·set forth the basis of what we were
`21· ·going to argue.· We didn't really
`22· ·provide the underlying rationale for
`23· ·that, and I can do that very quickly,
`24· ·in just a couple of minutes, if I were
`25· ·permitted to?
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Yes.· You may go
`·2· ·ahead.
`·3· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Okay.· So good
`·4· ·cause is typically grounded in
`·5· ·unanticipated arguments.· Arguments
`·6· ·that misrepresent the law or
`·7· ·misrepresent the facts, or were case
`·8· ·dispositive issues are in play.· We
`·9· ·believe all three grounds are good
`10· ·cause in this action.· The General
`11· ·Plastics criteria case law has never
`12· ·been applied to an ITC proceeding.
`13· ·There are two cases on point, where
`14· ·the PTAB has in fact rejected ITC
`15· ·proceedings as a basis for applying to
`16· ·General Plastics arguments.· Those two
`17· ·cases are Samsung v. BitMicro, as well
`18· ·as, Wirtgen.· And there's a number of
`19· ·reasons that the ITC has never been
`20· ·applied to the General Plastics
`21· ·factor.· And a Samsung case, Your
`22· ·Honor, was not cited to the PTAB.
`23· ·They did cite the Wirtgen case, but
`24· ·only in a very dismissive manner.· And
`25· ·so there is a number of reasons.· And
`
`·1· ·Petitioner include some of these
`·2· ·arguments in the petition?
`·3· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· We didn't, Your
`·4· ·Honor, because we didn't anticipate
`·5· ·they would make a General Plastics
`·6· ·argument.· It is never been upheld.
`·7· ·The two decisions that in fact
`·8· ·rejected applying General Plastics to
`·9· ·ITC came out in January of this year.
`10· ·And so this is an unanticipated
`11· ·argument that we didn't anticipate.
`12· ·And so we did not make those in our
`13· ·petition.
`14· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.
`15· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· And then there is a
`16· ·whole series of arguments that Comcast
`17· ·somehow tailored its argument based on
`18· ·things that happened in the ITC. I
`19· ·would say there is no proof of that
`20· ·whatsoever.· We filed 35 petitions in
`21· ·roughly 10 months.· And so that is a
`22· ·very short timeframe to put together
`23· ·all the arguments and file those
`24· ·petitions.· And they were filed less
`25· ·than a month after the Markman order
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`·1· ·so the Wirtgen case was on identical
`·2· ·grounds in the ITC and the PTAB.· And
`·3· ·yet, the PTAB rejected that.· In this
`·4· ·case, there is also several
`·5· ·misstatement of facts.· For example,
`·6· ·23 of the 26 claims at issue in the
`·7· ·PTAB proceedings are not at issue in
`·8· ·the ITC.· So the ITC only has three
`·9· ·claims.· The grounds in the ITC are
`10· ·different.· The ITC only asserts
`11· ·anticipation grounds and that is
`12· ·what's going to trial.· And only on
`13· ·three of the claims.· In the PTAB
`14· ·proceedings, we have obviousness.· We
`15· ·have two different combinations.
`16· ·Neither of those combinations were
`17· ·made in the ITC case.· The PTAB case
`18· ·has different Claim Constructions.
`19· ·BRI versus Philips.· And different
`20· ·evidentiary standards.· More
`21· ·importantly, the ITC cases are not
`22· ·dispositive.· Any decision in the ITC
`23· ·case has little, if any, in fact on
`24· ·the District Court.· Basically --
`25· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Does the
`
`·1· ·issued in the ITC case.· So we believe
`·2· ·there is good cause to be able to file
`·3· ·a short reply.· The second issue is
`·4· ·the subjective belief of the correct
`·5· ·Claim Construction.· So the rules only
`·6· ·require the Petitioner to put forth a
`·7· ·construction in the case.· There was a
`·8· ·Western Digital case v. SPEX, which is
`·9· ·directly on point and held that the
`10· ·Petitioner does not have to cite it's
`11· ·subjective belief of the correctness
`12· ·of the Claim Construction.· That case
`13· ·was not cited to, Your Honor, and we
`14· ·believe they put forth an incorrect
`15· ·and wrong statement of the law in the
`16· ·Patent Owner's Preliminary Response.
`17· ·Additionally Your Honor, there is a
`18· ·statement of fact that is also
`19· ·twisted.· Although we had put forth a
`20· ·Means-Plus Function language for
`21· ·control circuitry and storage
`22· ·circuitry, later the parties agreed on
`23· ·construction of storage circuitry, and
`24· ·the ITC overruled the Petitioner
`25· ·American Construction of control
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· ·circuitry.· Hence, the Petitioner used
`·2· ·the construction adopted by the ITC.
`·3· ·And there is no requirement for us in
`·4· ·our petition to form a subjective
`·5· ·belief that the ITC's construction is
`·6· ·correct in order to put that forth in
`·7· ·our petition.· So we believe that the
`·8· ·because the position's that the Patent
`·9· ·Owner has taken are contrary to the
`10· ·correct law, as found by the PTAB and
`11· ·other panel, we believe -- and the
`12· ·facts are obscured and misrepresented
`13· ·on number of issues.· We believe that
`14· ·it is proper good cause to reply in
`15· ·this case, Your Honor.
`16· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· I will give
`17· ·Patent Owner a chance to respond. I
`18· ·think Patent Owner -- sorry, I
`19· ·interjected.· Patent Owner raised one
`20· ·case.· One cite.· It was
`21· ·IPR2018-00264.· I think Patent Owner
`22· ·was going to bring that up another
`23· ·cite?
`24· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· That's correct,
`25· ·Your Honor.· So on that first citation
`
`·1· ·extension of the petition in a way to
`·2· ·circumvent the 14,000 word limit for
`·3· ·the petition.· And I would set for
`·4· ·that the two petitions, the matters
`·5· ·that are before us here, one was filed
`·6· ·in three words below the limit.· The
`·7· ·other one was filed at twenty-one
`·8· ·words before the limit.· Therefore, I
`·9· ·think that the Petitioner would be
`10· ·hard-pressed to argue that they
`11· ·weren't aware of the General Plastics
`12· ·or its applicability to this instance,
`13· ·because not only did we raise the
`14· ·co-pending ITC in our P.O. P.R., we
`15· ·also raised the fact that there is a
`16· ·co-pending District Court case that
`17· ·also has the same patents in there,
`18· ·which the ITC decision would have been
`19· ·highly relevant towards and could be
`20· ·taken to that forum and the issue is
`21· ·adjudicated there, as well.· As far as
`22· ·the second point, the point about
`23· ·Claim Construction.· The additional
`24· ·case that we wanted to put forth
`25· ·before, Your Honor, was IPR2017-01841.
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`·1· ·the 2018-00264 case, I will address
`·2· ·each in Petitioner's two issues, which
`·3· ·they believe give them good cause. I
`·4· ·will address the first one first.· So
`·5· ·that particular citation relates to
`·6· ·issues relating to 325d, 314 and
`·7· ·General Plastics factor.· And in that
`·8· ·case, the positions that were being
`·9· ·presented to the Board were eerily
`10· ·similar ones being presented here.
`11· ·And the Board found in that particular
`12· ·case that the General Plastics and all
`13· ·the case relating to 325d and 214,
`14· ·were readily available to the
`15· ·Petitioner prior to filing their
`16· ·petition.· It wasn't intervening case
`17· ·law.· They were things that Petitioner
`18· ·was on notice of and had an
`19· ·opportunity to put in their petition
`20· ·and chose not to do.· One particular
`21· ·line of facts in that case that
`22· ·matches up with this case as well,
`23· ·Your Honor, is that -- in that
`24· ·particular case, the Board deemed
`25· ·Petitioner's request for a reply as an
`
`·1· ·And in that particular case, again,
`·2· ·the Petitioner was requesting a reply
`·3· ·to address various different Claim
`·4· ·Construction issues.· In particularly,
`·5· ·alleged inconsistencies between Claim
`·6· ·Constructions presented in the IPR
`·7· ·addition and Claim Constructions
`·8· ·presented in a different forum.· And
`·9· ·in that particular case, the Board
`10· ·came to the conclusion that, you know,
`11· ·it had all the records and information
`12· ·in front of them.· Both parties had
`13· ·cited various constructions, which is
`14· ·also the case here.· And therefore no
`15· ·new briefing was needed because they
`16· ·had everything that they needed.· So
`17· ·we just wanted to put those two
`18· ·instances in front of Your Honor, and
`19· ·identify the fact that the issues
`20· ·being raised by Petitioner,
`21· ·essentially go to the argument, which
`22· ·can be resolved and which will be
`23· ·resolved in the institution decision
`24· ·phase and don't actually amount to a
`25· ·good cause or a reason why these
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·particular issues were foreseeable.
`·2· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· This is not --
`·3· ·what I am about to say is not the --
`·4· ·be taken from the perspective of what
`·5· ·we might decide, but hypothetically,
`·6· ·if we were to decide to give
`·7· ·Petitioner the additional reply, would
`·8· ·Patent Owner want a sir-reply?
`·9· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· Yes, we would,
`10· ·Your Honor.
`11· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Would Patent
`12· ·Owner be able to file that -- say,
`13· ·would 5 pages be sufficient and file
`14· ·it within a week or 5 to 7 days?
`15· · · · ·MR. RICHARDSON:· Yes, Your
`16· ·Honor.
`17· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.· I will
`18· ·give Petitioner a quick chance to
`19· ·respond.· One quick question for
`20· ·Petitioner.· If we were to decide, for
`21· ·example, and again, this is just a
`22· ·hypothetical.· If we were to decide
`23· ·that maybe one of these issues -- you
`24· ·know, we thought that there was a good
`25· ·cause, but not the other, say it was
`
`·1· ·deal with the ITC and the
`·2· ·applicability of General Plastics to
`·3· ·the ITC, as far as, I could tell on a
`·4· ·quick read.· And the other case cited
`·5· ·by Patent Owner, 2017-01841, which
`·6· ·regard to subjective belief, that case
`·7· ·doesn't deal at all with subjective
`·8· ·belief, as far as I could tell.· So
`·9· ·the cases that are on point, those two
`10· ·issues, weren't cited by Patent Owner,
`11· ·and we believe will be helpful to the
`12· ·Board in these two cases that they
`13· ·have just cited are in fact not
`14· ·unpointed either.· Thank you, Your
`15· ·Honor.
`16· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Thank you.· Let
`17· ·me just check to see if any one else
`18· ·on the Panel has any other questions.
`19· · · · ·We're going to take your
`20· ·arguments under advisement.· Thank you
`21· ·to both parties and the court reporter
`22· ·for your participation today, and
`23· ·we're adjourned.
`24
`25· · · · ·(Time Noted: 2:21 P.M.)
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`·1· ·the 325 and 314 or the other way
`·2· ·around, I assume that would effect the
`·3· ·number of pages Petitioner would ask
`·4· ·for?· You know, 2 or 3 pages each and
`·5· ·5 total?
`·6· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· Your Honor, we were
`·7· ·thinking 5 total.· The General
`·8· ·Plastics argument is slightly longer.
`·9· ·We certainly won't file more than a
`10· ·reasonable amount.· So I haven't
`11· ·really articulated which goes to
`12· ·which.· So sometimes it's hard to do
`13· ·anything in 2 pages.
`14· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Right.· Okay.
`15· ·That's helpful.
`16· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· So Your Honor, if I
`17· ·could just very briefly reply to the
`18· ·two cases that Patent has mentioned
`19· ·for the first time here on the phone.
`20· ·I have just -- less than a minute
`21· ·reply on both of those, if I could be
`22· ·permitted?
`23· · · · ·JUDGE PARVIS:· Okay.
`24· · · · ·MR. MEEKER:· So Patent Owner
`25· ·cited 2018-00264.· That case doesn't
`
`·1
`
`·2· · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T I O N
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · ·I, Jessica DiLallo, a Notary
`
`·6· ·Public for and within the State of New
`
`·7· ·York, do hereby certify:
`
`·8· · · · ·THAT, the within transcript is a
`
`·9· ·true record of the testimony given by
`
`10· ·said parties.
`
`11· · · · ·I further certify that I am not
`
`12· ·related either by blood or marriage to
`
`13· ·any of the parties to this action; and
`
`14· ·that I am in no way interested in the
`
`15· ·outcome of this matter.
`
`16
`
`17· · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
`
`18· ·hereunto set my hand this day,
`
`19· ·March 11, 2019.
`
`20
`
`21· · _________________
`
`22· ·(Jessica DiLallo)
`
`23
`
`24· · · · · · ·*· · · · · *· · · · · *
`
`25
`
`
`
`arguments
`5:10 8:24 9:11 10:5,16
`12:2,16,23 20:20
`
`10:17
`
`HEARING
`
`-— 03/11/2019
`
`il
`
`applied
`10:12,20
`
`applying
`10:15 12:8
`
`argue
`9:21 16:10
`
`argument
`6:21 12:6,11,17 17:21
`19:8
`
`arranged
`3:21 4:1
`
`articulate
`9:17
`
`articulated
`19:11
`
`asserts
`11:10
`
`assume
`19:2
`
`aware
`16:11
`
`B2
`3:4
`
`based
`12:17
`
`Basically
`11:24
`
`basis
`9:20 10:15
`
`Bayne
`3:10
`
`belief
`4:18 13:4,11 14:5 20:6,
`
`8 B
`
`itmicro
`
`8:25 9:11 15:6,13
`
`35
`5:14 12:20
`
`5
`
`18:13,14 19:5,7
`
`5-page
`4:22
`
`9,369,741
`3:4
`
`A
`
`absolutely
`8:2
`
`action
`4:14 10:10
`
`add
`7:2
`
`addition
`17:7
`
`additional
`5:8 16:23 18:7
`
`Additionally
`13:17
`
`address
`8:18 15:1,4 17:3
`
`addressed
`8:23 9:13
`
`adjourned
`20:23
`
`adjudicated
`16:21
`
`Administrative
`3:7
`
`adopted
`14:2
`
`advisement
`20:20
`
`afternoon
`3:20
`
`agreed
`13:22
`
`agreement
`8:12
`
`ahead
`10:2
`
`alleged
`17:5
`
`amenable
`8:10
`
`American
`13:25
`
`amount
`17:24 19:10
`
`anticipate
`12:4,11
`
`anticipation
`14:11
`
`apparent
`7:8
`
`applicability
`16:12 20:2
`
`19:4,13
`
`2017-01841
`20:5
`
`2018-00264
`15:1 19:25
`
`214
`15:13
`
`23
`11:6
`
`231
`4:23 7:18
`
`232
`3:3 4:23 7:18
`
`25
`5:7
`
`26
`5:7 11:6
`
`2:21
`
`3
`
`19:4
`
`314
`8:25 9:11 15:6 19:1
`
`325
`19:1
`
`325d
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions —- Washington, DC
`www.deposition.com/washington-dc.htm
`1-800-292-4789
`
`
`
`5:23
`
`case
`6:6,7 8:15 9:1,10 10:7,
`11,21,23 11:1,4,17,23
`13:1,7,8,12 14:15,20
`15:1,8,12,13,16,21,22,
`24 16:16,24 17:1,9,14
`19:25 20:4,6
`
`Board
`8:4,19 9:1 15:9,11,24
`17:9 20:12
`
`BRI
`11:19
`
`brief's
`5:12
`
`briefing
`17:15
`
`briefly
`19:17
`
`bring
`14:22
`
`Cable
`3:5
`
`call
`3:2 4:2,8,9
`
`cases
`4:23 5:12,16 6:1,15,17
`7:5 9:6 10:13,17 11:21
`19:18 20:9,12
`
`challenged
`5:6
`
`challenges
`3:3
`
`chance
`6:19 14:17 18:18
`
`check
`20:17
`
`chose
`15:20
`
`circuitry
`13:21,22.23 14:1
`
`circumvent
`16:2
`
`citation
`14:25 15:5
`
`citations
`8:19
`
`cite
`10:23 13:10 14:20,23
`
`cited
`10:22 13:13 17:13
`19:25 20:4,10,13
`
`Claim
`11:18 13:5,12 16:23
`17:3,5,7
`
`claims
`11:6,9,13
`
`co-pending
`16:14,16
`
`combinations
`11:15,16
`
`Comcast
`3:5 5:6 12:16
`
`Communications
`3:5
`
`concept
`5:22
`
`conclusion
`17:10
`
`construction
`4:19 13:5,7,12,23,25
`14:2,5 16:23 17:4
`
`constructions
`11:18 17:6,7,13
`
`contrary
`14:9
`
`control
`13:21,25
`
`correct
`4:24 6:11 7:1,18,19
`13:4 14:6,10,24
`
`correctness
`4:18 13:11
`
`couple
`9:24
`
`court
`3:21 4:1 11:24 16:16
`20:21
`
`criteria
`10:11
`
`days
`5:2 18:14
`
`deal
`20:1,7
`
`decide
`18:5,6,20,22
`
`decision
`11:22 16:18 17:23
`
`decisions
`12:7
`
`deemed
`15:24
`
`defense
`5:20
`
`deficiencies
`76
`
`determine
`5:25
`
`differences
`73
`
`Digital
`13:8
`
`directly
`13:9
`
`discussion
`7:10
`
`dismissive
`10:24
`
`dispositive
`10:8 11:22
`
`District
`11:24 16:16
`
`HEARING
`
`- 03/11/2019
`
`12
`
`duplication
`7:12
`
`E
`
`Eastholm
`3:9
`
`eerily
`15:9
`
`effect
`19:2
`
`Eisenberg
`3:18
`
`Epiq
`3:24
`
`essentially
`17:21
`
`evident
`7:7
`
`evidentiary
`11:20
`
`exact
`7:11 8:22
`
`exhibit
`4:3
`
`extension
`16:1
`
`fact
`7:2 10:14 11:23 12:7
`13:18 16:15 17:19
`20:13
`
`factor
`10:21 15:7
`
`factors
`4:16 9:1
`
`facts
`10:7 11:5 14:12 15:21
`
`faith
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions —- Washington, DC
`www.deposition.com/washington-dc.htm
`1-800-292-4789
`
`
`
`6:23
`
`Honor
`3:14,19,23 4:5,11,25
`5:13 6:8,23 7:20 8:3
`9:15 10:22 12:4 13:13,
`17 14:15,25 15:23
`16:25 17:18 18:10,16
`19:6,16 20:15
`
`4:11,13 10:9 11:2,9,11
`
`Guides
`3:6
`
`H
`
`happened
`12:18
`
`happy
`9:18
`
`hard
`19:12
`
`hard-pressed
`16:10
`
`held
`13:9
`
`helpful
`19:15 20:11
`
`highly
`16:19
`
`file
`4:2,10 5:1,9 6:5,13,15
`12:23 13:2 18:12,13
`19:9
`
`filed
`5:18 12:20,24 16:5,7
`
`filing
`4:15 15:15
`
`filings
`6:25 7:4
`
`Fink
`3:9
`
`foreseeable
`18:1
`
`form
`14:4
`
`forum
`16:20 17:8
`
`found
`9:2 14:10 15:11
`
`Fred
`3:13
`
`front
`17:12,18
`
`Function
`13:20
`
`hypothetical
`18:22
`
`hypothetically
`18:5
`
`identical
`11:1
`
`identify
`17:19
`
`importantly
`14:21
`
`include
`12:1
`
`General
`4:16 5:19 8:25 10:10,
`16,20 12:5,8 15:7,12
`16:11 19:7 20:2
`
`give
`6:19 8:19 14:16 15:3
`18:6,18
`
`good
`3:20 4:12 5:23 8:6,13,
`14 9:17 10:3,9 13:2
`14:14 15:3 17:25 18:24
`
`grounded
`10:4
`
`grounds
`
`HEARING
`
`-— 03/11/2019
`
`13
`
`inconsistencies
`17:5
`
`Incorporated
`3:7
`
`incorrect
`13:14
`
`information
`6:24 17:11
`
`ITC
`4:14 5:21 10:12,14,19
`11:2,8,9,10,17,21,22
`12:9,18 13:1,24 14:2
`16:14,18 20:1,3
`
`ITC's
`14:5
`
`instance
`16:12
`
`instances
`17:18
`
`institution
`17:23
`
`interjected
`14:19
`
`intervening
`15:16
`
`involve
`3:3
`
`involving
`5:5,7
`
`IPR
`4:15 9:9 17:6
`
`IPR's
`3:3 5:8 6:10
`
`IPR-2018-00264
`8:21
`
`IPR2017-01841
`16:25
`
`IPR2018-00264
`14:21
`
`IPR2019-00231
`3:2
`
`issue
`5:19 11:6,7 13:3 16:20
`
`issued
`13:1
`
`issues
`6:2,16 8:17,23 10:8
`14:13 15:2,6 17:4,19
`18:1,23 20:10
`
`January
`12:9
`
`Jason
`3:18
`
`Jessica
`3:24
`
`Judge
`3:1,8,9,15,20,25 4:6,21
`5:3 6:4,9,12,18 7:16,21
`9:4,14 10:1 11:25 12:14
`14:16 18:2,11,17 19:14,
`23 20:16
`
`Judges
`3:9
`
`language
`13:20
`
`law
`8:15 9:10 10:6,11 13:15
`14:10 15:17
`
`leverage
`7:13
`
`limit
`16:2,6,8
`
`LLC
`3:5
`
`longer
`19:8
`
`lot
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions —- Washington, DC
`www.deposition.com/washington-dc.htm
`1-800-292-4789
`
`
`
`HEARING
`
`-— 03/11/2019
`
`14
`
`P.r.'s.
`7:12
`
`pages
`18:13 19:3,4,13
`
`panel
`14:11 20:18
`
`participation
`20:22
`
`petitions
`5:15 12:20,24 16:4
`
`phase
`17:24
`
`Philips
`11:19
`
`phone
`19:19
`
`parties
`13:22 17:12 20:21
`
`Plastic
`4:16 8:25
`
`Parvis
`3:1,8,15,20,25 4:6,21
`5:3 6:4,9,12,18 7:16,21
`9:4,14 10:1 11:25 12:14
`14:16 18:2,11,17 19:14,
`23 20:16
`
`7:9
`
`note
`7:6
`
`Noted
`20:25
`
`notice
`15:18
`
`number
`6:25 10:18,25 14:13
`19:3
`
`Oo
`
`obscured
`14:12
`
`obviousness
`11:14
`
`opportunity
`9:17 15:19
`
`oppose
`7:17
`
`order
`12:25 14:6
`
`overruled
`13:24
`
`Owner
`3:6,16 5:9 6:19,20 7:17,
`21 8:17 14:9,17,18,19,
`21 18:8,12 19:24 20:5,
`10
`
`Owner's
`5:17 8:7 13:16
`
`P
`
`P.M.
`20:25
`
`P.O.
`7:7,12 9:13 16:14
`
`P.R.
`9:13 16:14
`
`P.r.'s
`7:7
`
`made
`11:17
`
`make
`12:5,12
`
`manner
`10:24
`
`Markman
`12:25
`
`matches
`15:22
`
`matters
`16:4
`
`Means-plus
`13:20
`
`Meeker
`3:13,23 4:4,9,25 5:13
`6:7,11,14 9:15 10:3
`12:3,15 19:6,16,24
`
`mentioned
`9:6 19:18
`
`minute
`19:20
`
`minutes
`9:24
`
`misrepresent
`10:6,7
`
`misrepresented
`14:12
`
`misstatement
`11:5
`
`month
`12:25
`
`months
`12:21
`
`needed
`17:15,16
`
`party
`3:25
`
`patent
`3:4,6,8,16 5:4,9,17
`6:19,20 7:16,21 8:7,17
`13:16 14:8,17,18,19,21
`18:8,11 19:18,24 20:5,
`10
`
`patents
`5:5,15 16:17
`
`permitted
`9:25 19:22
`
`person's
`7:10
`
`perspective
`18:4
`
`petition
`4:15,20 5:17 12:2,13
`14:4,7 15:16,19 16:1,3
`
`Petitioner
`3:4,11 4:5,7,17 5:8,11
`7:1,22 8:11 12:1 13:6,
`10,24 14:1 15:15,17
`16:9 17:2,20 18:7,18,20
`19:3
`
`Petitioner's
`6:21 15:2,25
`
`Plastics
`5:19 10:11,16,20 12:5,8
`15:7,12 16:11 19:8 20:2
`
`play
`10:8
`
`point
`6:24 8:3,11,16,23 10:13
`13:9 16:22 20:9
`
`position's
`14:8
`
`positions
`15:8
`
`preclude
`4:14
`
`preliminary
`5:10 9:5,7 13:16
`
`premature
`5:24
`
`presented
`15:9,10 17:6,8
`
`prior
`15:15
`
`proceeding
`8:22 9:9 10:12
`
`proceedings
`5:21 7:9,25 8:8,9 10:15
`11:7,14
`
`progress
`6:10
`
`prominent
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions —- Washington, DC
`www.deposition.com/washington-dc.htm
`1-800-292-4789
`
`
`
`HEARING
`
`-— 03/11/2019
`
`i5
`
`respond
`6:19,21 7:22 14:17
`18:19
`
`response
`5:18,23 8:8 9:5,7 13:16
`
`responses
`5:11
`
`Richardson
`3:17,18 6:22 7:19 8:1
`9:8 14:24 18:9,15
`
`roughly
`12:21
`
`Rovi
`3:6 5:17,18
`
`rules
`13:5
`
`Ryan
`3:17
`
`S
`
`Samsung
`10:17,21
`
`scope
`6:25
`
`seek
`5:25
`
`seeking
`5:11
`
`series
`5:16 12:16
`
`7:14
`
`sir-reply
`18:8
`
`slight
`7:3
`
`slightly
`19:8
`
`sort
`8:5
`
`spanning
`5:15
`
`specific
`4:11
`
`SPEX
`13:8
`
`standards
`11:20
`
`start
`4:7
`
`statement
`13:15,18
`
`storage
`13:21,23
`
`subjective
`4:18 5:23 13:4,11 14:4
`20:6,7
`
`sufficient
`18:13
`
`8:11
`
`reply
`4:10,22 5:12 6:1,5,16
`7:17,24 8:7,18 13:3
`14:14 15:25 17:2 18:7
`19:17,21
`
`proof
`12:19
`
`proper
`9:12 14:14
`
`provide
`9:22
`
`PTAB
`10:14,22 11:2,3,7,13,17
`14:10
`
`put
`12:22 13:6,14,19 14:6
`15:19 16:24 17:17
`
`Q
`
`question
`18:19
`
`questions
`20:18
`
`quick
`18:18,19 20:4
`
`quickly
`5:1 9:23
`
`raise
`5:19,20,22 6:2,16 16:13
`
`raised
`14:19 16:15 17:20
`
`rationale
`9:22
`
`read
`20:4
`
`readily
`15:14
`
`reason
`4:7 17:25
`
`reasonable
`19:10
`
`reasons
`10:19,25
`
`records
`17:11
`
`regard
`5:21 20:6
`
`rejected
`10:14 11:3 12:8
`
`related
`8:24
`
`relates
`15:5
`
`relating
`15:6,13
`
`relevant
`16:19
`
`remind
`8:4
`
`reporter
`3:22 4:1 20:21
`
`Reporting
`3:24
`
`representing
`3:11,16
`
`request
`15:25
`
`requesting
`6:5 17:2
`
`require
`7:9 13:6
`
`required
`8:6
`
`requirement
`14:3
`
`resolved
`17:22,23
`
`respect
`7:23
`
`set
`4:19 8:14 9:20 16:3
`
`short
`12:22 13:3
`
`show
`4:17
`
`showing
`8:5
`
`similar
`5:9 6:16 15:10
`
`similarities
`
`tailored
`12:17
`
`things
`12:18 15:17
`
`thinking
`19:7
`
`thought
`18:24
`
`till
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions —- Washington, DC
`www.deposition.com/washington-dc.htm
`1-800-292-4789
`
`
`
`HEARING
`
`- 03/11/2019
`
`time
`19:19 20:25
`
`timeframe
`12:22
`
`today
`3:12 4:8 20:22
`
`total
`5:4,14 19:5,7
`
`transcript
`4:2
`
`trial
`11:12
`
`twenty-one
`16:7
`
`twisted
`13:19
`
`typically
`10:4
`
`U
`
`16:24 17:17
`
`wanting
`9:3
`
`warrant
`8:7
`
`week
`18:14
`
`Western
`13:8
`
`whatsoever
`12:20
`
`Wirtgen
`10:18,23 11:1
`
`wishes
`8:18
`
`word
`16:2
`
`words
`16:6,8
`
`wrong
`13:15
`
`16
`
`unanticipated
`10:5 12:10
`
`underlining
`9:10
`
`underlying
`9:22
`
`unpointed
`20:14
`
`upheld
`12:6
`
`versus
`11:19
`
`Vice-chief
`3:8
`
`W
`
`DC
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions —- Washington,
`www.deposition.com/washington-dc.htm
`1-800-292-4789
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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