Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 27
`Entered:
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., BLACKBERRY CORP., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 3, 2020
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 27
`Entered:
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., BLACKBERRY CORP., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 3, 2020
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`AYAN ROY-CHOWDHURY, Ph.D., J.D.
`Fish & Richardson
`1000 Maine Ave, SW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`ROBERTO J. DEVOTO, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson
`1425 K Street, NW
`11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRIAN M. KOIDE, ESQUIRE
`Etheride Law Group, PLLC
`2600 East Southlake Blvd.
`Suite 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`March 3, 2020, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE COCKS: Please be seated. Good morning, welcome to the
`
`Board. We are here today for a consolidated oral hearing in connection with
`two proceedings, IPR 2019-00222 and 00252, both involving patent
`7,167,487.
`I am Judge Cocks. I am joined remotely by Judges Horvath and
`Weinshenk, and let’s start with introduction to counsel. Counsel for
`Petitioner please state their appearance.
`
`MR. RENNER: Good morning, Your Honors, Carl Renner and I'm
`joined by colleagues Rob Devoto and Ayan Roy-Chowdhury, as well as
`representatives for Apple and Samsung. Matt Clements from Apple, and
`Julie Han from Samsung.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Renner. And counsel for
`Patent Owner please state their appearance.
`
`MR. KOIDE: Good morning, Your Honors. My name is Brian Koide
`for Patent Owner.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Koide. So as we've set
`forth in the trial hearing order, both sides have 75 minutes of argument time.
`Petitioner bears the burden of showing unpatentability and will argue first
`and may reserve rebuttal time.
`The Patent Owner will then argue their opposition and may reserve
`sur rebuttal time. Petitioner will then use their time for rebuttal and if Patent
`Owner wishes they can argue their sur rebuttal.
`So that being said, a couple of housekeeping matters first. We do
`have two remote judges and they cannot see the demonstrative screen but
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`they have copies but please refer to the Slide of the Slide deck when you are
`arguing.
`And another matter, we had mentioned in a call yesterday there may
`be some disagreement as to the contents of the party's demonstratives. We
`don’t have standing objections in these proceedings so please wait until it's
`your time to speak to voice a disagreement. Petitioner, whenever you're
`ready you may begin.
`
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. And from a housekeeping
`standpoint we'll try to reserve 25 minutes, please, of our time. And we'll be
`referring to the Bishop declarations, both that furnished with the original
`Petition as well as the supplemental declaration at some points here so it
`may be helpful to get those loaded up as well.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: And one more thing before you start. Judge
`Horvath and Weinshenk can you hear the proceedings?
`
`JUDGE HORVATH: Yes, I can
`
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: I can too, thank you
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Thank you, okay. Go ahead, Mr. Renner.
`
`MR. RENNER: Okay. Well, may it please the board? Today we
`intend to focus our attention on really two issues. First is the public
`disclosure and public accessibility of R2-010182 reference that’s been
`asserted for unpatentability and second is the alleged shortcomings of the
`Piesa reference.
`I'll be taking on the public accessibility and my colleague, Rob
`Devoto, will be standing up after me and taking on the issue of the alleged
`shortcomings.
`We don’t plan to take our time today talking about the application of
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`R2-010182 to the claims. We think that only the issue that was raised, we
`thought was clearly addressed in the Petitioner’s reply, but if we're wrong
`and it wasn’t as clear to you as it was to us, we're certainly happy to take any
`questions that you may have on that, and that was, Mr. Devoto will be
`prepared to do just that.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you
`
`MR. RENNER: With that, public accessibility. If we go to Slide 11,
`over 19 years have passed since the critical date in this case. There's been a
`long time that’s passed and the prior art that’s at issue as well.
`And as we know this prior are was discussed at a conference and
`distributed to conference participants and yet this record shows substantial
`and importantly unrebutted evidence that bears on the R2-010182's public
`accessibility and standing as available before the critical date of May 21,
`2002.
`And that’s by virtue of being made publically available both to the
`participants of a proceeding and a meeting number 18 at the 3GPP
`conference Working Group 2, as well as its indication as available on the
`public file server that’s maintained in accordance with the 3GPP
`proceedings.
`At the time of the filing of the Petition, the Nokia Solutions case
`which was mentioned in the Petition had come down, and it had addressed
`3GPP reference materials much like what we have here and it had found
`public accessibility, the Board did in that case. So we framed our proofs
`consistent with what was shown there and in fact we went quite a bit further.
`In this case, as you can see, there was a discussion that involved this
`reference at a conference meeting. That is, meeting 18, we'll talk quite a bit
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`about that, that’s prior to the date of, the critical date. There was no such
`conference that was discussed in the Nokia Solutions case.
`Additionally this document was made publicly available as mentioned
`on the public FTP server that 3GPP maintains by January 23rd, which is
`about four days after that conference proceeding had ended and that was
`consistent with what we find from Mr. Bishop, the general standard
`operations of the 3GPP organization.
`Slide 19 please. So whether applying factors that were mentioned in
`the Nokia Solutions case or even the actual test that was discussed in there,
`which was coming from this SRI case that was a Federal Circuit 2008
`decision, or looking at the articulation of really the same standard by
`Infobridge which was later cited and, in this record, briefed.
`We find that this record has got ample evidence to demonstrate that
`people of skill, people who are interested in this subject matter with
`reasonable diligence could certainly access this document.
`That standard, it’s worth looking at that standard and the key parts of
`it, are that interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter is the person
`that you're going to look at, that’s the standard you're looking through the
`lens of, and it's their exercise of reasonable diligence that you have to
`evaluate as to whether they would have this public accessibility.
`That was stated in the SRI case as mentioned, but it was also
`articulated in that Infobridge case. And there, I'll quote, the standard for
`public accessibility is whether a person of ordinary skill in there art could,
`not did, but could, after exercising reasonable diligence, that means, after
`taking a step, they could access the reference.
`And this isn’t debated anywhere in the record. The petitioners never
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`contested that this is not the standard. In fact, it's cited to the Nokia
`Solutions to establish this.
`Yet, I find it interesting that Uniloc in its briefings seems to give short
`shrift or lip service to this because they criticize Bishop, the only evidence
`giver on this record, as it relates to public accessibility, they criticize Bishop
`for not having actually touched the document in 2000, 2001.
`They criticize Bishop for not having personal knowledge of the
`document and yet we know that that standard is just, to articulate, it was
`about what you could do as a person of ordinary skill, not what you did do.
`So we find that to be an incredible contention.
`And if you look in the slide in the upper left, we have it briefed here,
`the In re Wyer case where we know that personal knowledge is not
`dispositive or necessary. And Infobridge doubled down. Here’s a quote that
`was cited to on page 3 of the Petitioner’s reply.
`A petitioner need not establish that specific persons actually accessed
`or received a work to show that work was publicly accessible. Well, that
`stands to reason. I mean, when we look at the kind of evidence we are
`looking for here again, it's not evidence that is—that someone did something
`or had a possession—its they could, after reasonable steps, have accessed it.
`And when we see what Bishop has testified to, this makes all the more
`sense.
`As to the document being uploaded onto that public file server,
`Bishop says that Exhibit 1008 which is the R2-010182, he tells us it does
`represent indeed a true and accurate copy of what he found when he went to
`the very cite that he knew he’d find it.
`He knows 3GPP proceedings and he followed his nose using the title
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`of the document, the date of the actual conference, and he was able to
`navigate, and we will talk about how he was able to navigate because people
`of skill as indicated, incidentally, in the Nokia case, they know how to
`navigate this naming convention and the file structure, the hierarchy that is
`used by 3GPP in its public file server.
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, one question.
`MR. RENNER: Please.
`JUDGE COCKS: Would someone have to know the title of the
`document to access it?
`MR. RENNER: No, you wouldn’t have to know it. But if you didn’t
`know it, if you didn’t know it was R2-010182, you’d have to access that
`directory—which he knows how to get there from the hierarchy, because he
`knows the date of the conference.
`But then you would have to open different documents in it because
`they're not identified by their name in the title of the word document. And
`yet here, what we will find is they were made, he was made aware of that
`document. And if you look at the report minutes from the meeting, both in
`draft and final form, we will talk about this a little bit later, but you’ll see
`that those minutes they tell us that R2-010182 was presented.
`It wasn’t that it could have been, or wasn’t that the subject matter of
`the draft, it was R2-010182 was, and it says that R2-010182 was noted.
`That’s actually in the actual minutes.
`Additionally, a rapporteur, or the person who is charged by that
`conference by 3GPP to report on things that were talked about, there was a
`January 30 email from the gentleman who was charged with that to the email
`blast. This is to the 900 subscribers as were those minutes.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`
`And he says again, R2-010182 was discussed during the meeting. So
`there is ample evidence --
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Mr. Renner --
`MR. RENNER: Please.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Is this file server searchable by subject
`matter at all or did you have to click through to know, you know, that this
`happened at this meeting and then find the file, or could you search for it by
`subject matter?
`MR. RENNER: Excellent question. We’re not aware of it being
`searchable and we didn’t try to argue that it was. Instead, what we know is
`that it’s the hierarchy of the server that you can use to find the things on the
`server.
`And when you know the date and the working group of the meeting,
`we know from Bishop that that’s enough to get you to the folder and then
`when you know, because the minutes tell you which was the documents that
`you were looking for, you know the title of the document is R2-010182, then
`you can find that on the server itself. It --
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Is that enough for something to be
`publically accessible under the Federal Circuit’s precedent? I don’t know
`whether I have seen a case where you have to go through and know that a
`meeting happened in order to find it.
`MR. RENNER: Well, its reasonable diligence that someone who is
`interested would have to exercise and so we don’t have a case directly on
`point that shows the 3GPP structure.
`What we have is a bunch of cases that talk about indexing as opposed
`to searching for instance. And indexing is another methodology where
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`you’re following your nose, you're following the ability to go and find
`something through some logical structure and that's just like what 3GPP has
`and we have testimony from Bishop that people who knew 3GPP, not just
`the members, but understood the hierarchy.
`And there is an important fact as well that the address of that folder,
`you’ll find, was advertised to not just members, but every invitation
`recipient. That’s the 934 people that received the invitation. The address is
`right in it.
`Additionally, any email that was sent on January 23, the same day that
`the draft minutes were put forward, that was set forth by the 3GPP secretary,
`it too had the actual document address where this was.
`So the recipients not only had in their possession an email that invites
`them and tells them hey, when documents—and pursuant to 3GPP they will
`be—when documents discussed will be posted, they’ll be posted to this
`address.
`Then they find that after the meeting, even those who weren’t in
`attendance, they see that in fact a document was discussed and they see that
`it was posted, and they know where to go because, yet again, they're directed
`to that same file server location.
`Now they didn’t need to be directed there. I want to be very clear on
`this. They could figure that out. And Bishop, the only testifying witness on
`the record here, as to 3GPP he tells you that they knew that people of skill
`are interested in these proceedings, they would know where to go.
`So we don't think you actually need to rely on those links but they’re
`there. And reasonable diligence with the links in hand, with the
`nomenclature and with the hierarchy, we think it's not beyond someone's
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`reasonable diligence, and nor did these, the Nokia Solutions panel, that
`evaluated this on far fewer facts.
`They didn’t get the kind of detail, they didn’t watch, like paragraphs
`31 to 35 of his declaration here. He shows you, he walks actually through,
`going each step though the hierarchy and getting to, and why he went to
`each step, what he saw and the name and the date of the convention, and to
`finally get to the document. I hope I --
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And the Nokia Solutions case you keep
`mentioning that was just the decision on institution, right?
`MR. RENNER: That’s correct.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: That wasn’t the final decision that was
`appealed to the Federal Circuit?
`MR. RENNER: That’s correct. It’s not a Federal Circuit case, we
`didn’t want to represent otherwise. That’s correct.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. So we're not bound by that in any
`
`way.
`
`MR. RENNER: No, you’re not. But I do believe that it, the logic
`that’s set forth in that was sound. Again, the standard being reasonable
`diligence. It’s notautomatic, you know, we don’t use that here, in this, but
`it's really not turn your brain off, what do you have, I have either got it or I
`don’t.
`It’s, there is a diligence that’s available to a person that's interested,
`and we know that on this record, there is evidence that a person that's
`interested in 3GPP understands that hierarchy. They understanding that
`filing and convention and so we think we can get to the document.
`JUDGE HORVATH: So my understanding of the 3GPP website, or
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`at least the evidence that you’ve put forward, is that the indexing to the
`extent they’re—that the website is indexed—is done by meeting dates and
`locations, is that correct?
`MR. RENNER: That is correct, Your Honor. Yes.
`JUDGE HORVATH: So putting aside the email distribution, where a
`specific address was given, if I just went to the 3GPP website, in order to
`navigate that website, I would have to know something about what the
`meeting structures were and when the meetings, certain meetings were held,
`is that correct?
`MR. RENNER: You’d need to know the working group 2 of the
`RAN2 group was what was meeting, and when they were meeting in 2001,
`correct.
`JUDGE HORVATH: Okay. And so as I recall, I mean, Patent Owner
`cited this case, Infobridge, I believe it was Samsung v. Infobridge, and that
`was a Federal Circuit case, and they were discussing whether or not a
`document that was published on two different websites, one was the Motion
`Picture Experts Group, the other one was a group called the Joint Video
`Conference, JVC dash something.
`MR. RENNER: Mm-hmm.
`JUDGE HORVATH: And it seemed that in the discussion in that case
`the website also was indexed by meeting numbers and dates, meeting places
`and dates. And isn’t it true that in that case the Federal Circuit found that
`that wasn’t sufficiently indexed to be able to locate this particular document
`that was alleged to be prior art?
`MR. RENNER: Your Honor --
`JUDGE HORVATH: And how does this case compare to that then?
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`If in that Infobridge case, giving a list of meetings, places and dates and
`times was insufficient to allow one of skill in the art to navigate that website,
`how is one able to navigate this website, the 3GPP website?
`MR. RENNER: Your Honor, that case re—vacated and remanded on
`whether or not there was an expectation of confidentiality, so I think that
`that case really speaks to if there was distribution, was the distribution tied
`down.
`And I thought the key holding in that case was about confidentiality
`and the lockdown nature of whether or not there was a sufficient amount of
`openness to the material to enable parties to understand what was there as
`something they could use publicly.
`And so our view in that case is that it really speaks more to the notion
`that, in the distinction from this case, where in 3GPP its—all documents are
`open to the public, they’re stated in their FAQ's. There’s, Bishop confirmed
`this. There is no confidentiality, there is no NDA.
`And with the openness that was not only promoted by 3GPP
`generally, but also at the presentation itself, and the blasts that were not just
`to the 3GPP members but those blasts went to non 3GPP members.
`Anybody who was interested in subscribing to this list serve, if you
`will, it's not a—it’s a blast,it’s a reflector—that anybody who subscribes to
`that, they receive the invitations, they receive the draft minutes, they receive
`the final minutes, They receive that email from the rapporteur and there is a
`real openness to 3GPP that we didn’t see in Infobridge, Your Honor.
`Yeah. So we just thought that case was really -- it’s an interesting
`case but that case, and you’ll recall as well, Infobridge dealt with a
`document who had a lot of hands in it. It had those, many authors were
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`listed, and it was thought to be the contribution of the entire organization,
`that’s how it was attributed.
`And so you had an attribution of the recipients, of the people who
`were made aware of that, were all thought to be authors. Here you have a
`very specific Mitsubishi Electronic group. They are the author of a six page
`submission. It’s clearly theirs.
`And specifically as theirs, they've shared it. And there is information,
`there is testimony in this record that says that when a party pushes to that
`list, to the reflector as they did, their draft on the 11th of January for
`instance, that they have no expectation of confidentiality, the information
`that they pushed.
`Here it was that the draft of the 010182 had all the substance of the
`010182. It just had a header that was different. And then, when they later
`presented again, they had no expectation, no reasonable expectation of
`success -- of confidentiality here, and that’s confirmed in the FAQ's page 8
`and page 4 that are briefed in paragraph 22, 23 for instance. There is four
`different places we refer to them.
`And they tell you again that anybody who brings their material,
`essentially, be it a post, a document or a presentation, they have no
`opportunity for confidentiality.
`In fact, quite the contrary. It's said that that reflector is intended to get
`the material out and into the hands of all interested parties, not just members
`of 3GPP.
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, have you taken a position that the
`presentation of the document itself at the meeting is --
`MR. RENNER: We have Your Honor.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: -- public disclosure.
`MR. RENNER: One of the two positions we have really that’s, it’s in
`front of this case, and we really didn’t address as much the issue of whether
`or not the emails themselves, without a web presence to the public -- we do
`know there is a public web presence of the document. That's one form and
`we have been talking about that form.
`Another form that you’re asking about is at the presentation itself, this
`document was discussed and the many minutes verify, as does that January
`30 email that the document was in fact discussed.
`And it was discussed broadly and openly with all people. There were
`95 participants from scores of companies, that’s documented, were there. It
`was shared at the time of that presentation.
`We know the document, from paragraph 35 of the declaration, tells us
`the document’s last modified date was January 16. The meeting conference
`you’ll recall is the 15th through the 19th.
`If you’ll look at the agenda that’s in the invitation for that meeting, it
`tells you that days 1 and 2, the 15th and 16th, they're dedicated to section 4
`documents. This is a section 99 document.
`And there were only section 4 documents talked about in those first
`two days. So this document had to be talked about on the 17th, 18th or 19th
`and that’s after the document was last modified.
`That further corroborates what the document itself tells you. If you
`look at R2-010182, itself identifies that it's being talked about at section 6.1
`and let's really quickly look at that.
`I think that’s an interesting, if I can get us there, but if you look at the
`red line version that we have furnished comparing the draft version of R2-
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`010182 to the final version of that document, and this is found at page 99 of
`Bishops second declaration.
`Mind you, these, the documents true were already in record. But this
`is the compare doc because we thought it made it easier to see. And what
`this shows you is when you converted the draft to the final, which again
`happened on the 16th, or earlier, was the last modified date that was found
`by Bishop when he went to the directory, was the 16th.
`This being the document therefore that was presented on the 17th
`through 19th, it shows you that it was agenda item 6.1. Well, that’s
`consistent with the minutes. We'll look at those.
`JUDGE COCKS: Could, I'm sorry, what slide?
`MR. RENNER: Sure. It's Slide 37 and its page 99 of the second
`Bishop declaration. Sorry, Your Honor. What you can see here is the red
`lines and these are changes to that draft that was circulated on the 11th, just
`prior to the meeting, by email, an email blast to the 900 people.
`And in it you can see change was an update to reflect that this was to
`be addressed in agenda item 6.1 at the meeting. And you can see that it’s a
`document for what? Discussion and decision. For discussion and decision.
`It’s clearly created before the meeting to support agenda item 6.1.
`And now if you look at the minutes, it's probably useful for us to do
`that together. Let’s look at the actual minutes, these are subject to an awful
`lot of the discussion in the draft.
`Its appendix H of Bishop 1, and we have got Slide 16 to reflect this,
`and I would take you to page 94 of his declaration which is shown here.
`These minutes show you what was discussed. They say the R2-010182, you
`can see it was presented by Henry Pierme, and that was the Mitsubishi
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`Electronic telecomm presenter, he is the author of the document who
`submitted the draft earlier.
`And he presented, past tense, this document. This document, not
`some other document, not a draft of this document, he didn’t talk about the
`document. He presented this document.
`If you go further in, the red, you can see after the decision colon it
`says the document. Well, what document are you talking about? R2-
`010182. It’s the only document that could be talked about here, was noted.
`And we can see, in the middle, a variety of comments about the
`discussion that had ensued. Its minutes after all. It makes sense. This is just
`a conversation that was being had, and it was being had with the
`participation of, for instance, QUALCOMM and Ericcson and Philips.
`And we know that even the author of the 487 patent was at this
`meeting. So we know that this is a very public presentation, and the public
`presentation, we know, endorses that specifically, per the minutes, that this
`particular document, not the draft, not something else, was shown, was
`discussed, it was shared at that meeting.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Mr. Renner?
`MR. RENNER: Mm-hmm.
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Am I correct that in order to attend this
`meeting you would have needed to be a member of the 3GPP working
`group?
`MR. RENNER: You are, Your Honor. Yes. And it's a very wide
`open membership, but yes --
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
`MR. RENNER: -- I'll discuss that if you’d like.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Yeah, well my question is, you know, a lot
`of the cases that they have regarding attendance at meetings relate to
`professional associations like a bar associations or an engineering
`association.
`Not really, you know, the working group, you know, of a group that’s
`trying to come up with new standards or something like that, where you
`have to join in order to attend.
`It seems to me like this would be less public than, for example, a bar
`association conference or a professional association conference. So I'm not
`sure this falls exactly within, you know, the cases we typically see from the
`Federal Circuit on presentations at meetings.
`MR. RENNER: Yes. And what we would say to that, and I think it’s
`a great point to address, 3GPP is a wide open organization, the only
`membership requirement is you have to be part of a company. You know,
`any human can't just show up on his own initiative.
`I can’t walk in myself, Karl Renner, and attend the meeting, I've got to
`be part of an organization that’s after wireless communication standards in
`order to get in, but that’s, that is the extent of the membership requirement.
`And again, Bishop addresses this not only in his first declaration but
`more significantly in his second. He takes this on in the front end of the
`second because, of course, the contentions were raised in the Patent Owner’s
`Response that, for instance, this was an issue.
`But we also see that the expectation of success is really at the heart
`and soul of what the Federal Circuit talks about in those cases. And we see
`this confronted in the cases they consistently look at.
`What did people think that they had when they walked into the room
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`where they shared the document with the people? And in organizations
`where there is a, I'll call it a higher bar to entry, where they have got
`membership requirements that make it so not just anybody can participate,
`well, that’s going to speak to that when they share documents there, whether
`it be presentation wise or otherwise, they might have a likelihood of
`confidentiality there.
`No such confidentiality exists. If we could look at appendix D, I think
`that would be informative, or B, sorry B. We are going to look at the FAQ's
`on this point because I want to make sure you see what 3GPP itself tells us
`about the, its membership. So let’s do that together if we could, Ayan.
`JUDGE HORVATH: And just to clarify the record, you had
`mentioned expectation of success. Did you mean expectation of
`confidentiality?
`MR. RENNER: I did, Your Honor, my apologies for misstating that.
`Yes, thank you --
`JUDGE HORVATH: Okay.
`MR. RENNER: -- for clarifying. But that’s right. When you look at
`let’s see, I'm looking for appendix B, there it is. Okay. So quoting from
`appendix B here, that we see that any organization that had an interest in
`telecommunication standardization, and this is quoting from Slide 22, and
`this comes out of Exhibit 1018, paragraph 6, recited by the Petitioner’s
`Reply at page 5.
`Any organization that had an interest in telecommunications standards
`could join. ETSI in the 2000 timeframe, ETSI members would also be
`eligible to join 3GPP at that time at no extra cost.
`An interested individual affiliated with the 3GPP, member at that
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00222 (Patent 7,167,487 B2)
`IPR2019-00252 (7,167,487 B2)
`
`time, could participate in their meetings. So we know that there is really no
`bar to the entry here.
`If we could look further into that same section, what we would see is,
`let’s look at Slide 23 for instance. Actually, lets, actually Slide 33. Yes. So
`appendix B, this speaks to two quotes that we pull from pages 8 and pa
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
