01:12:40
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`1
`
`INGENICO, INC., )
`
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` ) C.A. No. 18-826(WCB)
`v.
` )
` )
`IOENGINE, LLC, )
` )
` Defendant. )
`_________________________)
`IOENGINE LLC, )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` ) C.A. No. 18-452(WCB)
`v. )
` )
`PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., )
` )
` Defendant. )
`Monday, December 17, 2018
`1:55 p.m.
`Courtroom 4A
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON
` United States District Court Judge
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`BY: FREDERICK L. COTTRELL, III, ESQ.
` -and-
`
` SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP
` BY: SHARONA H. STERNBERG, ESQ.
`
`
`Counsel for the Plaintiff
`
` Ingenico, Inc.
`
`PayPal Ex. 1056, p. 1
`PayPal v. IOENGINE
`
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`1
`
`INGENICO, INC., )
`
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` ) C.A. No. 18-826(WCB)
`v.
` )
` )
`IOENGINE, LLC, )
` )
` Defendant. )
`_________________________)
`IOENGINE LLC, )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` ) C.A. No. 18-452(WCB)
`v. )
` )
`PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., )
` )
` Defendant. )
`Monday, December 17, 2018
`1:55 p.m.
`Courtroom 4A
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON
` United States District Court Judge
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`BY: FREDERICK L. COTTRELL, III, ESQ.
` -and-
`
` SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP
` BY: SHARONA H. STERNBERG, ESQ.
`
`
`Counsel for the Plaintiff
`
` Ingenico, Inc.
`
`PayPal Ex. 1056, p. 1
`PayPal v. IOENGINE
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP
`BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
`-and-
` DECHERT LLP
`
`BY: NOAH M. LEIBOWITZ, ESQ.
` BY: GREGORY T. CHUEBON, ESQ.
`Counsel for the Defendant
` IOENGINE, LLC
`
` MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL, LLP
` BY: JACK B. BLUMENFELD, ESQ.
` -and-
` ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTFLIFFE, LLP
` BY: JARED BOBROW, ESQ.
` Counsel for Defendant
` PayPal Holdings, Inc.
`
` - oOo -
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` _ _ _
`
`THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. Off
`the record for a moment.
`I am allotted here by Amtrak no longer than
`
`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
`
`01:51:23
`
`01:51:23
`
`01:53:21
`
`01:53:22
`
`PayPal Ex. 1056, p. 2
`PayPal v. IOENGINE
`
`
`
`103
`
`
`MR. BLUMENFELD: I don't think this is any in
`the local rules. I think this is a Ingenico issue, so I'll
`let Ingenico speak to it.
`MS. STERNBERG: I can speak to it. Our concern
`right now at least in the Ingenico case, we don't know how
`many claims, there are 189 potential claims that can be
`asserted, and we haven't received infringement contentions.
`We're just nervous about limiting the RFA to fifty if there
`are more than fifty or there are a hundred claims that are
`at issue because RFA's are useful for contention.
`THE COURT: This is a good time to address the
`number of claims. One area in which I will push back is
`having too many claims. And 189 is way too many claims. So
`there are various ways that I can limit the number of claims
`if you don't, but I would urge you in the strongest terms to
`go back and weed out those claims. Otherwise -- and I'm
`sure your experience on this will tell you that if you have
`anything remotely approaching 189 claims in one case, you're
`going to spend most of the days, or most of the trial on the
`long march. And you know what I mean with an asterisk. And
`now on claim 167, first limitation, can I put a green check
`next to it? Yes, you can. And the jury is going to hate
`you. They're going to want to take you around the back and
`shoot you.
`
`So I would suggest it's in your interest as well
`
`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
`
`04:23:41
`
`04:23:43
`
`04:23:45
`
`04:23:45
`
`04:23:48
`
`04:23:51
`
`04:23:54
`
`04:23:57
`
`04:24:02
`
`04:24:04
`
`04:24:09
`
`04:24:11
`
`04:24:19
`
`04:24:26
`
`04:24:30
`
`04:24:37
`
`04:24:42
`
`04:24:47
`
`04:24:52
`
`04:24:56
`
`04:25:01
`
`04:25:11
`
`04:25:14
`
`04:25:18
`
`04:25:19
`
`PayPal Ex. 1056, p. 3
`PayPal v. IOENGINE
`
`
`
`104
`
`
`as the jury's interest and I am going to make sure that it
`doesn't come to pass that we have 189 claims. I would
`suggest something more in the neighborhood of ten. I don't
`know what your experience has been in terms of what works
`with a jury, but my experience, limited to be sure, but is
`that anything more than that is just the jury loses track.
`MR. CHUEBON: Yes, Your Honor, we have no
`intention of putting 186 claims in front of the jury.
`THE COURT: Thank you. I probably should have
`asked first and not bore you with the speech. But that's --
`I feel really strongly about this.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Your Honor, can I address that
`for a moment?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Unlike in Ingenico, we have
`received preliminary first round infringement contentions
`from IOENGINE, and they have, in fact, in the first round
`asserted 96 claims. And it's less than 189, but 96 is way
`too many to deal with. It's not only from our point of view
`a jury issue.
`THE COURT: I understand.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: It's going to fall on your
`plate when we start claim construction, it's going to fall
`on yours when we do invalidity contentions, and yes, there
`will be invalidity in this case. And we would like to
`
`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
`
`04:25:22
`
`04:25:26
`
`04:25:31
`
`04:25:35
`
`04:25:38
`
`04:25:46
`
`04:25:53
`
`04:25:55
`
`04:25:58
`
`04:26:00
`
`04:26:06
`
`04:26:08
`
`04:26:09
`
`04:26:10
`
`04:26:11
`
`04:26:14
`
`04:26:18
`
`04:26:22
`
`04:26:28
`
`04:26:31
`
`04:26:33
`
`04:26:34
`
`04:26:36
`
`04:26:39
`
`04:26:45
`
`PayPal Ex. 1056, p. 4
`PayPal v. IOENGINE
`
`
`
`105
`
`
`discuss with you getting at least a first cut down before
`claim construction so that we don't have to deal with terms
`of 96 claims and then probably after claim construction
`narrowing it again.
`THE COURT: Yes. I absolutely think, well, 96
`is way too many, way too many. So I would direct you to go
`back and significantly adjust the number of claims that you
`plan to raise. And there are -- one thing if you're
`absolutely adamant about proceeding with a significant
`number of claims, I will employ all my resources to try to
`persuade you that that should not be your approach. But in
`the end if we have to, I'll break the case up, and I'll try
`the case involving a smaller number of claims and we'll see
`where we are. That is not an option that I particularly
`welcome because that's burdensome on everybody, but I just
`am not going to see 96 claims, unless there is something
`about the case that's really extraordinary which I haven't
`seen so far.
`
`MR. CHUEBON: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: The earlier the better for the
`reasons that Mr. Blumenfeld has given.
`MR. CHUEBON: Thank you, Your Honor. If I may,
`there is one reason that there are so many claims. We
`didn't want to raise it to Your Honor, but we did have
`issues with PayPal with their core technology document
`
`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
`
`04:26:47
`
`04:26:51
`
`04:26:55
`
`04:26:59
`
`04:27:00
`
`04:27:04
`
`04:27:12
`
`04:27:17
`
`04:27:26
`
`04:27:30
`
`04:27:36
`
`04:27:41
`
`04:27:46
`
`04:27:50
`
`04:27:55
`
`04:27:59
`
`04:28:05
`
`04:28:10
`
`04:28:11
`
`04:28:12
`
`04:28:14
`
`04:28:16
`
`04:28:17
`
`04:28:21
`
`04:28:24
`
`PayPal Ex. 1056, p. 5
`PayPal v. IOENGINE
`
`
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
