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, Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2095
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
` 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, Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2095
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`106
`
`
`production. Essentially what PayPal did was give us
`unreadable because they are not the original source, but
`what was very publically available from their SDKs. I know
`my colleague, Mr. Leibowitz briefly spoke about SDKs as did
`I. But principally in SDKs there are three different
`things. There is precompiled code which is unreadable by
`people anyway. There is sometimes sample source code and
`that source code is an example of how to call the
`precompiler code. And I believe that's what counsel for
`PayPal is referring to when they said the source code could
`be modified. Yes, there is example source code that could
`be modified, but what cannot be modified is the precompiled
`code.
`
`Lastly there is typically documentation. In the
`case of PayPal we have a strong reason to believe that
`documentation was computer generated based on the sample
`code and the definitions of the functions. So what we were
`really left with was we don't have any information on
`precompiled code.
`THE COURT: To cut to the chase, what I'm
`hearing you saying is once you get that information, you
`will be in a position to cut down considerably. It seems to
`me we have the makings of a deal, which is you get the
`information, you cut down the claims.
`MR. CHUEBON: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`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
`
`04:28:29
`
`04:28:32
`
`04:28:36
`
`04:28:39
`
`04:28:41
`
`04:28:44
`
`04:28:49
`
`04:28:52
`
`04:28:55
`
`04:28:58
`
`04:29:01
`
`04:29:04
`
`04:29:05
`
`04:29:05
`
`04:29:07
`
`04:29:10
`
`04:29:15
`
`04:29:18
`
`04:29:23
`
`04:29:24
`
`04:29:26
`
`04:29:29
`
`04:29:33
`
`04:29:37
`
`04:29:40
`
`PayPal, Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2095
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`107
`
`
`THE COURT: If Mr. Blumenfeld, if you can
`produce information that will facilitate the substantial
`reduction of the number of claims, then we're all going to
`be better off.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: We understand that. We will
`work on it. I'm note going to respond to the comments other
`than to say we gave them a second round of production a
`while ago. We haven't heard anything back. But we'll work
`with them to get them more information.
`THE COURT: Let's work in good faith to see if
`we can -- this is a roadblock that seems to me we should be
`able to get by. Let's see if we can't do it.
`Okay. The number of interrogatories everybody
`seems in agreement now. The depositions we have a
`disagreement about the Scott McNulty deposition, there is
`the question of whether it should be -- I'll tell you, it
`really comes down to ten hours versus fourteen hours. Is
`that it?
`
`MR. CHUEBON: It's close, Your Honor. We're
`requesting ten hours be split as the other parties see fit
`between 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6.), I believe that PayPal and
`Ingenico are asking for fourteen hours under 30(b)(1) and
`essentially however many 30(b)(6) witnesses they get, seven
`hours on each.
`THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand the
`
`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
`
`04:29:41
`
`04:29:45
`
`04:29:48
`
`04:29:52
`
`04:29:52
`
`04:29:54
`
`04:29:58
`
`04:30:01
`
`04:30:05
`
`04:30:07
`
`04:30:10
`
`04:30:14
`
`04:30:18
`
`04:30:25
`
`04:30:29
`
`04:30:34
`
`04:30:37
`
`04:30:40
`
`04:30:40
`
`04:30:42
`
`04:30:46
`
`04:30:52
`
`04:30:55
`
`04:30:59
`
`04:31:00
`
`PayPal, Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2095
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`122
`
`
`even if the time is past. There is always an opportunity to
`move for an amendment out of time which, of course, would
`provoke the usual does this justify a good cause prejudice
`and so forth. But I'm inclined to give a little bit more
`time on the front end so we don't have a big war over an
`out-of-time amendment. I will take that under
`consideration.
`Thank you.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Thank you.
`MR. CHUEBON: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: We are adjourned.
`(Court adjourned at 4:53 p.m.)
`
`I hereby certify the foregoing is a true and accurate
`transcript from my stenographic notes in the proceeding.
`
`/s/ Dale C. Hawkins
` Official Court Reporter
` U.S. District Court
`
`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
`
`04:53:01
`
`04:53:04
`
`04:53:09
`
`04:53:16
`
`04:53:18
`
`04:53:22
`
`04:53:27
`
`04:53:27
`
`04:53:27
`
`04:53:29
`
`04:53:29
`
`PayPal, Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC
`IPR2019-00907 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2095
`Page 4 of 4
`
`
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
