`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`·3· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · ___________________________________
`
`·5· · · · · · · · LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
`· · · · · · · · · LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.,
`·6· · · · · · · · · and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC,
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · vs
`
`·9· · · · · · · ·DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`
`11· · · · · · · ___________________________________
`
`12· · · · · · · IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`· · · · · · · · IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)
`13· · · · · · · ___________________________________
`
`14
`
`15· · · · Teleconference Proceedings in the above-styled
`
`16· ·cause before the Honorable Judge James A. Worth,
`
`17· ·Honorable Judge Amber L. Hagy, and Honorable Judge
`
`18· ·Sharon Fenick, Administrative Patent Judges, on Monday,
`
`19· ·the 31st day of August, 2020, commencing at 2:30 p.m.,
`
`20· ·EST, reported by Elizabeth Tiedemann, Registered
`
`21· ·Professional Reporter.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·(all via teleconference)
`
`·3· ·FOR THE PETITIONER:· · · JOHN ALEMANNI, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1001 West 4th Street
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · (336) 607-7300
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`·6
`· · ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER:· · PERRY GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Progress, LLP
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11620 Wilshire Boulevard, 9th Floor
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90025
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · (310) 697-7200
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · goldberg@progressllp.com
`
`10· ·____________________________________________________________
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`13· ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·22
`
`14· ·____________________________________________________________
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·**********PROCEEDINGS**********
`
`·2· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· This is a conference call for
`
`·3· ·IPR2019-01278 and -01279.· This is Judge Fenick of
`
`·4· ·the PTAB, and with me on the line are Judges Hagy
`
`·5· ·and Worth.
`
`·6· · · · ·Can I hear who's on the line for Petitioner,
`
`·7· ·please?
`
`·8· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Yes, Your Honor.· This is John
`
`·9· ·Alemanni for Lenovo.
`
`10· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Thank you.
`
`11· · · · ·MS. TIEDEMANN:· Good afternoon.· My name is
`
`12· ·Elizabeth Tiedemann, and I'll be the court reporter
`
`13· ·today.· I'm also on the line.
`
`14· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.· And can I
`
`15· ·hear who's on the line for Patent Owner, please?
`
`16· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Yes.· Hi.· This is Perry
`
`17· ·Goldberg from Progress, LLP for Dodots.
`
`18· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Thank you.· Is there anyone
`
`19· ·else on the line?
`
`20· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Not for Petitioner, Your
`
`21· ·Honor.
`
`22· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· For Patent Owner,
`
`23· ·Mr. Goldberg?
`
`24· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Not that I know of.· I'm not
`
`25· ·sure if Lewis Hudnell is going to join or not.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.· And we've
`
`·2· ·been already been told that there's a court
`
`·3· ·reporter on the line.· I'm not sure which party has
`
`·4· ·retained the court reporter, but whoever it is, if
`
`·5· ·they would please make sure to file the transcript
`
`·6· ·in the case, that would be appreciated.· So who
`
`·7· ·retained the court reporter?
`
`·8· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Yes, Your Honor.· I'm sorry.
`
`·9· ·This is Petitioner.· We retained the court
`
`10· ·reporter, and we'll file that as an exhibit as soon
`
`11· ·as we get the transcript.· We thought it would be
`
`12· ·helpful given the number of issues.
`
`13· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Thank you.
`
`14· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· And, Your Honor, I just
`
`15· ·received a text from Mr. Hudnell.· He says that
`
`16· ·he's on but doesn't hear anything, so I think he
`
`17· ·has some technical difficulties.· But I think we
`
`18· ·can proceed because I was going to make the
`
`19· ·argument.
`
`20· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· That's fine.· Sounds
`
`21· ·good.· If you want to text him back and tell him to
`
`22· ·hang up and try again, that usually works better
`
`23· ·than waiting.· I'm not sure why waiting would do
`
`24· ·anything for this.
`
`25· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Okay.· Hold on.· I'm texting
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·him that right now.
`
`·2· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Let me know when you're ready,
`
`·3· ·Mr. Goldberg.
`
`·4· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· I can go right now, or we give
`
`·5· ·him a minute.· It's up to you.
`
`·6· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Well, why don't we begin?· And
`
`·7· ·I hope he'll join us if he doesn't have additional
`
`·8· ·difficulties.
`
`·9· · · · ·Mr. Goldberg, I see that you e-mailed the
`
`10· ·Board, it appears, on the evening of the 12th of
`
`11· ·August.· So I apologize for the delay in responding
`
`12· ·to this request.· It was your -- it was Patent
`
`13· ·Owner's request for this conference, so I'd like to
`
`14· ·start with you.· And you have three issues in this
`
`15· ·e-mail.· I think it might be easier to address them
`
`16· ·one at a time.
`
`17· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Correct.
`
`18· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· So the first issue that you
`
`19· ·wanted to discuss is new evidence and argument
`
`20· ·regarding the "Berg" article.
`
`21· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Right.
`
`22· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· So if you could, briefly
`
`23· ·discuss that.
`
`24· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· So the issue here -- it also
`
`25· ·came up in the related earlier IPR on the related
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·545 patent, and the issue is whether this article
`
`·2· ·qualifies as prior art.· And we believe that it
`
`·3· ·does not, but at the same time, we're not required
`
`·4· ·to prove that it doesn't.· It's the Petitioner's
`
`·5· ·burden to prove that it does qualify as a prior
`
`·6· ·art.
`
`·7· · · · ·We don't think they've met that burden, but
`
`·8· ·we did not raise the issue in our reply -- I'm
`
`·9· ·sorry -- in our Patent Owner's response.· But they
`
`10· ·did raise the issue.· They submitted additional
`
`11· ·argument and evidence in their reply on this point.
`
`12· ·I can understand why they would do that, which is
`
`13· ·they have not met their burden.· So they do need to
`
`14· ·submit something additional.
`
`15· · · · ·But under the Hulu case from the POP, they
`
`16· ·are not allowed to do that in a reply unless we had
`
`17· ·raised the issue in our Patent Owner's response.
`
`18· ·The proper procedure, if they wanted to do that,
`
`19· ·would be a motion to file supplemental information
`
`20· ·under 37 CFR Section -- let's see -- I think
`
`21· ·42.123.· And the Hulu case is very clear about
`
`22· ·that.
`
`23· · · · ·So they did not submit that motion.· They
`
`24· ·would need to make that motion -- ordinarily,
`
`25· ·they'd have to do that within one month of
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·institution.· And if they haven't done it in that
`
`·2· ·time frame, they need to show good cause as to why
`
`·3· ·the supplemental information reasonably could not
`
`·4· ·have been obtained earlier and that consideration
`
`·5· ·of the supplemental information would be in the
`
`·6· ·interest of justice.· So given that they --
`
`·7· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.
`
`·8· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· -- haven't done that to this
`
`·9· ·date, that's the basis for our motion.
`
`10· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· I understand your
`
`11· ·position.· Our Trial Practice Guide talks about the
`
`12· ·motion to strike and says that generally the Board
`
`13· ·itself is capable of identifying these new issues
`
`14· ·of belatedly presented evidence and disregarding
`
`15· ·it.· And so the striking of a portion of a party's
`
`16· ·brief would be an acceptable remedy.
`
`17· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Uh-huh.
`
`18· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· It might be appropriate if
`
`19· ·there will be some problem.· For example, the Trial
`
`20· ·Practice Guide talks about addressing such a new
`
`21· ·theory could prejudice the opposing party or take
`
`22· ·too long in the oral argument.· So I'm wondering
`
`23· ·why this requires striking of the portion of a
`
`24· ·brief and the evidence, the associated evidence,
`
`25· ·rather than the panel identifying this new issue
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·and not considering the argument and the belatedly
`
`·2· ·presented evidence.
`
`·3· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Right.· Well, one reason why
`
`·4· ·it matters now is that:· If they are allowed to
`
`·5· ·submit this new evidence and argument, then we
`
`·6· ·would request permission to submit evidence and
`
`·7· ·argument in response.· And that would include
`
`·8· ·taking the deposition of the librarian-type person
`
`·9· ·who they submitted a declaration from.
`
`10· · · · ·In the Hulu case, the Petitioner has
`
`11· ·submitted a declaration from a librarian with their
`
`12· ·petition, and they didn't wait on that.· We did not
`
`13· ·have an opportunity to address that in connection
`
`14· ·with our Patent Owner's response because they
`
`15· ·hadn't submitted the declaration before that.
`
`16· · · · ·So it will create additional expense.· It
`
`17· ·will create the need for additional argument.· It
`
`18· ·will take away from our preparation on the other
`
`19· ·issues, and it's just -- I don't think there's any
`
`20· ·controversy here.· It's just undeniable.· And I'm
`
`21· ·sure my opposing counsel will agree that we did
`
`22· ·not -- that the Patent Owner did not raise this
`
`23· ·issue in connection with the Patent Owner's
`
`24· ·response.
`
`25· · · · ·So given it's a very clear situation -- it's
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·not debatable situation -- there's no reason to
`
`·2· ·wait in addressing this question.
`
`·3· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`·4· · · · ·Mr. Alemanni, can you address this issue?
`
`·5· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Yes.· Thank you, Your Honor,
`
`·6· ·just briefly.· So what we were talking about is the
`
`·7· ·argument and the reply, and then the exhibits are
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 1017, which is the Vasakova declaration,
`
`·9· ·and 1018, which is an archive page.· And the other
`
`10· ·thing we relied on is the deposition testimony of
`
`11· ·Patent Owner's expert, which is Exhibit 1019.
`
`12· · · · ·I agree that Patent Owner did not raise
`
`13· ·publication as an argument in their -- as a
`
`14· ·response.· I disagree that they didn't raise the
`
`15· ·issue at all.· As Your Honors may recall, we had a
`
`16· ·telephone conference in which Patent Owner was
`
`17· ·refusing to make their declarants available for
`
`18· ·deposition.
`
`19· · · · ·And during that telephone conference, they
`
`20· ·raised the point that they had wished to depose
`
`21· ·Ms. Vasakova, which suggested to us that they were
`
`22· ·going to wait to make the argument about "Berg"
`
`23· ·until their surreply.· So I think there's reason
`
`24· ·here for us to submit the evidence.· I agree -- I
`
`25· ·believe also this is not a new theory.· We had put
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·"Berg" in the petition, so the idea of the
`
`·2· ·publication is not a new theory.
`
`·3· · · · ·I agree with Patent Owner that they should
`
`·4· ·have the ability to depose Ms. Vasakova if they
`
`·5· ·wish to do so.· We put the same declaration in the
`
`·6· ·record in the prior proceeding that Mr. Goldberg
`
`·7· ·referred to, and they didn't request a deposition
`
`·8· ·of her.· I think that the Patent Office's precedent
`
`·9· ·is likely that we wouldn't necessarily have to put
`
`10· ·her up for a deposition.· But I think to the extent
`
`11· ·that there's any prejudice caused by the presence
`
`12· ·of her declaration in the record that they could
`
`13· ·cure it by deposing her we are willing to put her
`
`14· ·up.
`
`15· · · · ·And then, of course, the deposition of their
`
`16· ·own expert, they had the opportunity -- in fact,
`
`17· ·took the opportunity to redirect their expert.· So
`
`18· ·I don't think there could be any prejudice there.
`
`19· ·So I believe that the evidence and the argument is
`
`20· ·properly there and that Patent Owner can respond in
`
`21· ·their surreply.
`
`22· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`23· · · · ·Mr. Goldberg, do you have any response to
`
`24· ·that, or should we move on to the second point of
`
`25· ·your e-mail?
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Yeah.· Well, I guess my
`
`·2· ·response to that is:· We would only want to depose
`
`·3· ·Ms. Vasakova if they're permitted to make this new
`
`·4· ·argument and submit this new evidence.· It's not
`
`·5· ·our preferred remedy.· The preferred remedy is that
`
`·6· ·this argument and evidence, which is absolutely not
`
`·7· ·responsive to anything in the Patent Owner's
`
`·8· ·response, to be stricken.· And there is absolutely
`
`·9· ·no basis for them to have submitted this argument
`
`10· ·and evidence.
`
`11· · · · ·They can't deny that it's not responsive.
`
`12· ·They haven't made their motion.· They haven't met
`
`13· ·their burden.· They are not going to be able to
`
`14· ·show, actually, that they should be allowed to
`
`15· ·submit supplemental information because they can't
`
`16· ·meet the standard for showing why the motion wasn't
`
`17· ·made earlier.· They are supposed to show good
`
`18· ·cause.· They are trying to bootstrap here.
`
`19· · · · ·And by submitting this declaration and then
`
`20· ·saying, Well, we can depose the declarant, they are
`
`21· ·trying to get around all of the proper procedures
`
`22· ·here for how you go about submitting new evidence.
`
`23· ·And asking our expert about this when he didn't
`
`24· ·submit anything about it in his declaration, this
`
`25· ·is, again, just them bootstrapping.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·So if they want to submit the evidence, they
`
`·2· ·should be required to make a motion and try to
`
`·3· ·satisfy the standard.· But if the Board is not
`
`·4· ·going to hold them to that, we would request the
`
`·5· ·opportunity to depose the declarant and respond to
`
`·6· ·their evidence and argument.· Again, that's -- we
`
`·7· ·shouldn't be put to that given that they haven't
`
`·8· ·met their burden.
`
`·9· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Mr. Goldberg, if we
`
`10· ·agree to authorize such a motion and we, indeed,
`
`11· ·end up striking this argument, is this an argument
`
`12· ·you would raise then in surreply?
`
`13· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· No, no.· We would rely on the
`
`14· ·Board's judgment in assessing the evidence that the
`
`15· ·Petitioner has submitted.· We don't think it's a
`
`16· ·close question.· They have submitted extremely
`
`17· ·flimsy evidence on this.· And when the Board looks
`
`18· ·to see if they've met their burden, I think the
`
`19· ·Board will conclude absolutely that they haven't
`
`20· ·met their burden.
`
`21· · · · ·It needs additional evidence, which is why my
`
`22· ·opposing counsel is saying, Oh, they can depose
`
`23· ·Ms. Vasakova.· He recognizes that they absolutely
`
`24· ·need more than they have submitted.· We think the
`
`25· ·Vasakova declaration also isn't sufficient, and we
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·would be able to show that, but we shouldn't have
`
`·2· ·to jump through those hoops.
`
`·3· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Mr. Alemanni, do you have
`
`·4· ·anything further on this issue?
`
`·5· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· I mean, just a couple of
`
`·6· ·things.· I'm not sure how Mr. Goldberg can argue as
`
`·7· ·to how I feel about something.· But besides that,
`
`·8· ·their expert did, in fact, testify as to the
`
`·9· ·Dr. Dobb's Journal article that's titled "Berg."
`
`10· ·And so to say that he didn't testify about that at
`
`11· ·all is at least a bit misleading.
`
`12· · · · ·But I think for the remainder of the argument
`
`13· ·I would be repeating myself.· It probably doesn't
`
`14· ·make any sense to go further at this point.· So
`
`15· ·that's all.
`
`16· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`17· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Just a point of clarification,
`
`18· ·Your Honor, is that:· The only reason that our
`
`19· ·expert said anything about Dr. Dobb's Journal is he
`
`20· ·was point-blank asked, Have you heard of this
`
`21· ·journal?· If anyone is being misleading, I don't
`
`22· ·think it's me.· It wasn't that my expert was going
`
`23· ·on and on about Dr. Dobb's Journal out of the blue.
`
`24· ·It was only in direct response to a question about
`
`25· ·it.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.· We will
`
`·2· ·move on to the second issue, which is the question
`
`·3· ·of whether there should be additional -- well,
`
`·4· ·there should be a deposition of Dr. Madisetti.
`
`·5· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Right.· Yes.· So on this
`
`·6· ·point, Your Honor, we're not trying to depose
`
`·7· ·Dr. Madisetti about his original declaration.· What
`
`·8· ·happened here is the Petitioner in their reply
`
`·9· ·have -- they are making a variety of technical
`
`10· ·arguments that did not come up in the petition.
`
`11· ·And so these are new arguments, and we believe that
`
`12· ·their expert would not back them up on these
`
`13· ·arguments.· And so they have made the arguments
`
`14· ·without any new expert declaration.
`
`15· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.
`
`16· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· We believe that we're entitled
`
`17· ·to find out what their expert would say on these
`
`18· ·new technical arguments.
`
`19· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· In this request, in the e-mail
`
`20· ·you talked about new evidence and argument.· So is
`
`21· ·there new evidence that we're discussing here or
`
`22· ·it's just new argument?
`
`23· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· I believe that they had -- I
`
`24· ·think they've submitted a copy of our complaint, if
`
`25· ·I recall correctly, from the District Court
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·litigation.· So there's a few different arguments
`
`·2· ·that they are making here.· Most of them, they are
`
`·3· ·pointing to the patent itself.· So it's not new
`
`·4· ·evidence for most of it.· It's new argument.
`
`·5· · · · ·So, for example, they point to language in
`
`·6· ·the patent about executing and instructions and
`
`·7· ·different modules.· And they say that these
`
`·8· ·portions of the patent undermine the arguments that
`
`·9· ·the Patent Owner has made in Patent Owner's
`
`10· ·response.· But they also argue that the Patent
`
`11· ·Owner's arguments are in conflict with the position
`
`12· ·that the Patent Owner has taken in the District
`
`13· ·Court, which is not true.
`
`14· · · · ·And we think that their technical expert
`
`15· ·would agree that there's a distinction here between
`
`16· ·what we're saying in the District Court and what
`
`17· ·we're saying in the Patent Owner's response.· So
`
`18· ·they are trying to blur a line here between
`
`19· ·applications and the relevant aspect of an
`
`20· ·application versus an app and the relevant aspect
`
`21· ·of an app.
`
`22· · · · ·Even though apps and applications have a lot
`
`23· ·of similarities, there are very important
`
`24· ·differences, and they are trying to conflate the
`
`25· ·two.· But they don't have an expert to back them up
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·on that.· We think their expert would agree that
`
`·2· ·apps are different from applications in relevant
`
`·3· ·ways.
`
`·4· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Mr. Goldberg, can you point me
`
`·5· ·in the Petitioner's reply, looking at the -1278
`
`·6· ·case, to one of the examples of what you're
`
`·7· ·discussing here?
`
`·8· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Okay.· I'm just pulling it up.
`
`·9· ·I think it was on Page 9, their fourth point.· So
`
`10· ·it's just fourth, and "fourth" is underlined.
`
`11· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· So here, they are citing to
`
`12· ·the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`13· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Uh-huh.
`
`14· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· But there's no instance --
`
`15· ·there's no part of the -- there's no portion of
`
`16· ·this reply where a portion of the declarant's
`
`17· ·declaration is being used or there's no -- you're
`
`18· ·not saying that new portions of the expert's
`
`19· ·declaration are being used?
`
`20· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· That's right, yeah.· No, what
`
`21· ·we're saying is:· They submitted a declaration from
`
`22· ·Dr. Madisetti with their position, and now they
`
`23· ·are -- and then we responded to that.· And now they
`
`24· ·are saying, Oh, the response is incorrect because
`
`25· ·of X, Y, and Z.· But they have not submitted a
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 16 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·declaration from their expert to support these new
`
`·2· ·assertions that they are making, and we think that
`
`·3· ·there's a reason for that, which is that he
`
`·4· ·wouldn't support them.· And in any event, you
`
`·5· ·know --
`
`·6· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.
`
`·7· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Yeah.· We believe that we're
`
`·8· ·entitled to be able to fully respond to the
`
`·9· ·arguments and evidence that they are submitting
`
`10· ·here in reply.· That would include, you know, in
`
`11· ·our judgment wanting to depose their expert about
`
`12· ·that and, again, being very limited and not trying
`
`13· ·to go back and depose him about things from the
`
`14· ·original declaration, only about his views on their
`
`15· ·new statements and new evidence.
`
`16· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`17· ·Mr. Alemanni?
`
`18· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Sure.· So the only real issue
`
`19· ·that's been raised in these three petitions is
`
`20· ·whether or not the Nim template is executable or
`
`21· ·nonexecutable.· So Patent Owner was well aware of
`
`22· ·the strategy for relying on that, what we'd say is
`
`23· ·an improper attempt to claim construction, in order
`
`24· ·to save these patents from being invalidated in
`
`25· ·spite of the contrary statement they've made in the
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 17 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·District Court, which we've presented to the Board.
`
`·2· · · · ·So they had every opportunity to think about
`
`·3· ·how they were going to respond and then take the
`
`·4· ·deposition of our expert with that in mind.· That's
`
`·5· ·just typically how any proceeding, be it before the
`
`·6· ·Board or the trial court, would go.
`
`·7· · · · ·So the idea that they can somehow wait until
`
`·8· ·we actually put -- until we directly respond to
`
`·9· ·their arguments that we disagree, wait until we do
`
`10· ·that before they have to go forward and actually,
`
`11· ·you know, try to get evidence, particularly from
`
`12· ·our expert, there's nothing that supports that.
`
`13· ·There's nothing in the rules of the PTAB.· I'm not
`
`14· ·aware of any precedent that says that's correct.
`
`15· · · · ·They had the opportunity.· They waived it.
`
`16· ·Apparently, they -- I'm not sure why they waived
`
`17· ·it.· I'm not sure why didn't they depose him prior
`
`18· ·to this, knowing what the arguments would be.· We
`
`19· ·didn't rely on anything from the expert's
`
`20· ·testimony, Dr. Madisetti's testimony, that was not
`
`21· ·the subject of the petition.· So there's nothing
`
`22· ·improper about what we did.
`
`23· · · · ·As far as us relying on their contrary
`
`24· ·statements in the District Court, that's perfectly
`
`25· ·appropriate.· They were aware that they made those
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 18 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·statements.· There's nothing surprising about the
`
`·2· ·fact that we would rely on them.· That evidence is
`
`·3· ·perfectly appropriate for a reply.· And they have
`
`·4· ·the opportunity to surreply.
`
`·5· · · · ·If they can somehow excuse their contrary
`
`·6· ·statements, then they have the opportunity to
`
`·7· ·explain in the surreply how they would explain it.
`
`·8· ·So there's no prejudice at all to their not being
`
`·9· ·able to avoid the clear rules here and try to take
`
`10· ·a deposition after the discovery is closed.
`
`11· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· If I may respond very briefly?
`
`12· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Yes, please.
`
`13· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Yes.· So what we're talking
`
`14· ·about is not deposing Dr. Madisetti about the
`
`15· ·Patent Owner's response.· We're talking about
`
`16· ·deposing Dr. Madisetti about the Petitioner's
`
`17· ·reply.· And there was no way for us to know what
`
`18· ·arguments they were going to make in their reply.
`
`19· ·So it's not correct that we should have deposed him
`
`20· ·in advance of receiving their reply about the
`
`21· ·arguments that they made in their reply.
`
`22· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Just briefly, Your Honor, if I
`
`23· ·may?
`
`24· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Yes, Mr. Alemanni?
`
`25· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Just to try to -- the
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 19 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·complaint that we've submitted and our Petitioner
`
`·2· ·reply here is the same one we submitted in the
`
`·3· ·prior proceeding in the related patent.· So to say
`
`·4· ·that they wouldn't have known or couldn't have
`
`·5· ·known that we'd submit that -- even given that if
`
`·6· ·Mr. Goldberg's argument were right that he couldn't
`
`·7· ·have understood or anticipated that we would
`
`·8· ·respond to his Patent Owner response, that we would
`
`·9· ·argue against it, even if that were true, we
`
`10· ·already submitted that.
`
`11· · · · ·In the prior proceeding, we made essentially
`
`12· ·the exact same argument.· Except for the fact that,
`
`13· ·you know, certain patents have changed, we made the
`
`14· ·exact same argument.· So I think it's a little
`
`15· ·difficult to think that they would not have
`
`16· ·anticipated us using that in making the exact same
`
`17· ·argument.
`
`18· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· And the timing doesn't match
`
`19· ·up, Your Honor, in terms of whether we should be
`
`20· ·deemed to assume they are going to make the same
`
`21· ·arguments here as they made there and should have
`
`22· ·deposed him based on that, when -- and I also don't
`
`23· ·think we even had time to take such a deposition
`
`24· ·after they had submitted the briefing.
`
`25· · · · ·The briefing in these three different IPRs
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 20 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· ·has been overlapping.· So I don't think that that
`
`·2· ·is correct.· But in any event, these are separate
`
`·3· ·proceedings, and we shouldn't have to anticipate
`
`·4· ·what they are going to say in this reply and have
`
`·5· ·deposed him before we got these papers.
`
`·6· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`·7· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Thank you.
`
`·8· · · · ·JUDGE FENICK:· On all of these issues, the
`
`·9· ·panel is going to take this under advisement, and
`
`10· ·we will get back to you shortly with an order
`
`11· ·relating to these issues describing what the
`
`12· ·outcome will be for these three issues.· So thank
`
`13· ·you for attending today, and we're adjourned.
`
`14· · · · ·MR. ALEMANNI:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`15· · · · ·MR. GOLDBERG:· Thank you.
`
`16· · · · ·(Proceedings were concluded at 2:55 p.m. CST)
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 21 of 30
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
`·2· ·STATE OF FLORIDA· · · ·)
`
`·3· ·COUNTY OF SAINT JOHNS· )
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · I, Elizabeth Tiedemann, Registered
`
`·6· ·Professional Reporter, certify that I was authorized to
`
`·7· ·and did stenographically and remotely report the
`
`·8· ·foregoing proceedings; and that the transcript is a true
`
`·9· ·record of the proceedings.
`
`10· · · · · · · I further certify that I am not a relative,
`
`11· ·employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties,
`
`12· ·nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
`
`13· ·attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
`
`14· ·financially interested in this action.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · _________________________________
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ELIZABETH TIEDEMANN
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Registered Professional Reporter
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 22 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 23 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 24 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 25 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 26 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 27 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 28 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 29 of 30
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1021 - Page 30 of 30
`
`