·1
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·4· · · · · · · · IPR No. 2020-00951
`
`·5· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`·6· · ·-------------------------------------------------
`
`·7· · · · · · · · IPR No. 2020-00952
`
`·8· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853
`
`·9· · ·----------------------------------------------------
`
`10· · · · · · · · · IPR No. 2020-00953
`
`11· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 9,911,325
`
`12· · ·----------------------------------------------------
`
`13· · · · · · · · · ·IPR No. 2020-01012
`
`14· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642
`
`15· · ·----------------------------------------------------
`
`16· · · · · · · · · ·IPR No. 2020-01012
`
`17· · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642
`
`18· · ·----------------------------------------------------
`
`19
`· · · ·In the Matters of:
`20
`· · · ·ROKU, INC. v. UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
`21· · ·-------------------------------------------------
`
`22· · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
`
`23
`· · · ·Date:· June 26, 2020· 1 p.m.
`24
`· · · ·Reporter:· Tab Prewett, RPR, CSR
`25· · · · · · · · US Legal Support
`
`Roku EX1031
`U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT of the stenographic notes of the
`
`·3· · ·proceedings in the above-entitled matter, as taken
`
`·4· · ·by and before TAB PREWETT, a Registered Professional
`
`·5· · ·Reporter, a Certified LiveNote Reporter, Certified
`
`·6· · ·Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, with all
`
`·7· · ·parties present via telephone conference on Friday,
`
`·8· · ·June 26, 2020, commencing at 1 p.m.
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·3
`
`·4· · ·Before the Administrative Patent Panel:
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · ·JUDGE PATRICK M. BOUCHER
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · JUDGE MINN CHUNG
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · JUDGE SHARON FENICK
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLPC
`
`·4· · · · · · BY:· JON E. WRIGHT, ESQ.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·LESTIN L. KENTON, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·MICHAEL Q. LEE, ESQ.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·ALI ALLAWI, ESQ.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·TIMOTHY L. TANG, ESQ.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·REBECCA A. LINDHORST
`
`10· · · · · · 1100 New York Avenue
`
`11· · · · · · Suite 600
`
`12· · · · · · Washington, DC· 20005
`
`13· · · · · · jwright@sternekessler.com
`
`14· · · · · · lkenton@sternekessler.com
`
`15· · · · · · mlee@sternekessler.com
`
`16· · · · · · ttang@sternekessler.com
`
`17· · · · · · aallawi@sternekessler.com
`
`18· · · · · · rlindhorst@sternekessler.com
`
`19· · · · · · 202-371-2600
`
`20· · · · · · Attorneys for Petitioner, Roku, Inc.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`·3· · · · · · BY:· S. BENJAMIN PLEUNE, ESQ.
`
`·4· · · · · · Bank of America Plaza
`
`·5· · · · · · 101 South Tryon Street
`
`·6· · · · · · Suite 4000
`
`·7· · · · · · Charlotte, North Carolina· 28280-4000
`
`·8· · · · · · ben.pleune@alston.com
`
`·9· · · · · · 704-444-1098
`
`10· · · · · · Attorneys for the Patent Owner,
`
`11· · · · · · Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
`
`17· · · · · · BY:· JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., ESQ.
`
`18· · · · · · 77 West Wacker Drive
`
`19· · · · · · Suite 3100
`
`20· · · · · · Chicago, Illinois· 60601
`
`21· · · · · · lukasj@gtlaw.com
`
`22· · · · · · 312-456-1038
`
`23· · · · · · Attorneys for the Patent Owner
`
`24· · · · · · Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Good afternoon.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Good afternoon, Your
`
`·5· · · · · ·Honor.· This is Jon Wright on behalf of the
`
`·6· · · · · ·petitioner, Roku, Inc.· And I am with the law
`
`·7· · · · · ·firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. I
`
`·8· · · · · ·have a number of my colleagues listening in on
`
`·9· · · · · ·the call this afternoon.· And they are Lestin
`
`10· · · · · ·Kenton, Michael Lee, Timothy Tang, Ali Allawi,
`
`11· · · · · ·and Rebecca Lindhorst.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Thank you,
`
`13· · · · · ·Mr. Wright.· And who is on the line for the
`
`14· · · · · ·patent owner, please?
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · MR. PLEUNE:· Hello, Your Honor.· This
`
`16· · · · · ·is Ben Pleune of Alston & Bird for patent
`
`17· · · · · ·owner Universal Electronics; and with me also
`
`18· · · · · ·on the line is James Lukas of Greenberg
`
`19· · · · · ·Traurig.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Thank you
`
`21· · · · · ·Mr. Pleune.· Before we begin, there is just
`
`22· · · · · ·one housekeeping matter that I want to
`
`23· · · · · ·address, which is the fact that I think that
`
`24· · · · · ·there are seven proceedings listed in the
`
`25· · · · · ·E-Mail.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · The -- I should mention Judges Chung
`
`·3· · · · · ·and Fenick are also on the line with me, and
`
`·4· · · · · ·the three of us have been panelled to all of
`
`·5· · · · · ·those proceedings except one, which is
`
`·6· · · · · ·IPR 2020-01012.· That proceeding has not yet
`
`·7· · · · · ·had a panel assigned to it.· We expect that it
`
`·8· · · · · ·is likely that we will be assigned to it.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · But in view of the fact that there is
`
`10· · · · · ·a no panel currently assigned to that
`
`11· · · · · ·proceeding, nothing we say today can -- can be
`
`12· · · · · ·construed as being any kind of exercise of
`
`13· · · · · ·authority over that proceeding because this
`
`14· · · · · ·panel does not currently have authority on
`
`15· · · · · ·that proceeding.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · So with that said, why don't we turn
`
`17· · · · · ·to you, Mr. Wright, and have you begin.· I did
`
`18· · · · · ·not really see a specific request in your
`
`19· · · · · ·E-Mail.· But we did want to give you an
`
`20· · · · · ·opportunity to present your thoughts about the
`
`21· · · · · ·same-party joinder issues so that we can at
`
`22· · · · · ·least have that in mind when we look at the
`
`23· · · · · ·briefing.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Got it.· Understood, Your
`
`25· · · · · ·Honor.· And just also as a procedural matter,
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·I neglected to mention that we do have a court
`
`·3· · · · · ·reporter on the call as well.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· That's fine.
`
`·5· · · · · ·If we could -- if we could just try to be
`
`·6· · · · · ·careful about who is speaking -- it sounds
`
`·7· · · · · ·like not many people will be speaking other
`
`·8· · · · · ·than Mr. Wright and Mr. Pleune and me.· Just
`
`·9· · · · · ·try and keep things clear for the court
`
`10· · · · · ·reporter.· So please go ahead, Mr. Wright.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · So Roku asked for this conference call
`
`13· · · · · ·pursuant to the trial practice guides
`
`14· · · · · ·requirement that parties seek a conference
`
`15· · · · · ·call to discuss scheduling issues whenever a
`
`16· · · · · ·party files a motion for joinder so that the
`
`17· · · · · ·board can timely manage the proceedings.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · And in that vein I have four initial
`
`19· · · · · ·points I would like to make.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · So, first, as Your Honor noted, these
`
`21· · · · · ·cases implicate same-party joinder, and the
`
`22· · · · · ·follow-on petitions would be time-barred under
`
`23· · · · · ·section 315(b) unless motions for joinder are
`
`24· · · · · ·granted.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · · And we recognize that these same-party
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·joinder motions currently present, I think,
`
`·3· · · · · ·evolving issues of law and policy that the
`
`·4· · · · · ·board I assume is considering at present; and
`
`·5· · · · · ·we appreciate that on those issues the
`
`·6· · · · · ·office's position may not be set.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · Second, turning to the scheduling
`
`·8· · · · · ·issues, if the pending and follow-on
`
`·9· · · · · ·proceedings each proceed along their normal
`
`10· · · · · ·course with no modifications by either the
`
`11· · · · · ·parties or the board, the difference between
`
`12· · · · · ·the schedules will likely impact the
`
`13· · · · · ·efficiency of the proceedings if the
`
`14· · · · · ·proceedings are, in fact, joined down the
`
`15· · · · · ·road.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · So the -- which leads me to my third
`
`17· · · · · ·point, and that is:
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · So that the proceedings may be most
`
`19· · · · · ·efficiently managed, petitioner has a couple
`
`20· · · · · ·of proposals that we made to the patent owner,
`
`21· · · · · ·UEI, ahead of this call.· But we are proposing
`
`22· · · · · ·that the board move up the deadline for the
`
`23· · · · · ·patent owner preliminary responses in the
`
`24· · · · · ·follow-on petitions so that the board, if it
`
`25· · · · · ·is so inclined, can review the papers and
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·reach an early decision on both institution
`
`·3· · · · · ·and joinder.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · And with respect to the pending cases
`
`·5· · · · · ·or the -- sorry -- the cases that are
`
`·6· · · · · ·currently pending and instituted, we have
`
`·7· · · · · ·proposed moving out the deadline in those case
`
`·8· · · · · ·for both the patent owner response and the
`
`·9· · · · · ·petitioner reply, again, so as to give the
`
`10· · · · · ·board the most room to reach a decision on
`
`11· · · · · ·institution and joinder such that any impact
`
`12· · · · · ·on the pending proceedings is minimized.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · And we did give a concrete proposal to
`
`14· · · · · ·UEI ahead of the call, and I am happy to -- to
`
`15· · · · · ·relay that if it's helpful.· And --
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· First, before we --
`
`17· · · · · ·before we get into the specifics of that so
`
`18· · · · · ·that we can hear what Mr. Pleune has to say
`
`19· · · · · ·about the proposal -- but what is your fourth
`
`20· · · · · ·point?
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Okay.· So -- and, sorry,
`
`22· · · · · ·the fourth point to make is that, finally, we
`
`23· · · · · ·have to take issue with UEI's allegations that
`
`24· · · · · ·it made both in its joinder opposition and in
`
`25· · · · · ·the E-Mail to the board that Roku's actions
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·here are abusive, vexatious, and harassing.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · Those are serious and sanctionable
`
`·4· · · · · ·allegations, and we don't take them lightly.
`
`·5· · · · · ·We don't believe that Roku has violated any
`
`·6· · · · · ·board rule and that the follow-on petitions
`
`·7· · · · · ·and joinder motions have been timely under the
`
`·8· · · · · ·board's rules and that, with the law currently
`
`·9· · · · · ·being unsettled, that Roku's actions fall
`
`10· · · · · ·within the bounds of zealous advocacy that we
`
`11· · · · · ·are obligated to pursue on Roku's behalf.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · And, again, that was -- that's the
`
`13· · · · · ·final point I had to make.· Thank you, Your
`
`14· · · · · ·Honor.
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Yes, thank you,
`
`16· · · · · ·Mr. Wright.· Why don't we turn to you,
`
`17· · · · · ·Mr. Pleune.· I don't know if you want to
`
`18· · · · · ·address each of these four points in
`
`19· · · · · ·particular.· I am particularly interested in
`
`20· · · · · ·the patent owner's reaction to the
`
`21· · · · · ·petitioner's proposal regarding scheduling
`
`22· · · · · ·issues, so I hope that you would at least
`
`23· · · · · ·address that, please.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · MR. PLEUNE:· Yes.· Certainly, Your
`
`25· · · · · ·Honor, and that is -- that is correct.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·Petitioner stated they did reach out to us
`
`·3· · · · · ·several days ago and suggest that the patent
`
`·4· · · · · ·owner's preliminary response be moved up -- I
`
`·5· · · · · ·believe the term they used was
`
`·6· · · · · ·"self-expedite" -- for the new IPRs, and then
`
`·7· · · · · ·to push back the deadline in the existing
`
`·8· · · · · ·IPRs.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · And that just seems both unworkable to
`
`10· · · · · ·us, on the one hand with respect to moving up
`
`11· · · · · ·the preliminary responses, and then premature
`
`12· · · · · ·on the other with respect to modifying the
`
`13· · · · · ·deadlines in the existing IPRs.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · If you have looked at these petitions
`
`15· · · · · ·that were recently filed, which I expect Your
`
`16· · · · · ·Honor has probably done so, at least briefly,
`
`17· · · · · ·you know, what we see are several new
`
`18· · · · · ·independent claims being challenged, new claim
`
`19· · · · · ·construction issues, several new prior art
`
`20· · · · · ·references, new priority arguments,
`
`21· · · · · ·submissions with respect to ranking of
`
`22· · · · · ·multiple petitions that have now been filed at
`
`23· · · · · ·this stage.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · This is not a copy-cat petition.· This
`
`25· · · · · ·is not the case of one or two additional
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·dependent claims being added.· To the
`
`·3· · · · · ·contrary, what we see in these new petitions
`
`·4· · · · · ·are quite frankly more arguments than were
`
`·5· · · · · ·filed in the original petitions.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · And -- and, you know, certainly, we
`
`·7· · · · · ·are -- we are not proposing that -- at this
`
`·8· · · · · ·stage that petitioners are doing anything that
`
`·9· · · · · ·is -- that is sanctionable.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · However, it seems well beyond any
`
`11· · · · · ·process that has ever been established by the
`
`12· · · · · ·PTAB and well beyond anything that has ever
`
`13· · · · · ·been relied on kind of under the pro-pent
`
`14· · · · · ·[phonetic] express standard.
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · There is a lot to respond to,
`
`16· · · · · ·including a new expert report that, of course,
`
`17· · · · · ·underpins all of these -- these arguments.
`
`18· · · · · ·And -- and patent owner needs time to respond
`
`19· · · · · ·to those.· And, quite frankly, I think that it
`
`20· · · · · ·should be entitled to have all of the time
`
`21· · · · · ·that is permitted to it under the rules.
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · You know, I will certainly briefly
`
`23· · · · · ·note that petitioner waited until the very
`
`24· · · · · ·last day to file its new IPR positions, In
`
`25· · · · · ·some instances, even secured extensions of
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·time to -- to file the motion for joinder of
`
`·3· · · · · ·the new petition beyond what would have been
`
`·4· · · · · ·the -- the -- the normal deadline.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · And it just seems inappropriate to
`
`·6· · · · · ·then ask patent owner to -- to file its
`
`·7· · · · · ·response earlier.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · You know, with respect to pushing back
`
`·9· · · · · ·the deadline in the existing IPR, again, that
`
`10· · · · · ·also just doesn't seem in keeping with
`
`11· · · · · ·statutes, rules, and regulations of the PTAB.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · You know, what -- what I see,
`
`13· · · · · ·certainly, is that these issues are addressed
`
`14· · · · · ·in the institution decision, which at the same
`
`15· · · · · ·time addresses the motion for joinder.· And
`
`16· · · · · ·that should certainly be the case where,
`
`17· · · · · ·here -- certainly as petitioner mentioned,
`
`18· · · · · ·the -- the issues surrounding Windy City and
`
`19· · · · · ·the Supreme Court's decision in Thryv are far
`
`20· · · · · ·from settled; so we have a big question mark
`
`21· · · · · ·there.
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · There is a question as to whether
`
`23· · · · · ·these motions for joinder should be filed at
`
`24· · · · · ·all or should be granted at all; and, you
`
`25· · · · · ·know, there are certainly issues with respect
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·to when petitioner had notice of these claims
`
`·3· · · · · ·that it is now attempting to raise now.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · There is certainly a big question as
`
`·5· · · · · ·to -- as petitioner pointed out, as to the
`
`·6· · · · · ·impact that this is going to have on the
`
`·7· · · · · ·existing schedule.· And then, again, apart
`
`·8· · · · · ·from the decision on the motion for joinder,
`
`·9· · · · · ·we also have the institution decision.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · And as I already mentioned, we have
`
`11· · · · · ·new claims.· We have new independent claims,
`
`12· · · · · ·claim contribution issues, priority issues,
`
`13· · · · · ·several new prior art references.· We
`
`14· · · · · ·certainly should not be operating under the
`
`15· · · · · ·guise that either the joinder motion or the
`
`16· · · · · ·institution decision is going to be granted.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · And, therefore, it just doesn't seem
`
`18· · · · · ·appropriate to be changing the schedule in the
`
`19· · · · · ·underlying -- underlying IPRs at this stage.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Thank you,
`
`21· · · · · ·Mr. Pleune.
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · Mr. Wright, I guess one question I
`
`23· · · · · ·have for you is:
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · Are you asking the panel to do
`
`25· · · · · ·anything with deadlines, or are you just
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·advising us that you are at least making
`
`·3· · · · · ·proposals with the patent owner?
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· It's -- well, initially,
`
`·5· · · · · ·the call is just to follow through with the
`
`·6· · · · · ·guidance in the trial practice guide that we
`
`·7· · · · · ·have a conference call with respect to joinder
`
`·8· · · · · ·motions, kind of irrespective of all of the
`
`·9· · · · · ·unique issues that are in this case.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · But we do -- we -- I think we are
`
`11· · · · · ·asking that the board move up the deadline for
`
`12· · · · · ·filing the patent owner preliminary response
`
`13· · · · · ·since I don't believe that UEI is inclined to
`
`14· · · · · ·self-expedite the patent owner preliminary
`
`15· · · · · ·responses.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · And, you know, there is board
`
`17· · · · · ·precedent for that.· I'm happy to provide
`
`18· · · · · ·citations to a couple of cases where other
`
`19· · · · · ·board panels have moved up the POPR date in
`
`20· · · · · ·situations like this, and also ask that the
`
`21· · · · · ·board consider at least expediting the
`
`22· · · · · ·decision so that the proceedings can come in
`
`23· · · · · ·line.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · In the research that we looked at,
`
`25· · · · · ·just over cases in 2019, in 20 out of 60
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·joinder grants in the past year, the board has
`
`·3· · · · · ·taken either less than four months from the
`
`·4· · · · · ·petition filing date or less than a month
`
`·5· · · · · ·after the POPR filing date to, you know,
`
`·6· · · · · ·arrive at its institution decision and joinder
`
`·7· · · · · ·motions.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · We -- as the petitioner, we don't have
`
`·9· · · · · ·deadlines that are in our -- you know, on our
`
`10· · · · · ·horizon right now that we can use to impact
`
`11· · · · · ·the schedules.· So to avoid, you know, the
`
`12· · · · · ·possible inefficiencies, again, if these dates
`
`13· · · · · ·for all the proceedings just follow their
`
`14· · · · · ·natural course, we are just seeking to avoid
`
`15· · · · · ·any -- any inefficiency there.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · It wasn't again our intent to -- I'm
`
`17· · · · · ·sorry, Your Honor.· Go ahead.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Oh, I was just going
`
`19· · · · · ·to ask, I guess:
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · The 20 of the 60 joinder motions that
`
`21· · · · · ·you mentioned, I am guessing that those did
`
`22· · · · · ·not involve new issues.· Do you happen to know
`
`23· · · · · ·off the top of your head?
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· No, I have not gone into
`
`25· · · · · ·all 20 to look at those.· I will say that,
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·with respect to the -- to the new issues, the
`
`·3· · · · · ·reason for the follow-on petitions are to
`
`·4· · · · · ·address new claims that UEI has asserted
`
`·5· · · · · ·against Roku in an ITC proceeding, and that
`
`·6· · · · · ·for the -- both the '853 and the '642 patents,
`
`·7· · · · · ·it is exactly the same art that is being used
`
`·8· · · · · ·in the new petitions and the same expert.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · It is just that the new petitions are
`
`10· · · · · ·addressing newly asserted claims that were not
`
`11· · · · · ·challenged in the original petitions.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · And that for the '389 patent, again,
`
`13· · · · · ·it is the same art or art that UEI is already
`
`14· · · · · ·familiar with except that, for some of those
`
`15· · · · · ·newly asserted dependent claims, we had to
`
`16· · · · · ·bring in additional secondary references.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · So, yes, there are new issues because
`
`18· · · · · ·the petitions are designed to address
`
`19· · · · · ·unchallenged claims that were newly asserted
`
`20· · · · · ·in an ITC action that was filed, you know, a
`
`21· · · · · ·year after -- or more than a year after the
`
`22· · · · · ·civil action.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · And then, you know, with respect to
`
`24· · · · · ·the -- to the timing, of course, the timing on
`
`25· · · · · ·our end has been driven by the Thryv case,
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·which I am sure Your Honors are aware of and
`
`·3· · · · · ·the implications that the Thryv case has on
`
`·4· · · · · ·the same-party joinder issues.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · So it's not as if the petitioner was
`
`·6· · · · · ·lying in wait here and seeking to, you know,
`
`·7· · · · · ·harass or move these petitions out.· It's just
`
`·8· · · · · ·all coming together very quickly with the
`
`·9· · · · · ·change in the law with respect to same-party
`
`10· · · · · ·joinder, of course.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Is there
`
`12· · · · · ·anything you want to add, Mr. Pleune, before I
`
`13· · · · · ·talk to the panel regarding the petitioner's
`
`14· · · · · ·request that we adjust the deadlines?
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · MR. PLEUNE:· Just I think very, very
`
`16· · · · · ·briefly, Your Honor, I think that you -- you
`
`17· · · · · ·caught the same issue that popped out of my
`
`18· · · · · ·mind with respect to the stats that Mr. Wright
`
`19· · · · · ·cited.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · I would expect that the vast majority
`
`21· · · · · ·of those are -- are copy-cat style cases where
`
`22· · · · · ·the -- where the true third-party is coming in
`
`23· · · · · ·and copying the existing petition and
`
`24· · · · · ·declaration.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · · What I -- what I would also briefly
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·address, although I think petitioner has done
`
`·3· · · · · ·an excellent job of underscoring the point
`
`·4· · · · · ·that we're making here, is that this is not a
`
`·5· · · · · ·civil decision either to argue for patent
`
`·6· · · · · ·owner or for the board to decide.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · I would take issue with a number of
`
`·8· · · · · ·things that Mr. Wright said, including the
`
`·9· · · · · ·fact that these are not claims that were only
`
`10· · · · · ·recently asserted and have been an issue since
`
`11· · · · · ·the early stages of the District Court case.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · But -- but that is for the board to
`
`13· · · · · ·look at.· With respect to the joinder motions,
`
`14· · · · · ·it is for the parties to argue.· And I think
`
`15· · · · · ·that we should have sufficient time to do
`
`16· · · · · ·that, and we should also have sufficient time
`
`17· · · · · ·to address all of these new issues, new
`
`18· · · · · ·claims, new prior art, new arguments, that --
`
`19· · · · · ·that have now been presented.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Thank you,
`
`21· · · · · ·Mr. Pleune.· I am going to consult the panel.
`
`22· · · · · ·I do want to check with Mr. Wright first
`
`23· · · · · ·whether or not you have any other specific
`
`24· · · · · ·requests that you would want the panel to rule
`
`25· · · · · ·on during this call.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Unless -- I could relay
`
`·3· · · · · ·to Your Honors if it's helpful the specific
`
`·4· · · · · ·dates that we proposed to UEI originally, but
`
`·5· · · · · ·that, you know, UEI did not agree to.· If
`
`·6· · · · · ·that's helpful, I can give you those dates.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Why don't -- why don't
`
`·8· · · · · ·you wait until I consult with the panel, and
`
`·9· · · · · ·then I will see whether -- whether or not we
`
`10· · · · · ·need those dates.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · So with that I will just take a brief
`
`12· · · · · ·moment and I will be back and let you know
`
`13· · · · · ·what the panel has decided.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Okay.· Thank you Your
`
`15· · · · · ·Honor.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · (There was a discussion off the
`
`17· · · · · ·record.)
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· This is Patrick
`
`19· · · · · ·Boucher from the PTAB.· I have consulted with
`
`20· · · · · ·the panel.· And we have decided to deny the
`
`21· · · · · ·request to adjust the deadlines in these
`
`22· · · · · ·proceedings.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · If the parties want to stipulate to
`
`24· · · · · ·different deadlines in accordance with the
`
`25· · · · · ·scheduling order for those proceedings that
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · ·are again instituted already, the parties
`
`·3· · · · · ·remain free to do that.· But the panel is not
`
`·4· · · · · ·going to set any new deadlines outside of what
`
`·5· · · · · ·the parties agree to.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · And I just want to make clear again
`
`·7· · · · · ·that this ruling applies only to those
`
`·8· · · · · ·proceedings over which the panel has
`
`·9· · · · · ·authority, which include the six proceedings
`
`10· · · · · ·that were identified in the E-Mail with the
`
`11· · · · · ·exception of IPR 2020-1012.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · I will try to send an order sometime
`
`13· · · · · ·early next week confirming that decision.· Do
`
`14· · · · · ·you have any questions about the decision,
`
`15· · · · · ·Mr. Wright?
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· I do not, Your Honor.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Mr. Pleune, any
`
`18· · · · · ·questions about that decision?
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · MR. PLEUNE:· No, Your Honor.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Do either OF
`
`21· · · · · ·the parties have any other issues they want to
`
`22· · · · · ·raise on the call while we are here.
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · Mr. Wright?
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · MR. WRIGHT:· Nothing from Roku, Your
`
`25· · · · · ·Honor.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·Roku v. UEI -- teleconference
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· Mr. Pleune,
`
`·3· · · · · ·anything else.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · MR. PLEUNE:· No, Your Honor, not from
`
`·5· · · · · ·the patent owner.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE BOUCHER:· Okay.· In that case we
`
`·7· · · · · ·are adjourned.· I hope you all have a good
`
`·8· · · · · ·weekend.· Thank you.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · (There was a discussion off the
`
`10· · · · · ·record.)
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · (Teleconference adjourned at 1:22.)
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · ·I, TAB PREWETT, A Registered Professional
`
`·5· · ·Reporter, Notary Public, Certified LiveNote
`
`·6· · ·Reporter, and Certified Shorthand Reporter, do
`
`·7· · ·hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
`
`·8· · ·accurate transcript of the proceedings as taken
`
`·9· · ·stenographically by and before me at the time, place
`
`10· · ·and on the date hereinbefore set forth.
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither
`
`13· · ·a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of
`
`14· · ·any of the parties to this action, and that I am
`
`15· · ·neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or
`
`16· · ·counsel, and that I am not financially interested in
`
`17· · ·the action.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20· · ·_________________________________________
`
`21
`
`22· · ·Notary Public
`
`23
`
`24
`· · · ·My Commission expires February 9, 2024
`25
`· · · ·Dated:· June 27, 2020
`
`

`

`Proceedings — Teleconference
`June 26, 2020
`
`Ali
`
`6:10
`
`Allawi
`
`6:10
`
`allegations
`11:4
`
`Alston
`
`6:16
`
`10:23
`
`applies
`argue
`
`22:7
`
`20:5,14
`
`20:25 22:22
`
`careful
`
`8:6
`
`10:7 12:25 14:16
`case
`16:9 18:25 19:3
`20:11 23:6
`
`8:21 10:4,5
`cases
`16:18,25 19:21
`
`arguments
`17 20:18
`
`12:20 13:4,
`
`caught
`
`19:17
`
`challenged 12:18
`18:11
`
`change
`
`19:9
`
`15:18
`changing
`check
`20:22
`
`7:2
`Chung
`citations
`
`16:18
`
`cited 19:19
`
`City 14:18
`civil
`18:22 20:5
`
`claim 12:18 15:12
`
`claims
`
`12:18 13:2
`
`15:2,11 18:4,10,15,
`19 20:9,18
`clear
`8:9 22:6
`
`colleagues
`concrete
`
`6:8
`10:13
`
`arrive 17:6
`
`12:19 15:13 18:7,
`art
`13 20:18
`
`asserted
`19 20:10
`
`18:4,10,15,
`
`assigned 7:7,8,10
`assume
`9:4
`
`attempting
`
`authority
`22:9
`
`15:3
`
`7:13,14
`
`avoid
`aware
`
`17:11,14
`19:2
`
` B b
`
`ack
`
`12:7 14:8 21:12
`
` 1 1
` 2
`
`23:11
`
`:22
`
`20
`2019
`
`16:25 17:20,25
`16:25
`
`2020—01012
`
`7:6
`
`2020—1012
`
`22:11
`
` 3
`
`8:23
`315(b)
`389
`18:12
`
` 6 6
`
`0
`
`16:25 17:20
`
`18:6
`642
`
`
`
`
`18:6
`
`17:12 21:4,6,1O
`
`conference
`16:7
`
`8:12,14
`
`confirming 22:13
`construction 12:19
`
`construed 7:12
`
`consult
`
`20:21 21:8
`
`consulted 21:19
`
`contrary 13:3
`contribution 15:12
`
`copy—cat
`
`12:24 19:21
`
`copying
`correct
`
`19:23
`11:25
`
`9:19 16:18
`couple
`court 8:2,9 20:11
`Court's
`14:19
`
` D d
`
`16:19 17:4,5
`
`ate
`
`dates
`
`day
`
`13:24
`
`12:3
`days
`deadline
`
`9:22 10:7
`
`12:7 14:4,9 16:11
`
`begin
`behalf
`
`6:21 7:17
`
`6:5 11:11
`
`Ben
`
`6:16
`
`14:20 15:4
`
`big
`Bird 6:16
`
`board 8:17 9:4,11,22,
`24 10:10,25 11:6
`16:11,16,19,21 17:2
`20:6,12
`board's
`
`11:8
`
`Boucher 6:3,12,20 8:4
`10:16 11:15 15:20
`17:18 19:11 20:20
`
`21:7,18,19 22:17,20
`23:2,6
`bounds
`
`11:10
`
`briefing 7:23
`
`briefly 12:16 13:22
`19:16,25
`
`bring 18:16
`
` C
`
`853
`
` A a
`
`busive
`
`11:2
`
`accordance
`
`21:24
`
`action 18:20,22
`actions
`10:25 11:9
`
`add
`
`19:12
`
`added
`
`13:2
`
`additional
`18:16
`
`12:25
`
`6:23 11:18,23
`address
`18:4,18 20:2,17
`addressed 14:13
`
`addresses
`
`14:15
`
`addressing 18:10
`
`adjourned 23:7,11
`
`adjust
`
`19:14 21:21
`
`advising 16:2
`
`11:10
`advocacy
`afternoon 6:3,4,9
`
`agree
`ahead
`17:17
`
`21:5 22:5
`8:10 9:21 10:14
`
`6:9 8:3,12,15
`call
`9:21 10:14 16:5,7
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`

`

`Proceedings — Teleconference
`June 26, 2020
`
`deadlines
`
`12:13 15:25
`
`fall
`
`11:9
`
`17:9 19:14 21:21,24
`22:4
`
`familiar
`
`18:14
`
`Fenick
`
`7:3
`
`decide
`
`20:6
`
`decided 21:13,20
`
`decision 10:2,10
`14:14,19 15:8,9,16
`16:22 17:6 20:5
`
`22:13,14,18
`declaration
`
`19:24
`
`deny
`
`21:20
`
`dependent
`
`13:2 18:15
`
`designed 18:18
`difference
`9:11
`
`discuss
`
`8:15
`
`discussion 21:16 23:9
`
`District
`
`20:11
`
`driven 18:25
`
`fourth 10:19,22
`Fox
`6:7
`
`frankly 13:4,19
`free
`22:3
`
` G
` E E
`
`6:25 7:19
`-MAIL
`10:25 22:10
`
`earlier
`
`14:7
`
`early 10:2 20:11
`22:13
`
`give
`21:6
`
`7:19 10:9,13
`
`Goldstein 6:7
`
`file 13:24 14:2,6
`
`filed 12:15,22 13:5
`14:23 18:20
`
`files
`
`8:16
`
`filing 16:12 17:4,5
`final
`11:13
`
`finally 10:22
`fine
`8:4
`
`firm 6:7
`
`follow 16:5 17:13
`
`follow—on
`11:6 18:3
`
`8:22 9:8,24
`
`implicate
`
`8:21
`
`12:16 17:17 19:16
`
`21:15 22:16,19,25
`23:4
`
`Honors
`
`19:2 21:3
`
`hope
`horizon
`
`11:22 23:7
`
`17:10
`
`6:22
`housekeeping
`
`
`
`
`identified 22:10
`
`9:12 10:11
`impact
`15:6 17:10
`
`implications
`
`19:3
`
`14:5
`inappropriate
`inclined 9:25 16:13
`
`include
`
`22:9
`
`including 13:16 20:8
`
`independent
`15:11
`
`12:18
`
`inefficiencies
`
`17:12
`
`inefficiency
`initial
`8:18
`
`17:15
`
`job 20:3
`
`initially 16:4
`instances
`13:25
`
`instituted 10:6 22:2
`
`institution 10:2,11
`14:14 15:9,16 17:6
`intent
`17:16
`
`interested 11:19
`
`involve
`
`17:22
`
`IPR 7:6 13:24 14:9
`22:11
`
`IPRS 12:6,8,13 15:19
`
`irrespective 16:8
`issue
`10:23 19:17
`
`20:7,10
`
`7:21 8:15 9:3,
`issues
`5,8 11:22 12:19
`14:13,18,25 15:12
`16:9 17:22 18:2,17
`19:4 20:17 22:21
`
`ITC 18:5,20
`
` J J
`
`ames
`
`6:18
`
`good 6:3,4 23:7
`
`granted 8:24 14:24
`15:16
`
`grants
`
`17:2
`
`Greenberg
`
`6:18
`
`guess
`
`15:22 17:19
`
`guessing 17:21
`
`guidance
`
`16:6
`
`guide
`
`16:6
`
`guides
`
`8:13
`
`guise
`
`15:15
`
` H h
`
`and
`
`12:10
`
`happen
`
`haPPY
`harass
`
`17:22
`
`10:14 16:17
`
`19:7
`
`11:2
`
`harassing
`head 17:23
`
`hear
`
`10:18
`
`10:15 21:3,6
`helpful
`6:5,15 7:25
`Honor
`8:11,20 11:14,25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`efficiency
`
`efficiently
`Electronics
`
`end
`
`18:25
`
`9:13
`
`9:19
`
`6:17
`
`entitled
`
`13:20
`
`established
`
`13:11
`
`evolving 9:3
`excellent
`20:3
`
`exception 22:11
`exercise
`7:12
`
`existing 12:7,13 14:9
`15:7 19:23
`
`expect
`19:20
`
`7:7 12:15
`
`expediting 16:21
`
`expert
`
`13:16 18:8
`
`13:14
`express
`extensions
`13:25
`
` F f
`
`6:23 7:9 9:14
`
`act
`20:9
`
`

`

`Proceedings — Teleconference
`June 26, 2020
`
` P
`
`panel 7:7,10,14 15:24
`19:13 20:21,24 21:8,
`13,20 22:3,8
`
`panelled 7:4
`
`panels
`
`16:19
`
`papers
`
`9:25
`
`8:14 9:11
`parties
`20:14 21:23 22:2,5,
`21
`
`party 8:16
`
`past
`
`17:2
`
`6:14,16 9:20,
`patent
`23 10:8 11:20 12:3
`
`13:18 14:6 16:3,12,
`14 18:12 20:5 23:5
`
`18:6
`patents
`Patrick 21:18
`
`pending
`
`9:8 10:4,6,12
`
`people
`
`8:7
`
`permitted 13:21
`
`petition 12:24 14:3
`17:4 19:23
`
`mentioned 14:17 15:10
`17:21