throbber
1
`
` 1 ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
`
` 2 7/13/20 PHONE HEARING
`
` 3
`
` 4 This transcript is a rough draft only, not
` certified in any way and, therefore, cannot be
` 5 quotes from in any way, used for reading and
` signing by a witness, or filed with any court. All
` 6 parties receiving this rough-draft transcript agree
` that it will not be shared, given, copied, scanned,
` 7 faxed, or in any way distributed in any form by any
` party or to anyone except their own experts,
` 8 co-counsel, or staff, and agree to destroy this
` rough draft in any form and replace it with the
` 9 final certified transcript when it is completed.
` There will be discrepancies as to page and
` 10 line numbers when comparing the rough-draft
` transcript and the final transcript, and the
` 11 rough-draft transcript may contain untranslated
` steno, incorrect punctuation, incorrect spelling,
` 12 an occasional reporter's note, and/or nonsensical
` English word combinations.
` 13 The rough-draft transcript will not include
` title pages, exam/exhibit indexes, or a
` 14 certificate. Exhibits will not be included. This
` document has not been proofread.
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17 JUDGE TROCK: This is in the
`
` 18 matter of IPR 2020-00204, Apple versus Maxell.
`
` 19 Counsel, were you able to get a court reporter?
`
` 20 MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`
` 21 JUDGE TROCK: Counsel for
`
` 22 Petitioner, who is going to speak for you today?
`
` 23 MR. SEITZ: Yes, your Honor. This
`
` 24 is Adam Seitz for Petitioner Apple.
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 1
`
`

`

` 25 MR. PLUTA: And good afternoon,
`
` 2
`
` 1 your Honor. This is Robert Pluta on behalf of
`
` 2 patent owner.
`
` 3 JUDGE TROCK: Welcome, counsel.
`
` 4 Well, we have this call today because we received
`
` 5 an email from Mr. Seitz on Thursday regarding this
`
` 6 case, in particular having to do with the issue of
`
` 7 a jury trial in the District Court proceeding so
`
` 8 counsel for Petitioner.
`
` 9 Why don't you go ahead and state your
`
` 10 position first.
`
` 11 MR. SEITZ: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` 12 As you're aware, as we've briefed in our reply and
`
` 13 Maxell has briefed in its sur-reply, Fintiv Factor
`
` 14 4 looks at the overlap between litigation and the
`
` 15 IPR and examines the fact whether there will be
`
` 16 inconsistent decisions between the District Court
`
` 17 and the board. After the parties had briefed in
`
` 18 the replies and the sur-replies, the question of
`
` 19 Fintiv, Maxell filed a summary judgment motion
`
` 20 with the court on the '586 patent seeking to
`
` 21 prevent the jury from hearing the invalidity
`
` 22 questions in the District Court for that patent
`
` 23 while at the same time arguing to this board that
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 2
`
`

`

` 24 the jury would already hear the same issues and
`
` 25 that that should be an independent basis for
`
` 3
`
` 1 denial under Fintiv.
`
` 2 Apple sent its email to the board to
`
` 3 inform you of this new development and to ensure
`
` 4 that the record accurately reflected the facts
`
` 5 behind this motion because I know the question of
`
` 6 Fintiv and overlap has been a hotly disputed
`
` 7 issue.
`
` 8 And fundamentally your Honor Maxell is
`
` 9 accusing Apple of gamesmanship and manipulation
`
` 10 of the process here in our selection of prior
`
` 11 art. Now, that simply is not the case and this
`
` 12 summary judgment briefing further highlights the
`
` 13 issues in Maxell's arguments.
`
` 14 The brief bit of background, the District
`
` 15 Court as your Honor is surely are aware parties
`
` 16 constantly engage in a court mandated narrowing
`
` 17 of their case. This includes asserted claims as
`
` 18 well as the invalidity series. Those are then
`
` 19 whittled down more when we go to trial. You have
`
` 20 a limited amount of time to present the court
`
` 21 here to a jury.
`
` 22 Apple in this case has made a Kirkup the
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 3
`
`

`

` 23 primary reference in this IPR for the board to
`
` 24 analyze because Apple wanted the expertise of the
`
` 25 board to analyze the question of invalidity.
`
` 4
`
` 1 This was the very same rationale that was made by
`
` 2 the board in the Apple versus seven networks
`
` 3 case, IPR 202156 at page 19 where that panel
`
` 4 noted that there were considerations with what a
`
` 5 party could reasonably present to a jury and made
`
` 6 strategic decisions on presenting a case to the
`
` 7 board where they could present or would have much
`
` 8 more time to present and time to examine the
`
` 9 issues of the invalidity questions. That's what
`
` 10 happened here.
`
` 11 Apple also made a substantive decision to
`
` 12 not present the Kirkup combination before the
`
` 13 board to the District Court in its final
`
` 14 narrowing of prior art. Instead in the District
`
` 15 Court litigation Apple is using the Schiffer S C
`
` 16 H I F F E R reference. The Schiffer reference is
`
` 17 not used at all ) ) in Apple's invalidity
`
` 18 challenges in the P tab not certainly as part of
`
` 19 our combinations or grounds. The only place it
`
` 20 appears is a passing reference in the background
`
` 21 section of our expert's declaration. In its
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 4
`
`

`

` 22 sur-reply briefing in this case Maxell argued
`
` 23 that a jury will decide substantially the same
`
` 24 issues and invited the board to institute based
`
` 25 on that factual with this recent filing of a
`
` 5
`
` 1 summary judgment motion Maxell is now arguing to
`
` 2 the district court that the jury should be
`
` 3 prevented from hearing any one of two 102
`
` 4 invalidity case on the '586 patent. The only
`
` 5 arguments that Apple has in the District Court at
`
` 6 this point all center around Schiffer on the '586
`
` 7 patent.
`
` 8 Now, Maxell's motion which the board does
`
` 9 not have before it which I would be happy to
`
` 10 provide as an exhibit for this proceeding
`
` 11 Maxell's summary judgment motion is based on a
`
` 12 single issue, one issue only and it's four pages
`
` 13 in substantive length for substantive argument.
`
` 14 That argues the question is whether Schiffer
`
` 15 teaches a limitation in all independent claims
`
` 16 requiring memory in a first device that stores
`
` 17 information about a second device. That's the
`
` 18 summary judgment motion at page four.
`
` 19 Maxell's summary judgment motion expressly
`
` 20 depends on the facts that Apple's district court
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 5
`
`

`

` 21 invalidity theories do not rely on Maxell or
`
` 22 Kirkup for this limitation. And that's the
`
` 23 summary judgment motion at page seven.
`
` 24 There Maxell says Apple's expert does not
`
` 25 rely on Kirkup to teach the missing memory
`
` 6
`
` 1 limitation in Schiffer. So in the summary
`
` 2 judgment motion to boil that down the attack is
`
` 3 that Schiffer does not disclose the memory
`
` 4 limitation. The summary judgment motion does not
`
` 5 rely in any way or make any arguments at all on
`
` 6 the Kirkup reference and no finding will be made
`
` 7 by the District Court on the Kirkup reference as
`
` 8 to whether it does or does not include any
`
` 9 teachings. Now, as noted previously, Apple's IPR
`
` 10 relies exclusively on Kirkup for the memory
`
` 11 limitation that is being challenged at the
`
` 12 summary judgment motion against Schiffer in the
`
` 13 District Court. We don't rely on the IPR on
`
` 14 Schiffer at all for ground one or ground two.
`
` 15 Maxell fundamentally has tried to have its
`
` 16 cake and eat it too. If Maxell successfully
`
` 17 defeats institution under Fintiv and purported
`
` 18 overlap and the District Court then grants in
`
` 19 summary judgment based on Schiffer's, alleged
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 6
`
`

`

` 20 deficiencies, s both the board and the jury will
`
` 21 be deprived of analyzing invalidity of the '586
`
` 22 patent. Specifically no tribunal anywhere if
`
` 23 Maxell is successful in its two arguments, no
`
` 24 tribunal anywhere will examine the question of
`
` 25 whether Kirkup teaches the disputed limitation.
`
` 7
`
` 1 The District Court, the jury and the board
`
` 2 would all be deprived of determining whether
`
` 3 Kirkup teaches any of the limitations and in
`
` 4 particular the memory limitation based on
`
` 5 Maxell's arguments. Maxell simply cannot be
`
` 6 correct that the IPR and the District Court
`
` 7 grounds involve substantially the same issues for
`
` 8 that very fact and we believe that the board
`
` 9 should have been given opportunity to hear. I
`
` 10 Appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this
`
` 11 today.
`
` 12 Fundamentally your Honor the Fintiv
`
` 13 analysis and Factor 4 are directed at making sure
`
` 14 two tribunals are not looking at the same
`
` 15 invalidity case. And here as I've just described
`
` 16 that's absolutely not the case. Maxell's summary
`
` 17 judgment is proof of that very fact. And so your
`
` 18 Honor as I ask for in addition to this I
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 7
`
`

`

` 19 understand there's a transcript that will be
`
` 20 provided but I ask for the opportunity to submit
`
` 21 a short summary of this summary judgment motion
`
` 22 or at a minimum to submit that summary judgment
`
` 23 to help complete the record in addition to the
`
` 24 oral argument that we're having here today, your
`
` 25 Honors.
`
` 8
`
` 1 JUDGE TROCK: I appreciate that,
`
` 2 counsel. Also we're going to give Mr. Pluta some
`
` 3 time to respond here. But I just want to explain
`
` 4 that the reason we're having this call is because
`
` 5 we're getting very close to the deadline for the
`
` 6 issuance of the decision on institution in this
`
` 7 case. And with regard to the request that you had
`
` 8 in your email Mr. Seitz there just isn't enough
`
` 9 time left in the calendar to have the briefing
`
` 10 done the way you had suggested. So that's why we
`
` 11 decided to have this call is we thought this would
`
` 12 be a little more efficient way of at least getting
`
` 13 something into the record here with regard to this
`
` 14 issue. So with that being said, Mr. Pluta, you
`
` 15 want to go ahead and respond?
`
` 16 MR. PLUTA: Yeah, your Honor. I
`
` 17 think I wasn't expecting a full argument of the
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 8
`
`

`

` 18 issues but I'm prepared to do so. On June 30th
`
` 19 the parties in the underlying District Court
`
` 20 action filed 16 motions across the pins patents at
`
` 21 issue. At least two of months motions filed were
`
` 22 directed to the patent at issue here the '586
`
` 23 patent. This was after completion of expert
`
` 24 discovery, after deposition of both Apple's and
`
` 25 Maxell's experts had been deposed on the '586
`
` 9
`
` 1 patent. Responses to those summary judgment
`
` 2 motions are due on July 15th, and a hearing is
`
` 3 scheduleed on those motions for September 15th
`
` 4 about a month prior to trial. We don't know why
`
` 5 Petitioner wait over a week after this supposed
`
` 6 significant development in the District Court
`
` 7 action to bring the issue to the board's attention
`
` 8 and less than a week before the board was to issue
`
` 9 its institution decision. So we ask that it be
`
` 10 rejected, the request be rejected on that basis
`
` 11 alone.
`
` 12 But the board here has already received
`
` 13 extensive briefing on the Fintiv factors. The
`
` 14 District Court, Petitioner tries to say, well,
`
` 15 the jury is not going to hear these issues if
`
` 16 we're successful on the summary judgment motion,
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 9
`
`

`

` 17 but that kind of misses the point. The fact is
`
` 18 the District Court case is so far along that
`
` 19 either the court is going to rule in Maxell's
`
` 20 favor on summary judgment and confirm the
`
` 21 validity of the '586 patent or the jury will
`
` 22 several months later, all nine or ten months
`
` 23 prior to this board issuing a final decision if
`
` 24 it were to institute IPR here.
`
` 25 And just to add to or counter what
`
` 10
`
` 1 Mr. Seitz said about Factor 4, there is
`
` 2 significant overlap in the case. Certainly there
`
` 3 was at the time that the petition was filed.
`
` 4 There was complete overlap at that time in both
`
` 5 claims and prior art. As a result of the
`
` 6 narrowing, there is still some overlap including
`
` 7 the Schiffer and the Kirkup references. Nothing
`
` 8 in Fintiv requires complete overlap or complete
`
` 9 overlap of claims. In fact in Apple's summary
`
` 10 judgment motion I'm sorry the Motion to Strike
`
` 11 Maxell's experts with respect to the '586 patent,
`
` 12 Apple itself recognizes the similarity between
`
` 13 claim one and claim 16 and as we pointed out in
`
` 14 our sur-reply, their analysis is the same for all
`
` 15 the independent claims.
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 10
`
`

`

` 16 So the fact that some issues, some claims
`
` 17 are not at issue now in the District Court
`
` 18 relative to this proceeding should be of no
`
` 19 moment because there's significant overlap
`
` 20 between the claims. So the validity of the '586
`
` 21 patent here will be decided in the underlying
`
` 22 litigation in the next couple of months.
`
` 23 So Factor 4 favors Maxell but all the
`
` 24 other factors favor Maxell as well. Apple is
`
` 25 attempting to focus on Factor 4 as the sole
`
` 11
`
` 1 factor, but clearly the precedential Fintiv
`
` 2 decisions do not hold as such.
`
` 3 I'll pause there in case the board has any
`
` 4 questions.
`
` 5 JUDGE TROCK: I do have one for
`
` 6 you. Could you respond to Mr. Seitz's position
`
` 7 with respect to the memory limitation difference
`
` 8 between Kirkup and Schiffer.
`
` 9 MR. PLUTA: Yes, your Honor. You
`
` 10 have to give me a minute here to pull up the --.
`
` 11 I apologize.
`
` 12 JUDGE TROCK: Would it be helpful
`
` 13 to you if we had Mr. Seitz restate his position on
`
` 14 this?
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 11
`
`

`

` 15 MR. PLUTA: Please just so -- the
`
` 16 file is still loading here.
`
` 17 MR. SEITZ: Yes, this is
`
` 18 Mr. Seitz. Your Honor and Mr. Pluta, the point
`
` 19 that I made about the memory is that in the
`
` 20 District Court Maxell has argued in its summary
`
` 21 judgment motion against Schiffer saying that
`
` 22 Schiffer does not meet those memory limitations.
`
` 23 And specifically noted in its summary judgment
`
` 24 motion that Kirkup is not being used to teach the
`
` 25 memory limitation which they allege is missing in
`
` 12
`
` 1 Schiffer. And so when we get to the IPR, Kirkup
`
` 2 is being used to discuss that specific or to teach
`
` 3 that specific memory limitation, and so that a
`
` 4 finding in the District Court stating that
`
` 5 Schiffer allegedly misses or fails to disclose the
`
` 6 memory limitation will have no bearing on whether
`
` 7 Kirkup also fails to disclose that fundamentally
`
` 8 because those are two different patents. Kirkup
`
` 9 uses a different memory structure including both
`
` 10 on board memory and an SD card for memory, which
`
` 11 is very different from Schiffer.
`
` 12 MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Mr. Seitz.
`
` 13 Unfortunately my technology is failing, but I'll
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 12
`
`

`

` 14 respond in any event. So I think the fundamental
`
` 15 misunderstanding that petitioner is setting forth
`
` 16 is that there has to be complete overlap in
`
` 17 references and that Fintiv calls for that. With
`
` 18 respect to the memory limitation, whether we're
`
` 19 looking at Schiffer or Kirkup, you know, in
`
` 20 different proceedings, the same issue is the
`
` 21 validity of that particular limitation and the
`
` 22 validity of a particular claim that's being
`
` 23 presented both here and in the District Court
`
` 24 action. So yes, they're different references, but
`
` 25 both of those references Kirkup and Schiffer are
`
` 13
`
` 1 informing both proceedings, both here still and in
`
` 2 the District Court action.
`
` 3 JUDGE TROCK: This is Judge Trock
`
` 4 again. All right thank you, counsel. I believe
`
` 5 you mentioned that the summary judgment briefing
`
` 6 is not complete yet, is that correct, in the
`
` 7 District Court?
`
` 8 MR. PLUTA: That's right, your
`
` 9 Honor. This is Rob Pluta. It is the oppositions
`
` 10 are due on the 15th here I guess Wednesday.
`
` 11 JUDGE TROCK: All right. Let me
`
` 12 put you on pause. I'm going to consult with my
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 13
`
`

`

` 13 colleagues here. Hold on one second.
`
` 14 (Off the record.)
`
` 15 JUDGE TROCK: All right, Judge
`
` 16 Trock again. What I think we'd like to do is to
`
` 17 have the party file summary judgment briefly as it
`
` 18 stands today in the case so that we would have
`
` 19 access to that as well as a transcript of this
`
` 20 conference call if we could get that done sooner
`
` 21 rather than later that would be very helpful to
`
` 22 us.
`
` 23 MR. SEITZ: Your Honor this is
`
` 24 Mr. Seitz. We can submit, we were prepared to
`
` 25 submit the transcript of the conference call one
`
` 14
`
` 1 of your paralegal has asked for it to be submitted
`
` 2 no later than one Eastern tomorrow and we'll get
`
` 3 that done. And at that same time we'll also
`
` 4 submit the summary briefing that we've referred to
`
` 5 today. If we can submit them both at the same
`
` 6 time that would be my proposal.
`
` 7 JUDGE TROCK: This is Judge Trock
`
` 8 again. If the summary judgment briefing is
`
` 9 already done to the extent of the District Court,
`
` 10 that would be just it would seem to me that would
`
` 11 be just your filing as exhibits. Would that be
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 14
`
`

`

` 12 something you could do today?
`
` 13 MR. SEITZ: Absolutely yeah.
`
` 14 We'll get that filed after we got here. I'll get
`
` 15 ahold of our paralegal and get that stuff out for
`
` 16 you, your Honor.
`
` 17 JUDGE TROCK: That would be great.
`
` 18 And even if it's a rough transcript that would be
`
` 19 helpful to us as well.
`
` 20 MR. PLUTA: Your Honor, I wanted
`
` 21 to interject. This is Mr. Pluta. To submit
`
` 22 Apple's summary judgment or Motion to Strike, it
`
` 23 may be required to seal the filing. Do we have
`
` 24 permission to file that as non-public?
`
` 25 MR. SEITZ: Your Honor if I may,
`
` 15
`
` 1 this is Mr. Seitz.
`
` 2 JUDGE TROCK: Go ahead, Mr. Seitz.
`
` 3 MR. SEITZ: I personally am a
`
` 4 little confused by that request on the briefing.
`
` 5 I have not heard from Mr. Pluta why that bears any
`
` 6 particular relevance to the summary judgment
`
` 7 briefing that was the original focus of my email
`
` 8 or almost the entire focus of our discussion
`
` 9 today.
`
` 10 I'm not certain what point he's trying to
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 15
`
`

`

` 11 get across and I certainly wasn't aware of that
`
` 12 briefing in his response to us. So I guess I'm
`
` 13 just more questioning number one why that's being
`
` 14 submitted and number two the point for which he's
`
` 15 submitting it.
`
` 16 MR. PLUTA: May I respond, your
`
` 17 Honor?
`
` 18 JUDGE TROCK: Yes.
`
` 19 MR. PLUTA: So further to the
`
` 20 points I made just a couple of minutes ago, in
`
` 21 Apple's briefing on the Motion to Strike with
`
` 22 respect to the '586 patent Apple points out the
`
` 23 similarities between the claims at issue here and
`
` 24 the similarities of the claims at issue in the
`
` 25 District Court action. So to the extent and it
`
` 16
`
` 1 sounds like Apple's attempting to add the summary
`
` 2 judgment motion to support its Fintiv Factor 4
`
` 3 analysis. I think it's only fair that we should
`
` 4 be able to do the same.
`
` 5 JUDGE TROCK: This is Judge Trock
`
` 6 again. The main interest that we had in having
`
` 7 this call was this issue about the arguments
`
` 8 relating to the jury and this Fintiv 4 overlap
`
` 9 question that was brought to our attention that
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 16
`
`

`

` 10 Maxell was quoting to Apple, was taking a
`
` 11 position, one position with the, what's here in
`
` 12 the proceeding and perhaps arguably a different
`
` 13 position with the District Court. Because the
`
` 14 decision on institution is due within the next few
`
` 15 days, there wasn't enough time for us to have a
`
` 16 complete briefing on this issue. So what we would
`
` 17 appreciate is to try to get up to speed on this
`
` 18 and not try to open this up into a full-fledged
`
` 19 second round of briefing or exhibits on Fintiv.
`
` 20 We just want to sort of clarify this particular
`
` 21 issue of what Maxell is doing in the District
`
` 22 Court versus compared to what its arguments have
`
` 23 been in this IPR proceeding.
`
` 24 So perhaps it would be helpful to identify
`
` 25 exactly which briefs have been filed on the
`
` 17
`
` 1 summary judgment in District Court. Maybe we
`
` 2 could do it that way. Mr. Seitz?
`
` 3 MR. SEITZ: Yes, you thank you,
`
` 4 your Honor. The only brief to which I was
`
` 5 referring was Maxell's. In my original email and
`
` 6 in my discussions today was Maxell's summary
`
` 7 judgment Motion to Strike the invalidity arguments
`
` 8 against the '586 patent and within that one motion
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 17
`
`

`

` 9 was just the argument that Schiffer fails to
`
` 10 disclose the memory limitation. That is the only
`
` 11 brief to which I'm referring. I'm sorry I don't
`
` 12 know the docket number off the top of my head, but
`
` 13 it's just that one filing that has been the
`
` 14 subject of our discussion. And that was what I
`
` 15 would, would have submitted as an exhibit in
`
` 16 response to your Honor's request.
`
` 17 JUDGE TROCK: Mr. Pluta, do you
`
` 18 have an objection to that?
`
` 19 MR. PLUTA: Well, I don't have
`
` 20 sounds like the board is going to allow the
`
` 21 submission of the summary judgment motion, but I
`
` 22 would ask that we're allowed to also counter that
`
` 23 because it does go to Apple's telling the board
`
` 24 here one thing and telling the District Court
`
` 25 another thing, in other words telling this board
`
` 18
`
` 1 in its Fintiv briefing that there's not a lot of
`
` 2 overlap in the claims and their claims are very
`
` 3 different on the one hand and then telling the
`
` 4 District Court that claims one and 16 for example
`
` 5 are the same. I think we need to complete the
`
` 6 record on that by submitting what Apple told the
`
` 7 District Court as well.
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 18
`
`

`

` 8 JUDGE TROCK: Okay. And which
`
` 9 document would this be, Mr. Pluta?
`
` 10 MR. PLUTA: This would be Apple's
`
` 11 Motion to Strike portions of Maxell's opening
`
` 12 expert reports. It relates to the '586 patent as
`
` 13 well as several other patents.
`
` 14 JUDGE TROCK: All right. So the
`
` 15 one question I have is, are any of these documents
`
` 16 or exhibits, briefs, subject to a protective order
`
` 17 in the court?
`
` 18 MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, this is
`
` 19 Adam Seitz. Go ahead, Rob.
`
` 20 MR. PLUTA: I don't believe
`
` 21 Apple's motion is, I'm sorry, I meant to say
`
` 22 Maxell's motion is. Apple's may be under seal
`
` 23 because it relates to certain infringement
`
` 24 theories. However, the parties have filed a
`
` 25 redacted version in front of the District Court,
`
` 19
`
` 1 so we likely have a copy that we can file publicly
`
` 2 with the board.
`
` 3 JUDGE TROCK: Mr. Seitz, will you
`
` 4 address that?
`
` 5 MR. SEITZ: Yes, your Honor. The
`
` 6 summary judgment motion that we plan to file is
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 19
`
`

`

` 7 the redacted version that I was able to access
`
` 8 publicly through the Pacer account. I guess I
`
` 9 fundamentally would object to Mr. Pluta's request
`
` 10 because number one it wasn't the focus what we
`
` 11 were here for today. Number two it's not the
`
` 12 question that's before us. And number three, I
`
` 13 think it's reopening a question of briefing,
`
` 14 rebriefing or rearguing all of the facets of
`
` 15 Factor 4, which I don't read or don't believe is
`
` 16 necessary.
`
` 17 If your Honor is going to allow that
`
` 18 additional step to be submitted, I am not
`
` 19 litigation counsel for Apple, so I would be
`
` 20 hesitant to say what would or would not be
`
` 21 confidential. If there is a version that is
`
` 22 publicly available on the court's system, then
`
` 23 clearly I wouldn't have any sort of argument
`
` 24 against confidentiality on a public document.
`
` 25 JUDGE TROCK: Well, Mr. Pluta, do
`
` 20
`
` 1 you confirm that that document is publicly
`
` 2 available and there's nothing confidential in it?
`
` 3 MR. PLUTA: That's correct, your
`
` 4 Honor. We filed a redacted version that was a
`
` 5 public version of that, and my recollection it has
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 20
`
`

`

` 6 all the relevant information in it that we want to
`
` 7 cite to the board. And, you know, this came up
`
` 8 today because we were kind of caught. We didn't
`
` 9 understand what Petitioner was attempting to argue
`
` 10 today because they never called us before. It was
`
` 11 just the email exchange that the board has seen.
`
` 12 Certainly we listened to the matter a little
`
` 13 further after that email exchange.
`
` 14 JUDGE TROCK: All right, what I
`
` 15 think we're going to do, we'll let you each file
`
` 16 the public versions of these two documents we're
`
` 17 discussing, Maxell's summary judgment motion and
`
` 18 Apple's Motion to Strike. Please make sure
`
` 19 they're redacted and there's nothing confidential
`
` 20 in them and these are publicly available documents
`
` 21 before you file them with us. We also have on
`
` 22 file as soon as it's practicable a transcript of
`
` 23 this conference call, that would also be helpful.
`
` 24 MR. SEITZ: This is Mr. Seitz.
`
` 25 Your Honor we will file the summary judgment on
`
` 21
`
` 1 which was the focus of my email right after this.
`
` 2 As soon as I got a rough transcript I will also
`
` 3 submit that as an exhibit. And then as soon as we
`
` 4 have a final transcript I will submit that as an
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1054 Page 21
`
`

`

`5 exhibit as well. So as soon as they come to us,
`
`6 we'll be sure to file them with the filing
`
`7 procedures so they get to you as quick as
`
`8 possible.
`
`9
`
`JUDGE TROCK: I'd appreciate, that
`
`10 counsel. Thank you very much for keeping us
`
`11 apprized. Is there anything else we need to
`
`12 discuss today?
`
`13
`
`MR. SEITZ: On behalf of
`
`14 Pet

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket