TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` For the Petitioner:
` MR. ADAM P. SEITZ
` MR. PAUL R. HART
` ERISE IP, P.A.
` 7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
` Overland Park, Kansas 66211
` adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`
` For the Patent Owner:
` MR. ROBERT G. PLUTA
` MAYER BROWN LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
` The Court Reporter:
`
` Ms. Saundra Tippins
` Alaris Litigation Services
` 1608 Locust Street
` Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
`Page 4
`
` JUDGE TROCK: This is in the
` matter of IPR 2020-00204, Apple versus Maxell.
` Counsel, were you able to get a court reporter?
` MR. SEITZ: Yes.
` JUDGE TROCK: Counsel for
` Petitioner, who is going to speak for you today?
` MR. SEITZ: Yes, your Honor. This
` is Adam Seitz for Petitioner Apple.
` MR. PLUTA: And good afternoon,
` your Honor. This is Robert Pluta on behalf of
` Patent Owner.
` JUDGE TROCK: Welcome, counsel.
` Well, we have this call today because we received
` an email from Mr. Seitz on Thursday regarding this
` case, in particular having to do with the issue of
` a jury trial in the District Court proceeding.
` So counsel for Petitioner, why don't you
` go ahead and state your position first.
` MR. SEITZ: Thank you, your Honor.
` As you're aware, as we've briefed in our reply and
` Maxell has briefed in its sur-reply, Fintiv
` Factor 4 looks at the overlap between litigation
` and the IPR and examines the question of whether
` there will be inconsistent decisions between the
` District Court and the board.
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. No. IPR2020-00202
` Patent 10,212,586 B2
`MAXELL, LTD,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING
` BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, KEVIN C. TROCK, JOHN A. HUDALLA
` July 13, 2020
` Saundra Tippins, CCR
`
` (The conference began at 3:58 p.m.)
`
`Page 2
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. No. IPR2020-00202
` Patent 10,212,586 B2
`MAXELL, LTD,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING, taken on the 13th
`day of July, 2020, between the hours of nine
`o'clock in the forenoon and five o'clock in the
`afternoon of that day, via telephone, before
`SAUNDRA TIPPINS, a Notary Public, and Certified
`Court Reporter within and for the States of
`Missouri and Kansas, in a certain cause now pending
`before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, wherein APPLE
`INC. is the Petitioner and MAXELL, LTD. is the
`Patent Owner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`1 (Pages 1 to 4)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 1
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` After the parties had briefed in the
` replies and the sur-replies the question of
` Fintiv, Maxell filed a summary judgment motion
` with the Court on the '586 patent, seeking to
` prevent the jury from hearing the invalidity
` questions in the District Court for that patent,
` while at the same time arguing to this board that
` the jury would already hear the same issues and
` that that should be an independent basis for
` denial under Fintiv.
` Apple sent its email to the board to
` inform you of this new development and to ensure
` that the record accurately reflected the facts
` behind this motion, because I know the question
` of Fintiv and overlap has been a hotly disputed
` issue.
` And fundamentally, your Honor, Maxell is
` accusing Apple of gamesmanship and manipulation
` of the process here in our selection of prior
` art. Now, that simply is not the case. And this
` summary judgment briefing further highlights the
` issues in Maxell's arguments.
` The brief bit of background, the District
` Court, as your Honors surely are aware, parties
` constantly engage in a court-mandated narrowing
`
`Page 6
` of their case. This includes asserted claims as
` well as the invalidity series. Those are then
` whittled down even more when we go to trial,
` where you have a limited amount of time to
` present your entire case here to a jury.
` Apple in this case and this specific
` petition, your Honor, has made a specific
` decision to select Kirkup, K-i-r-k-u-p, the
` primary reference in this IPR, for the board to
` analyze, because Apple wanted the expertise of
` the board to analyze the question of invalidity.
` This was the very same rationale that was
` made by the board in the Apple versus Seven
` Networks case, IPR2020-156 at page 19, where that
` panel noted that there were considerations with
` what a party could reasonably present to a jury
` and made strategic decisions on presenting a case
` to the board where they could present or would
` have much more time to present and time to
` examine the issues of the invalidity questions.
` That's what happened here.
` Apple also made a substantive decision to
` not present the Kirkup combination before the
` board to the District Court in its final
` narrowing of prior art. Instead. In the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` District Court litigation Apple is using the
` Schiffer, S-c-h-i-f-f-e-r reference.
` The Schiffer reference is not used at all
` in Apple's invalidity challenges in the PTAB,
` certainly not as part of our combinations or our
` grounds. The only place it appears is a passing
` reference in the background section of our
` expert's declaration.
` In its sur-reply briefing in this case,
` Maxell argued that a jury will decide
` substantially the same issues and invited the
` board to deny institution based on that fact.
` With this recent filing of a summary judgment
` motion, Maxell is now arguing to the District
` Court that the jury should be prevented from
` hearing any 102/103 invalidity case on the '586
` patent. The only arguments that Apple has in the
` District Court at this point all center around
` Schiffer on the '586 patent.
` Now, Maxell's motion, which the board does
` not have before it, which I would be happy to
` provide as an exhibit for this proceeding,
` Maxell's summary judgment motion is based on a
` single issue, one issue only, and it's four pages
` in substantive length for substantive argument.
`
`Page 8
`
` That argues, the question is whether
` Schiffer teaches a limitation in all independent
` claims requiring memory in a first device that
` stores information about a second device. That's
` the summary judgment motion at page four.
` Maxell's summary judgment motion expressly
` depends on the facts that Apple's District Court
` invalidity theories do not rely on Maxell -- or
` Kirkup for this limitation. And that's the
` summary judgment motion at page seven.
` There Maxell says Apple's expert does not
` rely on Kirkup to teach the missing memory
` limitation in Schiffer. So in the summary
` judgment motion, to boil that down, the attack is
` that Schiffer does not disclose the memory
` limitation. The summary judgment motion does not
` rely in any way or make any arguments at all on
` the Kirkup reference, and no finding will be made
` by the District Court on the Kirkup reference as
` to whether it does or does not include any
` teachings.
` Now, as noted previously, Apple's IPR
` relies exclusively on Kirkup for the memory
` limitation that is being challenged at the
` summary judgment motion against Schiffer in the
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`2 (Pages 5 to 8)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 2
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 9
` District Court. We don't rely on the IPR on
` Schiffer at all for ground one or ground two.
` Maxell fundamentally is just trying to
` have its cake and eat it, too. If Maxell
` successfully defeats institution under Fintiv
` based on some purported overlap and the District
` Court then grants summary judgment based on
` Schiffer's deficiencies, alleged deficiencies,
` both the board and the jury will be deprived of
` analyzing invalidity of the '586 patent.
` Specifically, no tribunal anywhere, if
` Maxell is successful in its two arguments, no
` tribunal anywhere will examine the question of
` whether Kirkup teaches the disputed limitation.
` The District Court, the jury and the board
` would all be deprived of determining whether
` Kirkup teaches any of the limitations and in
` particular the memory limitation based on
` Maxell's arguments.
` Maxell simply cannot be correct that the
` IPR and the District Court grounds involve
` substantially the same issues for that very fact.
` And we believe that the board should have been
` given opportunity to hear. I appreciate the
` opportunity to be heard on this here today.
`
`Page 10
`
` Fundamentally, your Honor, the Fintiv
` analysis and Factor 4 are directed at making sure
` two tribunals are not looking at the same
` invalidity case. And here, as I've just
` described, that's absolutely not the case.
` Maxell's summary judgment is proof of that very
` fact.
` And so, your Honor, as I ask for, in
` addition to this I understand there's a
` transcript that will be provided, but I ask for
` the opportunity to submit a short summary of this
` summary judgment motion or at a minimum to submit
` that summary judgment to help complete the record
` in addition to the oral argument that we're
` having here today, your Honors.
` JUDGE TROCK: I appreciate that,
` counsel. Also we're going to give Mr. Pluta some
` time to respond here. But I just want to explain
` that the reason we're having this call is because
` we're getting very close to the deadline for the
` issuance of the decision on institution in this
` case.
` And with regard to the request that you
` had in your email, Mr. Seitz, there just isn't
` enough time left in the calendar to have the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 11
` briefing done the way you had suggested. So
` that's why we decided to have this call, is we
` thought this would be a little more efficient way
` of at least getting something into the record
` here with regard to this issue.
` So with that being said, Mr. Pluta, you
` want to go ahead and respond?
` MR. PLUTA: Yeah, your Honor. I
` think I wasn't expecting a full argument of the
` issues, but I'm prepared to do so.
` On June 30th the parties in the underlying
` District Court action filed 16 motions across the
` ten patents at issue. At least two of those
` motions filed were directed to the patent at
` issue here, the '586 patent.
` This was after completion of expert
` discovery, after deposition of both Apple's and
` Maxell's experts had been deposed on the '586
` patent. Responses to those summary judgment
` motions are due on July 15th, and a hearing is
` scheduled on those motions for September 15th,
` about a month prior to trial.
` We don't know why Petitioner waited over a
` week after this supposed significant development
` in the District Court action to bring the issue
`
`Page 12
` to the board's attention less than a week before
` the board was to issue its institution decision.
` So we ask that it be rejected, the request be
` rejected, on that basis alone.
` But the board here has already received
` extensive briefing on the Fintiv factors. The
` District Court, Petitioner tries to say, well,
` the jury is not going to hear these issues if
` we're successful on the summary judgment motion,
` but that kind of misses the point.
` The fact is the District Court case is so
` far along that either the court is going to rule
` in Maxell's favor on summary judgment and confirm
` the validity of the '586 patent or the jury will
` several months later, all nine or ten months
` prior to this board issuing a final decision if
` it were to institute IPR here.
` And just to add to or counter what
` Mr. Seitz said about Factor 4, there is
` significant overlap in the case. Certainly there
` was at the time that the petition was filed.
` There was complete overlap at that time in both
` claims and prior art.
` As a result of the narrowing, there is
` still some overlap, including the Schiffer and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`3 (Pages 9 to 12)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 3
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 13
`
` the Kirkup references. Nothing in Fintiv
` requires complete overlap or complete overlap of
` claims. In fact, in Apple's summary judgment
` motion, I'm sorry, the Motion to Strike Maxell's
` experts with respect to the '586 patent, Apple
` itself recognizes the similarity between claim 1
` and claim 16. And as we pointed out in our
` sur-reply, their analysis is the same for all the
` independent claims.
` So the fact that some issues, some claims
` are not at issue now in the District Court
` relative to this proceeding should be of no
` moment because there's significant overlap
` between the claims. So the validity of the '586
` patent here will be decided in the underlying
` litigation in the next couple of months.
` So Factor 4 favors Maxell, but all the
` other factors favor Maxell as well. Apple is
` attempting to focus on Factor 4 as the sole
` factor, but clearly the precedential Fintiv
` decisions do not hold as such.
` I'll pause there in case the board has any
` questions.
` JUDGE TROCK: I do have one for
` you.
`
`Page 14
` Could you respond to Mr. Seitz's position
` with respect to the memory limitation difference
` between Kirkup and Schiffer?
` MR. PLUTA: Yes, your Honor. You
` have to give me a minute here to pull up the -- I
` apologize.
` JUDGE TROCK: Would it be helpful
` to you if we had Mr. Seitz restate his position on
` this?
` MR. PLUTA: Please just so -- the
` file is still loading here.
` MR. SEITZ: Yes, this is
` Mr. Seitz. Your Honor and Mr. Pluta, the point
` that I made about the memory is that in the
` District Court, Maxell has argued in its summary
` judgment motion against Schiffer saying that
` Schiffer does not meet those memory limitations
` and specifically noted in its summary judgment
` motion that Kirkup is not being used to teach the
` memory limitation which they allege is missing in
` Schiffer.
` And so when we get to the IPR, Kirkup is
` being used to discuss that specific or to teach
` that specific memory limitation, and so that a
` finding in the District Court stating that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15
` Schiffer allegedly misses or fails to disclose
` the memory limitation will have no bearing on
` whether Kirkup also fails to disclose that
` fundamentally, because those are two different
` patents.
` Kirkup uses a different memory structure,
` including both onboard memory and an SD card for
` memory, which is very different from Schiffer.
` MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Mr. Seitz.
` Unfortunately my technology is failing, but I'll
` respond in any event.
` So I think the fundamental
` misunderstanding that Petitioner is setting forth
` is that there has to be complete overlap in
` references and that Fintiv calls for that. With
` respect to the memory limitation, whether we're
` looking at Schiffer or Kirkup, you know, in
` different proceedings, the same issue is the
` validity of that particular limitation and the
` validity of a particular claim that's being
` presented both here and in the District Court
` action.
` So yes, they're different references, but
` both of those references, Kirkup and Schiffer are
` informing both proceedings, both here still and
`
`Page 16
`
` in the District Court action.
` JUDGE TROCK: This is Judge Trock
` again. All right. Thank you, counsel. I believe
` you mentioned that the summary judgment briefing
` is not complete yet, is that correct, in the
` District Court?
` MR. PLUTA: That's right, your
` Honor. This is Rob Pluta. The oppositions are
` due on the 15th here, I guess Wednesday.
` JUDGE TROCK: All right. Let me
` put you on pause. I'm going to consult with my
` colleagues here. Hold on one second.
` (Off the record.)
` JUDGE TROCK: All right, Judge
` Trock again. What I think we'd like to do is to
` have the parties file summary judgment briefly as
` it stands today in the case so that we would have
` access to that as well as a transcript of this
` conference call. If we could get that done sooner
` rather than later, that would be very helpful to
` us.
` MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, this is
` Mr. Seitz. We can submit, we were prepared to
` submit the transcript of the conference call. One
` of your paralegals has asked for it to be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`4 (Pages 13 to 16)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 4
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 17
` submitted no later than 1 Eastern tomorrow, and
` we'll get that done. And at that same time we'll
` also submit the summary briefing that we've
` referred to today.
` If we can submit them both at the same
` time, that would be my proposal.
` JUDGE TROCK: This is Judge Trock
` again. If the summary judgment briefing is
` already done to the extent of the District Court,
` that would be just, it would seem to me that would
` be just your filing as exhibits. Would that be
` something you could do today?
` MR. SEITZ: Absolutely, yes.
` We'll get that filed after we get off here. I'll
` get ahold of our paralegal and get that stuff out
` for you, your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: That would be great.
` And even if it's a rough transcript, that would be
` helpful to us as well.
` MR. PLUTA: Your Honor, I wanted
` to interject. This is Mr. Pluta. To submit
` Apple's summary judgment or Motion to Strike, it
` may be required to seal the filing. Do we have
` permission to file that as non-public?
` MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, if I may,
`
`Page 18
`
` this is Mr. Seitz.
` JUDGE TROCK: Go ahead, Mr. Seitz.
` MR. SEITZ: I personally am a
` little confused by that request on the briefing.
` I have not heard from Mr. Pluta why that bears any
` particular relevance to the summary judgment
` briefing that was the original focus of my email
` or almost the entire focus of our discussion
` today.
` I'm not certain what point he's trying to
` get across. And I certainly wasn't aware of that
` briefing in his response to us. So I guess I'm
` just more questioning, number one, why that's
` being submitted, and number two, the point for
` which he's submitting it.
` MR. PLUTA: May I respond, your
` Honor?
` JUDGE TROCK: Yes.
` MR. PLUTA: So further to the
` points I made just a couple of minutes ago, in
` Apple's briefing on the Motion to Strike with
` respect to the '586 patent, Apple points out the
` similarities between the claims at issue here and
` the similarities of the claims at issue in the
` District Court action.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
`
` So to the extent, and it sounds like
` Apple's attempting to add the summary judgment
` motion to support its Fintiv Factor 4 analysis.
` I think it's only fair that we should be able to
` do the same.
` JUDGE TROCK: This is Judge Trock
` again. The main interest that we had in having
` this call was this issue about the arguments
` relating to the jury and this Fintiv 4 overlap
` question that was brought to our attention that
` Maxell was quoting to Apple, was taking a
` position, one position with the, what's here in
` the proceeding and perhaps arguably a different
` position with the District Court.
` Because the decision on institution is due
` within the next few days, there wasn't enough
` time for us to have a complete briefing on this
` issue. So what we would appreciate is to try to
` get up to speed on this and not try to open this
` up into a full-fledged second round of briefing
` or exhibits on Fintiv.
` We just want to sort of clarify this
` particular issue of what Maxell is doing in the
` District Court versus compared to what its
` arguments have been in this IPR proceeding.
`
`Page 20
` So perhaps it would be helpful to identify
` exactly which briefs have been filed on the
` summary judgment in District Court. Maybe we
` could do it that way. Mr. Seitz?
` MR. SEITZ: Yes, thank you, your
` Honor. The only brief to which I was referring
` was Maxell's in my original email and in my
` discussions today, was Maxell's summary judgment
` motion to strike the invalidity arguments against
` the '586 patent. And within that one motion was
` just the argument that Schiffer fails to disclose
` the memory limitation. That is the only brief to
` which I'm referring.
` I'm sorry I don't know the docket number
` off the top of my head, but it's just that one
` filing that has been the subject of our
` discussion. And that was what I would, would
` have submitted as an exhibit in response to your
` Honor's request.
` JUDGE TROCK: Mr. Pluta, do you
` have an objection to that?
` MR. PLUTA: Well, I don't have --
` sounds like the board is going to allow the
` submission of the summary judgment motion, but I
` would ask that we're allowed to also counter that,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`5 (Pages 17 to 20)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 5
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 21
` because it does go to Apple's telling the board
` here one thing and telling the District Court
` another thing, in other words telling this board
` in its Fintiv briefing that there's not a lot of
` overlap in the claims, and their claims are very
` different on the one hand, and then telling the
` District Court that claims 1 and 16, for example,
` are the same.
` I think we need to complete the record on
` that by submitting what Apple told the District
` Court as well.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. And which
` document would this be, Mr. Pluta?
` MR. PLUTA: This would be Apple's
` motion to strike portions of Maxell's opening
` expert reports. It relates to the '586 patent as
` well as several other patents.
` JUDGE TROCK: All right. So the
` one question I have is, are any of these documents
` or exhibits, briefs, subject to a protective order
` in the court?
` MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, this is
` Adam Seitz. Go ahead, Rob.
` MR. PLUTA: I don't believe
` Apple's motion is, I'm sorry, I meant to say
`
`Page 22
` Maxell's motion is. Apple's may be under seal
` because it relates to certain infringement
` theories. However, the parties have filed a
` redacted version in front of the District Court,
` so we likely have a copy that we can file publicly
` with the board.
` JUDGE TROCK: Mr. Seitz, will you
` address that?
` MR. SEITZ: Yes, your Honor. The
` summary judgment motion that we plan to file is
` the redacted version that I was able to access
` publicly through the Pacer account. I guess I
` fundamentally would object to Mr. Pluta's request,
` because number one it wasn't the focus what we
` were here for today. Number two it's not the
` question that's before us. And number three, I
` think it's reopening a question of briefing,
` re-briefing or rearguing all of the facets of
` Factor 4, which I don't read or don't believe is
` necessary.
` If your Honor is going to allow that
` additional step to be submitted, I am not
` litigation counsel for Apple, so I would be
` hesitant to say what would or would not be
` confidential.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 23
`
` If there is a version that is publicly
` available on the Court's system, then clearly I
` wouldn't have any sort of argument against
` confidentiality on a public document.
` JUDGE TROCK: Well, Mr. Pluta, do
` you confirm that that document is publicly
` available and there's nothing confidential in it?
` MR. PLUTA: That's correct, your
` Honor. We filed a redacted version that was a
` public version of that, and my recollection, it
` has all the relevant information in it that we
` want to cite to the board.
` And, you know, this came up today because
` we were kind of caught. We didn't understand
` what Petitioner was attempting to argue today
` because they never called us before. It was just
` the email exchange that the board has seen.
` Certainly we listened to the matter a little
` further after that email exchange.
` JUDGE TROCK: All right, what I
` think we're going to do, we'll let you each file
` the public versions of these two documents we're
` discussing, Maxell's summary judgment motion and
` Apple's motion to strike. Please make sure
` they're redacted and there's nothing confidential
`
`Page 24
` in them and these are publicly available documents
` before you file them with us.
` We also, if we could have on file as soon
` as it's practicable a transcript of this
` conference call, that would also be helpful.
` MR. SEITZ: This is Mr. Seitz.
` Your Honor, we will file the summary judgment on
` which was the focus of my email right after this.
` As soon as I get a rough transcript, I will also
` submit that as an exhibit. And then as soon as we
` have a final transcript, I will submit that as an
` exhibit as well.
` So as soon as they come to us, we'll be
` sure to file them with the filing procedures so
` they get to you as quick as possible.
` JUDGE TROCK: I'd appreciate that,
` counsel. Thank you very much for keeping us
` apprized. Is there anything else we need to
` discuss today?
` MR. SEITZ: On behalf of
` Petitioner Apple, no, your Honor.
` MR. PLUTA: Not on behalf of
` Patent Owner.
` (The hearing concluded at 4:29
` p.m.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`6 (Pages 21 to 24)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 6
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Page 25
`
` CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
` I, Saundra Tippins, Certified Court Reporter
`(Missouri) and Certified Shorthand Reporter
`(Kansas), do hereby certify that the foregoing
`hearing was taken by me to the best of my ability
`and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
`direction; that I am neither counsel for, related
`to, nor employed by any of the parties to the
`action in which this hearing was taken, and further
`that I am not a relative or employee of any
`attorney or counsel employed by the parties
`thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in
`the outcome of the action.
`
` ______________________________
` Certified Court Reporter
` Within and for the State of Missouri
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`7 (Page 25)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 7
`
`

`

`A
`ability 25:5
`able 4:3 19:4
`22:11
`absolutely 10:5
`17:13
`access 16:18
`22:11
`account 22:12
`accurately 5:13
`accusing 5:18
`action 11:12,25
`15:22 16:1
`18:25 25:9,13
`Adam 3:4 4:8
`21:23
`adam.seitz@e...
`3:6
`add 12:18 19:2
`addition 10:9,14
`additional
`22:22
`address 22:8
`ADMINISTRA...
`1:9
`afternoon 2:11
`4:9
`ago 18:20
`ahead 4:18 11:7
`18:2 21:23
`ahold 17:15
`Alaris 3:14
`allege 14:20
`alleged 9:8
`allegedly 15:1
`allow 20:23
`22:21
`allowed 20:25
`amount 6:4
`analysis 10:2
`13:8 19:3
`analyze 6:10,11
`analyzing 9:10
`apologize 14:6
`Appeal 1:1 2:1,16
`appears 7:6
`
`
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020 TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`Apple 1:2 2:2,16
`4:2,8 5:11,18
`6:6,10,13,22
`7:1,17 13:5,18
`18:22 19:11
`21:10 22:23
`24:21
`Apple's 7:4 8:7
`8:11,22 11:17
`13:3 17:22
`18:21 19:2 21:1
`21:14,25 22:1
`23:24
`appreciate 9:24
`10:16 19:18
`24:16
`apprized 24:18
`arguably 19:13
`argue 23:15
`argued 7:10
`14:15
`argues 8:1
`arguing 5:7 7:14
`argument 7:25
`10:14 11:9
`20:11 23:3
`arguments 5:22
`7:17 8:17 9:12
`9:19 19:8,25
`20:9
`art 5:20 6:25
`12:23
`asked 16:25
`asserted 6:1
`attack 8:14
`attempting
`13:19 19:2
`23:15
`attention 12:1
`19:10
`attorney 25:11
`available 23:2,7
`24:1
`aware 4:20
`5:24 18:11
`B
`
`B2 1:5 2:5
`background
`5:23 7:7
`based 7:12,23
`9:6,7,18
`basis 5:9 12:4
`bearing 15:2
`bears 18:5
`began 1:14
`behalf 4:10
`24:20,22
`believe 9:23
`16:3 21:24
`22:19
`best 25:5
`bit 5:23
`board 1:1 2:1,16
`4:25 5:7,11 6:9
`6:11,13,18,24
`7:12,20 9:9,15
`9:23 12:2,5,16
`13:22 20:23
`21:1,3 22:6
`23:12,17
`board's 12:1
`boil 8:14
`Boulevard 3:5
`brief 5:23 20:6
`20:12
`briefed 4:20,21
`5:1
`briefing 5:21 7:9
`11:1 12:6 16:4
`17:3,8 18:4,7
`18:12,21 19:17
`19:20 21:4
`22:17
`briefly 16:16
`briefs 20:2
`21:20
`bring 11:25
`brought 19:10
`BROWN 3:9
`C
`C 1:10 3:2
`cake 9:4
`
`calendar 10:25
`call 4:13 10:19
`11:2 16:19,24
`19:8 24:5
`called 23:16
`calls 15:15
`card 15:7
`case 4:15 5:20
`6:1,5,6,14,17
`7:9,16 10:4,5
`10:22 12:11,20
`13:22 16:17
`caught 23:14
`cause 2:14
`CCR 1:12
`center 7:18
`certain 2:14
`18:10 22:2
`certainly 7:5
`12:20 18:11
`23:18
`CERTIFICATE
`25:1
`Certified 2:12
`25:2,3,19
`certify 25:4
`challenged
`8:24
`challenges 7:4
`Chicago 3:10
`cite 23:12
`City 3:15
`claim 13:6,7
`15:20
`claims 6:1 8:3
`12:23 13:3,9
`13:10,14 18:23
`18:24 21:5,5,7
`clarify 19:22
`clearly 13:20
`23:2
`close 10:20
`colleagues
`16:12
`College 3:5
`combination
`6:23
`
`combinations
`7:5
`come 24:13
`compared
`19:24
`complete 10:13
`12:22 13:2,2
`15:14 16:5
`19:17 21:9
`completion
`11:16
`concluded
`24:24
`conference 1:14
`16:19,24 24:5
`confidential
`22:25 23:7,25
`confidentiality
`23:4
`confirm 12:13
`23:6
`confused 18:4
`considerations
`6:15
`constantly 5:25
`consult 16:11
`copy 22:5
`correct 9:20
`16:5 23:8
`counsel 4:3,5
`4:12,17 10:17
`16:3 22:23
`24:17 25:7,11
`counter 12:18
`20:25
`couple 13:16
`18:20
`court 2:13 3:12
`4:3,16,25 5:4
`5:6,24 6:24
`7:1,15,18 8:7,19
`9:1,7,15,21
`11:12,25 12:7,11
`12:12 13:11
`14:15,25 15:21
`16:1,6 17:9
`18:25 19:14,24
`
`
`
`www.alaris.uswww.alaris.us
`
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICESALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`IPR2020-00202
`Apple Inc. EX1055 Page 8
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/13/2020
`
`20:3 21:2,7,11
`21:21 22:4
`25:2,19
`Court's 23:2
`court-mandat...
`5:25
`
`D
`day 2:9,11
`days 19:16
`deadline 10:20
`decide 7:10
`decided 11:2
`13:15
`decision 6:8,22
`10:21 12:2,16
`19:15
`decisions 4:24
`6:17 13:21
`declaration 7:8
`defeats 9:5
`deficiencies 9:8
`9:8
`denial 5:10
`deny 7:12
`depends 8:7
`deposed 11:18
`deposition 11:17
`deprived 9:9,16
`described 10:5
`determining
`9:16
`development
`5:12 11:24
`device 8:3,4
`difference 14:2
`different 15:4,6
`15:8,18,23
`19:13 21:6
`directed 10:2
`11:14
`direction 25:7
`disclose 8:15
`15:1,3 20:11
`discovery 11:17
`discuss 14:23
`24:19
`
`discussing
`23:23
`discussio