`
` 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