`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`1 2
`
`3 ________________
`
`4 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`5 ________________
`
`6 FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`7 Petitioner,
`
`8 v.
`
`9 VENKAT KONDA,
`
`10 Patent Owner.
`
`11 __________________
`
`12 IPR2020-00260
`
`13 IPR2020-00261
`
`14 IPR2020-00262
`
`15 Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`16 ____________________
` ** 2ND REVISED **
`17 ** T E L E P H O N I C H E A R I N G
`
`18
` Friday, May 22, 2020
`19
`
`20 BEFORE: Judge Jo-Anne M. Kokoski
` Judge Sally C. Medley
`21 Judge Thomas L. Giannetti
` (Appearing Telephonically)
`22
`
`23 Reported by:
` Angela M. Shaw-Crockett, CCR, CRR, RMR, CSR
`24 Job No. 180134
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FLEX LOGIX EXHIBIT 1049
`Flex Logix Technologies v. Venkat Konda
`IPR2020-00260
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` May 22, 2020
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`5 2:15 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING, taken before Angela M.
`
`6 7
`
`8 Shaw-Crockett, a Certified Court Reporter,
`
`9 Certified Realtime Reporter, Registered Merit
`
`10 Reporter and Notary Public of the States of
`
`11 New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 3
`
`3
`
` PAUL HASTINGS
`4 Attorneys for The Petitioner
` MetLife Building
`5 200 Park Avenue
` New York, NY 10166
`
`6 7
`
` BY: NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
` PAUL ANDERSON, ESQ.
`8 (Appearing Telephonically)
`
`9
`
`10 VENKAT KONDA
` Pro Se Patent Owner
`11 (Appearing Telephonically)
`
`12
`
`13 ** ** **
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 JUDGE KOKOSKI: This is Judge Kokoski, and
`
`3 Judges Medley and Giannetti are on the line
`
`4 with me.
`
`5 This is call concerns IPR2020-00260, 261
`
`6 and 262. Let's start with a roll call.
`
`7 Who do we have for Petitioner?
`
`8 MR. MODI: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`
`9 This is Naveen Modi from the law firm of Paul
`
`10 Hastings. With me is Paul Anderson, both on
`
`11 behalf of Petitioner, Flex Logix.
`
`12 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Thank you. And who do we
`
`13 have for Patent Owner?
`
`14 MR. KONDA: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`
`15 This is Venkat Konda, pro se plaintiff -- pro
`
`16 se counsel for the Patent Owner.
`
`17 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Thank you. I understand
`
`18 that Petitioner engaged a court reporter for
`
`19 today's call; is that correct?
`
`20 MR. MODI: Yes, your Honor. Kristin, are
`
`21 you on?
`
`22 THE COURT REPORTER: My name is Angie
`
`23 Shaw-Crockett. I am the court reporter.
`
`24 MR. MODI: Okay. Sorry. I had the wrong
`
`25 name. Hi, Angie.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 (A discussion was held off the record.)
`
`3 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. Thank you. If you
`
`4 could -- Petitioner, if you could submit a copy
`
`5 of the transcript of this call as an exhibit
`
`6 and send as soon as it's available, we'd
`
`7 appreciate that.
`
`8 MR. MODI: Sure, your Honor. Will do.
`
`9 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Thank you. So we have a
`
`10 few issues to discuss today, but the original
`
`11 purpose of the call was Petitioner's request
`
`12 for authorization to file reply to Patent
`
`13 Owner's preliminary response.
`
`14 As an initial matter, we'll just note that
`
`15 a request for such reply requires a showing of
`
`16 good cause.
`
`17 With that in mind, Petitioner, why don't
`
`18 you go ahead.
`
`19 MR. MODI: Thank you, your Honor. We
`
`20 appreciate you making the time today.
`
`21 So as the board is aware, Petitioner filed
`
`22 three petitions challenging the claims of the
`
`23 '523 patent. Patent Owner filed its
`
`24 preliminary responses in May after receiving an
`
`25 extension due to COVID-19.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 In its preliminary responses, Patent Owner
`
`3 argues that the IPR petitions should be denied
`
`4 in light of the pending reissued application,
`
`5 which is seeking to reissue the '523 patent
`
`6 that's at issue in the IPR petitions.
`
`7 Petitioner seeks a three-page reply to
`
`8 address Patent Owner's arguments in its
`
`9 preliminary responses regarding the reissue
`
`10 application and to make sure the board has all
`
`11 the pertinent facts surrounding the reissue
`
`12 application and Petitioner's position regarding
`
`13 the reissue application.
`
`14 Petitioner believes that there is good
`
`15 cause for a short reply here. And let me
`
`16 explain why. So first, as respect to the facts
`
`17 that we believe the board really needs to be
`
`18 aware of:
`
`19 Number one, there is an overlap in the
`
`20 claims at issue in the IPR proceedings and the
`
`21 reissue application. In fact, Patent Owner is
`
`22 seeking to amend the claims in the reissue
`
`23 application that are also at issue in the IPRs.
`
`24 Number two, Patent Owner does not appear
`
`25 to have informed the examiner of the reissue
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 application about the existence of these IPR
`
`3 proceedings. So the examiner, as far as we
`
`4 know, does not know that there are these
`
`5 co-pending IPR proceedings. Patent Owner
`
`6 certainly has filed IDSs in the reissue
`
`7 application, but none of those IDSs make the
`
`8 examiner aware of the IPR proceedings.
`
`9 Additionally, Patent Owner did not inform
`
`10 the district court that the -- about the
`
`11 reissue application when it sued Petitioner for
`
`12 infringement of the patent at issue. And
`
`13 that's pretty important, your Honor, and here's
`
`14 why.
`
`15 The complaint in the district court was
`
`16 filed in December of 2018. Patent Owner,
`
`17 again, did not tell district court or
`
`18 Petitioner that it had actually filed a reissue
`
`19 application prior to or after filing of the
`
`20 lawsuit. To the contrary, he actually
`
`21 represented to the district court that the
`
`22 patent was valid and enforceable while at the
`
`23 same time telling the PTO in the reissued
`
`24 application that there's a defect that needs to
`
`25 be cured through the reissue.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 And why this is a problem? Because the
`
`3 Petitioner was not aware of the reissue
`
`4 application until earlier this year,
`
`5 specifically on January 6, 2020, when the
`
`6 Patent Owner filed his mandatory notices in
`
`7 each IPR. So Petitioner did not become aware
`
`8 of the reissue until after it had filed the IPR
`
`9 petitions.
`
`10 You'll actually see, if you go back and
`
`11 look at our petitions, in each petition,
`
`12 Petitioner certainly noted that Application
`
`13 Number 162020607, which is -- which we now know
`
`14 is the reissue application, that that claim
`
`15 filed prior to the '523 patent, but nowhere
`
`16 were we -- nowhere did the -- so the
`
`17 application history indicated a resolution. We
`
`18 were not able to access the reissue application
`
`19 until recently.
`
`20 And an initial fact is that Petitioner had
`
`21 no choice but to file IPRs here given the
`
`22 one-year bar under Section 315E. The reissue
`
`23 application is still awaiting first office
`
`24 action on the merits.
`
`25 And then finally, Patent Owner can seek to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 withdraw the reissue application before
`
`3 issuance which, as your Honor may know, may
`
`4 restore the initial patent.
`
`5 So we believe all of these facts are
`
`6 pertinent and we would like to make sure that
`
`7 the board has them in the form of a reply.
`
`8 And then also we believe the appropriate
`
`9 course of action would be consolidation of the
`
`10 reissue application with these IPR proceedings
`
`11 or at a minimum stay of the reissue application
`
`12 pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings.
`
`13 As you can see, there's a lot going on
`
`14 here between -- in terms of what the Patent
`
`15 Owner has done. And in this type of situation,
`
`16 the board -- the statute and the board's rules
`
`17 certainly enable the board to exercise
`
`18 exclusive jurisdiction over a later proceeding
`
`19 such as the reissue application.
`
`20 And Petitioner believes in a situation
`
`21 like this one, the board normally considers
`
`22 consolidating or staying the reissue
`
`23 application to simplify and to avoid
`
`24 duplication of efforts within the office, to
`
`25 avoid waste of the office and party resources,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 to avoid potentially inconsistent results, and
`
`3 to avoid prejudice to the Petitioner. And we
`
`4 believe all of those are applicable here given
`
`5 the facts.
`
`6 So -- and I think the final point I'll
`
`7 make here your Honor and then I'll stop, is
`
`8 that Petitioner wants to make sure the board
`
`9 appreciates that the denial of the IPRs, as the
`
`10 Patent Owner has argued in light of the
`
`11 reissue, really would let the Patent Owner use
`
`12 the reissue application both as a sword and a
`
`13 shield. And we think that's highly
`
`14 prejudicial. If the board were to deny the
`
`15 IPRs in light of the reissue application,
`
`16 which, again, we were not even aware of until
`
`17 after filing of the IPRs, the Patent Owner here
`
`18 can simply drop the reissue application and
`
`19 keep the '523 patent as is, which, again, would
`
`20 severely prejudice Petitioner.
`
`21 So for all of these reasons, Petitioner
`
`22 believes good cause certainly exists and we're
`
`23 only asking for a short three-page reply. And
`
`24 I can sort of go over the schedule if -- what
`
`25 we would propose in terms of a schedule.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 Your Honor, but let me stop there and see
`
`3 if you have questions.
`
`4 JUDGE KOKOSKI: I think that that's a good
`
`5 place to stop right now and let's see Patent
`
`6 Owner make a response.
`
`7 Patent Owner, would you like to go ahead?
`
`8 MR. KONDA: Thank you, your Honor. Thank
`
`9 you, your Honor, for your time. The board
`
`10 should not alert the Petitioner to file a
`
`11 motion to consolidate that Patent Owner's
`
`12 co-pending 067 reissue applications for three
`
`13 reasons:
`
`14 Number one, it is premature because the
`
`15 board has not instituted any IPR -- any of
`
`16 those three.
`
`17 Number two, Petitioner has failed to show
`
`18 that any claim is obvious over the prior art,
`
`19 so the IPR should not be instituted rendering
`
`20 the consolidation as stay of the reissue
`
`21 application, not takable.
`
`22 And I have several reasons which I
`
`23 notified in the preliminary response. Here are
`
`24 a few. I'll list them here:
`
`25 One, Petitioner used unqualified person of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 ordinary skill in the art who made many errors
`
`Page 12
`
`3 in the petition.
`
`4 Number two, Petitioner falsely claiming
`
`5 that only amendment made on the '523 patent
`
`6 filed on May 8, 2012, introduced a new subject
`
`7 matter and lacked enablement, so the effective
`
`8 priority date of -- just prior to 2008,
`
`9 November 22, 2009.
`
`10 Number three, Petitioner falsely claimed
`
`11 that publication of the co-pending same parts
`
`12 as PCT by the Patent Owner made the '394
`
`13 application public on September 12, 2008.
`
`14 Number four, ignoring the fact that the
`
`15 same prior art and arguments were previously
`
`16 considered by the obvious during the
`
`17 prosecution of the '523 patent.
`
`18 Number five, knowing that they are
`
`19 introducing, rather intentionally concealing,
`
`20 the fact that Petitioner's co-founders Wong and
`
`21 Markovic admitted it in their own publication,
`
`22 that Wong first made previous unsuccessful
`
`23 attempts and commercial liquid migration of the
`
`24 two -- the layouts of the two -- '523 patent
`
`25 and barely knowing the known evidence second
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`Page 13
`
`2 reconsideration.
`
`3 Number six --
`
`4 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Patent Owner, could I
`
`5 break in here for a minute? I think we're kind
`
`6 of getting a little bit off of the point here.
`
`7 I'd like you to focus on why you oppose
`
`8 Petitioner filing a reply to your Patent Owner
`
`9 response. That's really just what we're
`
`10 talking about right now, is whether Petitioner
`
`11 could -- should be able to file a reply to your
`
`12 Patent Owner response.
`
`13 So what are your reasons for opposing that
`
`14 request?
`
`15 MR. KONDA: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
`
`16 So basically I have listed several things
`
`17 why it should be denied. So it is premature.
`
`18 JUDGE KOKOSKI: That is why that the
`
`19 petition should be denied? Yes, I understand
`
`20 that.
`
`21 And that you think that the -- any request
`
`22 to consolidate or stay the reissue should be
`
`23 denied, as well.
`
`24 Now, do you oppose them filing a
`
`25 three-page reply to the Patent Owner
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 preliminary response in these proceedings?
`
`3 MR. KONDA: Yes, your Honor. I have
`
`4 several reasons. The board has denied the
`
`5 institution of the IPR, but indefinitely made
`
`6 issues and they're not able to reclaim
`
`7 construction since IPR addresses only U.S.C.
`
`8 102 and 103 grounds. So that hasn't been
`
`9 determined yet.
`
`10 Number two, it's not right because
`
`11 Petitioner has not and cannot identify any
`
`12 claim that is uncommon with the petition.
`
`13 Number three, there are no claims pending
`
`14 in the reissue application which are not
`
`15 delivered to claims challenge in the IPR.
`
`16 Number four, reissue application contains
`
`17 20 claims. And no claims there indicate there
`
`18 were 48 claims at issue in the IPR. Patent
`
`19 Owner has already matter with the only
`
`20 independent claim of the '523 patent in '067
`
`21 reissue application. Because there's only one
`
`22 independent claim in the '523 patent, the IPR
`
`23 would preclude Patent Owner from obtaining the
`
`24 new claims it has been seeking in the '067
`
`25 reissue application.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 Staying the issue would cut off Patent
`
`3 Owner's right if the IPR moved forward and the
`
`4 reissues stay.
`
`5 Number five, Patent Owner has
`
`6 appropriately brought the reissue matter as
`
`7 implemented by the Congress in Section 251.
`
`8 Where the financial resources that Petitioner
`
`9 has enlisted, there are -- follows a Patent
`
`10 Owner's right to claim his invention to the
`
`11 full extent allowed by the law.
`
`12 Number six, the examiner of '067 reissue
`
`13 application will enable issue or resist the
`
`14 claims, or they will result in one or more
`
`15 different claims than originally challenged in
`
`16 the IPR if it was on a larger scale patent
`
`17 being reissued, after a petition for IPR
`
`18 reasons.
`
`19 Five. Number seven --
`
`20 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Excuse me. Patent Owner,
`
`21 could we just cut this off right here.
`
`22 It seems that you're trying to argue the
`
`23 merits of patent's institution question and the
`
`24 propriety of the reissue application.
`
`25 So we're getting a little bit far afield
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 of kind of what we need to be focusing on here.
`
`Page 16
`
`3 So if you don't have anything else that's
`
`4 directed just to the question of whether
`
`5 Petitioner should be allowed to file this
`
`6 three-page reply, I think we are going to have
`
`7 to move on.
`
`8 MR. KONDA: Okay, your Honor. One last
`
`9 thing. IPR2014-41, IPR2014-1002,
`
`10 IPR-2016-1690, IPR-2017-190 are denied
`
`11 consolidation of staying of the reissue
`
`12 application, your Honor.
`
`13 This is Petitioner's request to
`
`14 consolidate will not prejudice the Petitioner
`
`15 as it is premature now to the contrary staying
`
`16 or consolidating the issue will severely
`
`17 prejudice Patent Owner. Thank you, your Honor.
`
`18 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. Thank you.
`
`19 Petitioner, do you have anything else that
`
`20 you needed to point out to us at this point?
`
`21 MR. MODI: Your Honor, maybe give you like
`
`22 a 15-second response. I really haven't heard
`
`23 anything that would -- we believe show that we
`
`24 shouldn't get a reply, a short reply. We're
`
`25 only asking for three pages.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 And as you know, I pointed out, we're
`
`3 really only going to bring the facts and
`
`4 circumstances surrounding the reissue
`
`5 application to the board's attention so the
`
`6 board is fully informed.
`
`7 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. Thank you. Based
`
`8 on what we've heard here, we are going to go
`
`9 ahead and authorize Petitioner to file the
`
`10 requested three-page reply that's just focusing
`
`11 on these -- this reissue issue that you've
`
`12 pointed out here.
`
`13 I understand, Petitioner, you said that
`
`14 you could get that filed within about a week or
`
`15 so; is that correct?
`
`16 MR. MODI: Yes, your Honor. We would be
`
`17 willing to do that.
`
`18 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. With the holiday on
`
`19 Monday, why don't we go ahead and -- why don't
`
`20 you get that on file by Monday, June 1. I
`
`21 think that's --
`
`22 MR. MODI: We really appreciate that.
`
`23 Thank you, your Honor.
`
`24 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Yeah, Monday, June 1. And
`
`25 Patent Owner, we're going to go ahead and also
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 allow you to do a three-page sur-reply that
`
`3 only replies to whatever Petitioner says in
`
`4 their papers. And you'll get to do that a week
`
`5 after you get their filing.
`
`6 We will set forth the parameters of these
`
`7 papers in an order that will issue after this
`
`8 call. Again, we're just going to focus it on
`
`9 the reissue application points that the
`
`10 Petitioner has brought up from the Patent Owner
`
`11 preliminary response.
`
`12 We don't need you to be talking about any
`
`13 potential motions for consolidation or stays at
`
`14 this point. That's premature. If we get to a
`
`15 point where any of these cases are instituted,
`
`16 we can revisit the question of consolidation
`
`17 and/or stays with the reissue.
`
`18 Is that clear? Any questions, Petitioner?
`
`19 MR. MODI: No, your Honor. It's clear.
`
`20 Thank you.
`
`21 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Patent Owner, do you have
`
`22 any questions?
`
`23 MR. KONDA: Your Honor, I did not
`
`24 understand the last point -- you said
`
`25 "consolidation of the stay."
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 18 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Right. So Petitioner
`
`3 noted in the remarks and I think in their email
`
`4 that they believe that consolidating these
`
`5 cases with the reissue application or staying
`
`6 the reissue application is a course of action
`
`7 that they would like to seek going forward.
`
`8 At this point, because there is no
`
`9 instituted case yet here, there's nothing to
`
`10 talk about consolidating and there's no reason
`
`11 yet to ask for a stay of the reissue.
`
`12 So we will revisit that question should it
`
`13 become necessary if any of these cases are
`
`14 instituted at trial. So we don't need to talk
`
`15 about consolidation or anything about staying
`
`16 the reissue unless and until any or all of
`
`17 these cases are instituted.
`
`18 MR. KONDA: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`19 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay.
`
`20 MR. MODI: Your Honor, this is that Naveen
`
`21 Modi. Can I just make a point that just
`
`22 occurred to me?
`
`23 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Sure.
`
`24 MR. MODI: So as I pointed out, as far as
`
`25 we know, the examiner that's examining the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 19 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 reissue application does not even know about
`
`3 the IPRs. So we would request -- I know the
`
`4 board certainly has the authority to enter
`
`5 papers in the pending applications and
`
`6 notifying the examining core of pending cases,
`
`7 you know, we would ask that either the board do
`
`8 something like that or, you know, Patent Owner
`
`9 be required to notify the examiner, because we,
`
`10 of course, don't want to let these two
`
`11 proceedings -- or two sets of proceedings to go
`
`12 in sort of different paths until the board has
`
`13 had a chance to look at the -- you know, and
`
`14 decide whether it wants to institute.
`
`15 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Thank you for reminding
`
`16 me.
`
`17 Patent Owner, have you notified the
`
`18 examining unit that these IPRs have been filed
`
`19 against this patent?
`
`20 MR. KONDA: No, your Honor. Possible
`
`21 further, examiner hasn't even looked at the
`
`22 application. There is no office action so far.
`
`23 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. Well, I believe
`
`24 under the rules, that you were required to do
`
`25 that, but we will make sure that the examiner
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 20 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 knows about the reissue so that way we can put
`
`3 that concern, Petitioner, to the side and make
`
`4 sure that everyone in the office is on the same
`
`5 page with what's going on here.
`
`6 Does that address your concern?
`
`7 MR. KONDA: Yes, your Honor. If that's
`
`8 the rule, I will do it.
`
`9 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. So if that clears
`
`10 up that first point, we've got a couple other
`
`11 things to talk about.
`
`12 First, we got another email from
`
`13 Petitioner shortly before this call asking to
`
`14 talk -- to address the motions to exclude that
`
`15 Patent Owner filed in each of these
`
`16 proceedings.
`
`17 What I can say about that is Patent Owner,
`
`18 at this point of the proceedings, a motion to
`
`19 exclude is not allowed. So what we're going to
`
`20 do is expunge those from the record.
`
`21 Just for your information going forward,
`
`22 our rules provide that you would be able to or
`
`23 any party can object to evidence submitted
`
`24 during this preliminary part of the proceeding
`
`25 within ten business days of institution of a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 21 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 trial. And then once you file that objection,
`
`3 you would preserve that objection later by
`
`4 filing a motion to exclude, which the timing of
`
`5 which would be set forth in a scheduling order
`
`6 that would issue along with the institution
`
`7 should we institute in any of these cases.
`
`8 For further information and guidance on
`
`9 how to deal with objecting to evidence in these
`
`10 IPR proceedings, Patent Owner, we're going to
`
`11 direct you to our Consolidated Trial Practice
`
`12 Guide. Pages 78 to 80, in particular, discuss
`
`13 how to challenge the admissibility of evidence
`
`14 during trial. But, again, those are -- it's
`
`15 premature at this point, so we're going to
`
`16 expunge those motions from the record. And,
`
`17 Petitioner, we will not need you to respond in
`
`18 any way.
`
`19 Patent Owner, do you have any questions
`
`20 about that?
`
`21 MR. KONDA: Thank you, your Honor, for
`
`22 clarification.
`
`23 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Petitioner, anything else
`
`24 on that?
`
`25 MR. MODI: No, your Honor. Thank you.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 22 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. And then we do have
`
`3 one third -- or a third issue that we need to
`
`4 discuss.
`
`5 As you noted, Petitioner, you did file
`
`6 three petitions here challenging the same
`
`7 patent. And as I'm sure you are aware at this
`
`8 point, our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`9 notes that typically one petition should be
`
`10 sufficient to challenge the claims of the
`
`11 patent, and in a situation where more than one
`
`12 petition is filed, that the Petitioner is
`
`13 generally directed to identify a ranking of the
`
`14 petitions in the order that you would like the
`
`15 board to consider them and an explanation as to
`
`16 why the three petitions -- or the multiple
`
`17 petitions, the differences -- what the
`
`18 differences are and why those differences are
`
`19 material.
`
`20 I'm sure you've seen that in some of your
`
`21 other cases. You did not file that here, did
`
`22 you, Petitioner?
`
`23 MR. MODI: No, we did not, your Honor. We
`
`24 discussed, I think, in the petition, there was
`
`25 some discussion of the different proceedings,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 23 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 the co-pending proceedings, but we did not file
`
`3 such a paper, but we're certainly happy to do,
`
`4 your Honor, if you'd like.
`
`5 JUDGE KOKOSKI: We are going to need you
`
`6 to file a paper with the rankings.
`
`7 Can you explain to us kind of briefly
`
`8 right now why you think you need three
`
`9 petitions against this one patent here?
`
`10 MR. MODI: Sure. I can certainly do that.
`
`11 And then I may have even my colleague,
`
`12 Mr. Anderson, jump in on this.
`
`13 But briefly, if you look at two of the
`
`14 petitions, your Honor, they are directed to
`
`15 attacking the priority of the '523 patent and
`
`16 then using an intervening application. And so
`
`17 that's the 260 IPR and the 261 IPR.
`
`18 And the reason we had to do two petitions
`
`19 is because of the numerosity of claims, but
`
`20 they go to the same prior art in terms of, you
`
`21 know, the prior art positions.
`
`22 And then the second -- the third petition,
`
`23 which is the 262 IPR, is directed to
`
`24 non-intervening art, which is the Wong
`
`25 reference. And that addresses all of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 24 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 claims that are at issue. I would say the
`
`3 first two -- actually no, the 260, 261, that is
`
`4 the two petitions and 262, the claim overlap is
`
`5 the same, the 262 just uses a different prior
`
`6 art reference because it's a non-intervening
`
`7 reference. And the reason we filed the
`
`8 petitions, as you can tell now, the 260, 261
`
`9 are the same reference, just a lot of claims,
`
`10 and we had to address the priority issue.
`
`11 That's why we had to split that into two
`
`12 petitions.
`
`13 And the 262, we wanted to have a separate
`
`14 petition in case the board disagreed with us on
`
`15 the priority attack and have a petition using
`
`16 prior art that was not intervening, if that
`
`17 makes sense, your Honor.
`
`18 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Yes, I think that I do
`
`19 understand what you are saying there. I
`
`20 appreciate that explanation.
`
`21 We are going to go ahead and request that
`
`22 you file the ranking paper. We'll set forth
`
`23 the parameters of that in the order that
`
`24 follows, but it will probably be pretty similar
`
`25 to things you have seen before within the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 25 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 parameters of the Consolidated Trial Practice
`
`3 Guide. And we will also give Patent Owner an
`
`4 opportunity to respond to that paper.
`
`5 And as I said, we'll set all of that forth
`
`6 in the order that's to come.
`
`7 MR. MODI: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`8 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Is there anything else
`
`9 that we need to discuss today, Petitioner?
`
`10 MR. MODI: Not from us, your Honor. Thank
`
`11 you.
`
`12 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Patent Owner, do you have
`
`13 anything else that you'd like to discuss?
`
`14 MR. KONDA: You've covered everything,
`
`15 your Honor. Thank you.
`
`16 JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. Give me a minute.
`
`17 Okay. Well, then I think that we have
`
`18 covered everything that we intended to cover
`
`19 today. We will, as I said, issue an order in
`
`20 due course.
`
`21 And with that, this call is adjourned.
`
`22 Thank you.
`
`23 (Telephonic hearing continues - Next page)
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 26 of 28
`
`
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 MR. MODI: Thank you, your Honor. Have a
`
`Page 27
`
`3 good weekend.
`
`4 MR. KONDA: Thank you, your Honor. Bye.
`
`5 (Time noted: 2:41 p.m.)
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 27 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`2 CERTIFICATE
`
` STATE OF NEW YORK )
`
`3 4
`
`5 : ss
`
`6 I, Angela M. Shaw-Crockett, a Certified Court
`
`7 Reporter, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public within
`
`8 and for the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut,
`
`9 do hereby certify:
`
`10 That THE TELEPHONIC HEARING, herein before set
`
`11 forth, was duly sworn by me and that such HEARING is a true
`
`12 record of the testimony given by such witness.
`
`13 I further certify that I am not related to any of
`
`14 the parties to this action by blood or marriage and that I
`
`15 am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter.
`
`16 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
`
`17 this 26th day of May, 2020.
`
`18
`
`19 ----------------------------------------
` ANGELA M. SHAW-CROCKETT, CCR, CRR, RMR, CSR
`20 LICENSE NO. XI00218400
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
` Angela Shaw- Crockett
`
`Page 28 of 28
`
`