throbber
1
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2:18-CV-546-JRG
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`MARCH 18, 2020
`)(
`1:57 P.M.
`)(
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`CANON, INC.
`
`VS.
`
`TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS
`LTD.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:(See Attorney Attendance Sheet docketed
`in minutes of this hearing.)
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS:(See Attorney Attendance Sheet docketed
`in minutes of this hearing.)
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Shelly Holmes, CSR, TCRR
`Official Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on a CAT system.)
`
`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 of 5
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 2011
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2020-00357
`
`

`

`15
`
`Ropes & Gray on behalf of the Defendants.
`If we could have Slide 7 from our binder up on the
`screen. This is --
`THE COURT: Before -- before you go any further,
`counsel, respond, if you will, to Plaintiff -- Plaintiff's
`counsel's argument that you've effectively refused to
`respond to their request as to an explanation of any
`privity between Roku and your clients.
`MR. THOMASES: I'm not aware --
`THE COURT: I mean, it sounded to me like we
`needed to stop the claim construction and have a motion to
`compel hearing before we can go forward. It was a
`pretty -- a pretty straightforward and unequivocal argument
`that you've been stonewalling. I want to hear your
`response.
`MR. THOMASES: Sure, Your Honor. We have not been
`stonewalling.
`The discovery that specifically asked that is not
`due until later this week. There has not been a meet and
`confer to my knowledge at -- on this issue. And it has not
`actually been written in any discovery correspondence
`request, and it's because our discovery is due this week.
`THE COURT: And as a part of the discovery that's
`due this week, is the answer to that question going to be
`forthcoming?
`
`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
`
`02:14:53
`
`02:14:54
`
`02:15:00
`
`02:15:01
`
`02:15:03
`
`02:15:07
`
`02:15:12
`
`02:15:17
`
`02:15:21
`
`02:15:23
`
`02:15:25
`
`02:15:27
`
`02:15:29
`
`02:15:33
`
`02:15:35
`
`02:15:36
`
`02:15:37
`
`02:15:38
`
`02:15:41
`
`02:15:44
`
`02:15:47
`
`02:15:51
`
`02:15:53
`
`02:15:55
`
`02:15:58
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`16
`
`MR. THOMASES: I don't -- quite honestly, I don't
`know. It might be privileged because of the protected
`nature of certain of the topics that are being requested,
`either that or common interest protection or -- or another
`protection.
`THE COURT: Well, if there's going to be a
`privilege asserted, we need to get a privilege log, and we
`need to get on paper and figure out where we are. If it's
`not, they're probably entitled to an answer to that
`question, because it goes to the -- it goes to the binding
`nature of the impact of that IPR proceeding here.
`MR. THOMASES: I understand, Your Honor, and we'll
`take Your Honor's counsel on that.
`The main issue, though, that I need to correct
`from counsel's statement is the IPRs were filed -- filed by
`Roku. Roku was sued on these patents separately in a suit
`in the Western District of Texas.
`Now, Roku does supply the operating system to TCL,
`but the IPRs were signed by Roku, not by TCL. The Roku
`people have been subpoenaed in this case. And in the
`identical IPRs, they identified privies because that's
`what's customary to do. And if you don't, then there could
`be consequences at the PTAB.
`But this is not -- was not a representation by
`TCL. The case law that counsel cited, the Federal Circuit
`
`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
`
`02:15:59
`
`02:16:03
`
`02:16:06
`
`02:16:12
`
`02:16:14
`
`02:16:15
`
`02:16:17
`
`02:16:20
`
`02:16:22
`
`02:16:26
`
`02:16:29
`
`02:16:32
`
`02:16:35
`
`02:16:38
`
`02:16:41
`
`02:16:47
`
`02:16:53
`
`02:16:54
`
`02:16:58
`
`02:17:07
`
`02:17:10
`
`02:17:14
`
`02:17:20
`
`02:17:22
`
`02:17:25
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`17
`
`decision, applies when there's a final written decision by
`the PTAB. Who is it binding on? The petitioner and
`privies. That is what that decision is discussing.
`It is not saying that the statement by a third
`party in their IPR needs to be binding on someone who is
`just identified by the petitioner as a privy.
`Just going to that point that -- that he made, the
`quotes that they cite actually don't say that the operation
`form must be preset. I -- I want to go into some
`background on the technology because there's a fundamental
`misunderstanding by counsel there.
`They don't say -- there's not -- there's no
`admission that the operation forms can be created ad hoc.
`The operation screens, which are separate, are actually
`created from an operation form. Those are what's kind of
`created based on forms. So I -- I have on the slide
`some -- it's actually a snippet from our tutorial.
`Recall that the claim requires that there's an
`attribute of a remote control. And this is somehow
`required by your TV. And there could be different pointers
`or key -- key inputs.
`Then there's some -- we're going to get into this
`determining because that's the next term which is --
`there's a question about indefiniteness. But there's some
`claim element that says there's going to be some
`
`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
`
`02:17:32
`
`02:17:35
`
`02:17:40
`
`02:17:43
`
`02:17:46
`
`02:17:50
`
`02:17:53
`
`02:17:57
`
`02:18:02
`
`02:18:05
`
`02:18:07
`
`02:18:08
`
`02:18:12
`
`02:18:18
`
`02:18:21
`
`02:18:24
`
`02:18:28
`
`02:18:33
`
`02:18:36
`
`02:18:40
`
`02:18:42
`
`02:18:44
`
`02:18:47
`
`02:18:51
`
`02:18:53
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`127
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and
`correct transcript from the stenographic notes of the
`proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my
`ability.
`
` /S/ Shelly Holmes
`SHELLY HOLMES, CSR, TCRR
`OFFICIAL REPORTER
`State of Texas No.: 7804
`Expiration Date: 12/31/2020
`
`3/27/2020
`Date
`
`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 5 of 5
`
`

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