TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`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 PETTIGREW: This is Judge
` Pettigrew. Also on the call with me are Judges
` Chung, Hudalla, Melvin and Laney. Who do we have
` on the call for Petitioner?
` MR. SEITZ: This is Adam Seitz for
` Petitioner Apple. Also joining me is my partner
` Paul Hart.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you. And
` who do we have on the call for Patent Owner?
` MR. PLUTA: Good afternoon, your
` Honor. This is Robert Pluta on behalf of Patent
` Owner Maxell. And also on the call with me is my
` colleague Saqib Siddiqui.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Which party
` arranged for the court reporter?
` MR. SEITZ: That was Petitioner's
` counsel. This is Adam Seitz. We arranged for the
` reporter.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right, thank
` you. So we ask you to file a transcript as soon
` as possible as an exhibit after the call.
` So we scheduled this call to address an
` email we received from Petitioner requesting
` authorization to file a two-page supplemental
` brief along with appropriate exhibits relating to
`
`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. IPR2020-00204
` Patent 6,928,306 B2
`MAXELL, LTD,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING
` BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`LYNNE PETTIGREW, MINN CHUNG, JASON MELVIN
` JOHN HUDALLA, FREDERICK LANEY
`
` July 17, 2020
`
` Saundra Tippins, CCR
`
` (The conference began at 1:00 p.m.)
`
`Page 2
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. No. IPR2020-00204
` Patent 6,928,306 B2
`MAXELL, LTD,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING, taken on the 17th
`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
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`Page 5
` a summary judgment motion that Maxell filed in
` the parallel District Court proceeding involving
` the three patents that are challenged in the
` three IPRs before us.
` Petitioner states in an email that the
` summary judgment motion may impact our analysis
` of Fintiv Factor 4, the potential overlap of
` issues between the District Court litigation and
` IPRs.
` The emails do not specify whether Patent
` Owner opposes the request. In the future, please
` make sure the parties meet and confer before
` contacting us with any requests. And also you
` should specify in the email whether the other
` party opposes the request.
` Let's start with Petitioner. Please
` explain briefly why you believe there's good
` cause for the requested briefing. And in
` particular we'd like to hear the subject of the
` summary judgment motion and why it's relevant to
` our Fintiv analysis.
` MR. SEITZ: Yes, your Honor. This
` is Adam Seitz on behalf of Petitioner. Thank you.
` Your Honor, in the summary judgment
` argument submitted to the District Court, Maxell
`
`Page 6
` challenges the invalidity case against the three
` patents that are subject to the IPRs that we are
` here discussing.
` And we believe it is relevant to your
` Honor's proceeding specifically in the Fintiv
` analysis regarding the alleged overlap with the
` District Court. In its sur-reply that was
` granted to Maxell to discuss the Fintiv factors,
` Maxell argued that there was overlap between
` these proceedings at the PTAB and the District
` Court and that the same issues would be decided,
` and that under Fintiv that was an independent
` grounds for denial, raising the questions of
` whether there would be inconsistent rulings, et
` cetera.
` The summary judgment motion itself that
` Maxell has filed challenges the reference Abowd,
` A-b-o-w-d, and its public availability. That is
` one of the issues that the parties have briefed
` here as well. The question of Abowd and its
` public availability was the subject of additional
` briefing in the reply and the sur-reply in these
` petitions or in these matters as well.
` One of the most fundamental -- there's two
` things I want to point out here, your Honor.
`
`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 7
` First, probably the most fundamental thing,
` Maxell bases its summary judgment motion to the
` District Court on the fundamental premise that
` the Abowd article, the question of whether it is
` publicly available, whether Apple has proved that
` it's publicly available at the District Court, is
` one of clear and convincing, a standard that is
` one of the highest if not the highest at the
` civil level for District Courts. They say that
` Apple has failed to show clear and convincing
` evidence.
` The board, however, applies a different
` standard. Under the board's precedential
` decision in Hulu, the board examines whether
` Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that
` the reference, here Abowd, was publicly
` accessible and a reasonable likelihood of whether
` the reference qualifies as a printed publication.
` So looping back to the question of
` overlap, there is no scenario where there will be
` inconsistent positions here. The District Court
` could find on the highest burden of proof, that
` clear and convincing evidence, that Apple made a
` very strong showing but failed to meet the clear
` and convincing standard. The board could find
`
`Page 8
` that very same evidence meets a reasonable
` likelihood standard.
` That is not an inconsistency such of the
` type that Fintiv is looking at. That's applying
` a different standard that Congress expressly
` authorized as a difference between IPRs and the
` District Court.
` And secondarily, your Honor, the reason
` that it's important to you is the summary
` judgment argument rests on challenging Abowd as
` it relates to the "do not circulate" stamp. That
` also was subject of additional briefing and the
` introduction of additional evidence by Petitioner
` in the reply and sur-reply.
` Maxell argues to the District Court that
` the "do not circulate" stamp means that the
` reference Abowd was not available to the public.
` This is on page seven of its summary judgment
` brief. They further argue that the "do not
` circulate" warning indicates that the reference
` was not meant to be disseminated to the public,
` and the Court, if it makes a ruling, will do so
` based on that false premise and an incomplete
` record from that which the board has.
` Very specifically, your Honor, in this
`
`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
`
`2 (Pages 5 to 8)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`Page 9
` proceeding Apple submitted, along with its reply,
` a supplemental declaration from Mr. Mumford, our
` librarian expert, showing the arguments made
` regarding the "do not circulate" are incorrect;
` that it was accessible to the public. Thus the
` board has different evidence in front of it than
` the District Court and a different standard,
` reasonable likelihood, rather than clear and
` convincing, than those being examined by the
` District Court.
` But if Maxell is successful in its
` arguments to the board that the same issues will
` be decided, the board will deny institution. If
` it's successful convincing the jury or the Judge
` to prevent this issue from going to the jury,
` then Maxell will have its cake and eat it, too.
` No tribunal or trier of fact in that
` situation will look at the key evidence on why
` Abowd was publicly available under the standards
` before your Honors, and no tribunal will examine
` the merits of whether the patents are invalid
` under the teachings of Hayashida and Abowd as
` we've put forward in our petition.
` So, your Honor, I thought those were
` significantly important as they impact the Fintiv
`
`Page 10
` analysis such that we would like to bring that
` before you.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Let me
` understand that last part of your argument,
` counsel.
` So you're saying if we denied using our
` discretion under 314 applying the Fintiv factors
` and then in the District Court, the District
` Court granted Maxell's summary judgment motion,
` then at that point isn't the District Court
` saying that Maxell has shown by clear and
` convincing evidence that the Abowd reference is
` not publicly available prior art?
` MR. SEITZ: That is correct, your
` Honor, again based on a different standard. And
` it would avoid a fundamental question of the
` merits of whether Abowd and Hayashida, the
` reference before your Honors in our petition, do
` actually disclose the limitations in the claims.
` But yes, your recitation was correct.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Okay. Let's
` hear from Patent Owner. First of all, do you
` oppose the request? Because we didn't get that
` information.
` MR. PLUTA: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`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
` Yeah, we responded to the board with an email.
` Hopefully the board received that email.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Apparently we
` did not get that email. I'm sorry for that.
` MR. PLUTA: Okay, well, if the
` board will indulge me, I'll summarize it in my
` response.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you.
` MR. PLUTA: So we do oppose their
` request. We think there has been enough briefing
` on the Fintiv issue for the board to make an
` informed decision. However, to the extent the
` board is considering Apple's request, we'd like to
` put some things into context.
` Apple's request actually highlights why
` the board should utilize its discretion under
` Section 314 and Fintiv to deny institution in
` these proceedings.
` On June 30th, the parties in the
` underlying District Court action filed 16 motions
` across the ten patents at issue there. At least
` three of those motions filed were directed to the
` validity of the patents at issue here in these
` proceedings. Maxell filed two motions and Apple
` filed a motion directed to these patents as well.
`
`Page 12
`
` These motions were filed long after
` completion of fact discovery and after completion
` of expert discovery where both Apple's and
` Maxell's experts were deposed on the patents at
` issue in these proceedings. A hearing on those
` motions is scheduled for September 15th, which is
` about a month prior to trial in the District
` Court action and 11 months before any final
` written decision would be due in these
` proceedings.
` There are several features of both
` Maxell's motion and Apple's motion that the
` substantial overlap of issues and why if the
` board institutes the parties, then the board will
` have a heavy duplication of that effort.
` For example, as Mr. Seitz alluded to, the
` issue of whether the Abowd publication is prior
` art is the same here as it is in the District
` Court. Maxell's motion seeks a summary judgment
` ruling that the Abowd publication is not prior
` art, just as the arguments made here before the
` board. The basis for that intention is the same
` as it is here.
` And importantly, Apple's evidence to show
` that the publication is prior art is precisely
`
`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
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`Page 13
` the same. In fact, Apple has set forth a nearly
` identical declaration from the librarian,
` Mr. Mumford, in the District Court as it has in
` these proceedings. And Mr. Maxell has already
` taken Mr. Mumford's deposition.
` To Mr. Seitz's points or arguments that
` there's a supplemental declaration here from
` Mr. Mumford whereas that supplemental declaration
` doesn't exist in the District Court, that
` argument should have no merit because Apple could
` certainly have, A, gotten that information in
` during the deposition of Mr. Mumford, or simply
` filed a supplemental declaration from Mr. Mumford
` in the District Court. You may even still have
` the opportunity to do so.
` So the fact that there's different
` evidence here is kind of a misnomer. In Apple's
` Motion for Summary Judgment, it seeks invalidity
` of the patents based on Section 101, but
` importantly it support its motion arguing that
` Hayashida, the same reference as used in the
` petition, is known art. And to illustrate this
` Apple relies on many of the same references from
` Hayashida as it does in the petition.
` So Apple's concern -- and that's putting
`
`Page 14
` aside even the 103 arguments that overlap between
` the two proceedings. So Apple's concern that the
` summary judgment motions present a risk of Maxell
` convincing both forums to forego looking at
` invalidity is incorrect. The District Court will
` look at invalidity and look at it first prior to
` the board, nearly a year prior to the board,
` which goes to the very heart of why the board
` found Fintiv precedential.
` The substantial overlap of issues favors
` denial here. Well before the final written
` decision, the Court will either grant summary
` judgment in Maxell's or Apple's favor or a jury
` will decide the issues surrounding the validity
` of the patent.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you,
` counsel. Petitioner, I'll give you a brief
` rebuttal.
` MR. SEITZ: Thank you, your Honor.
` I want to start with responding to Mr. Pluta.
` This is Mr. Seitz responding by clarifying one
` thing Mr. Pluta said and also going back to your
` question, Judge Pettigrew, because I think there's
` a fundamental point that I don't want to get lost
` in a mess here.
`
`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
` The District Court's ruling on summary
` judgment will not be whether the reference Abowd
` is prior art. The summary judgment challenges
` whether Apple has submitted sufficient evidence
` to meet the clear and convincing standard.
` So the ruling that would come out of the
` District Court would be a question of whether the
` evidence before the District Court is sufficient
` to meet the clear and convincing standard. The
` reason I want to clarify that is because you the
` board have a different standard, reasonable
` likelihood, and you the board have different
` evidence.
` Now, Mr. Pluta seemed to brush that under
` the table, and perhaps Apple does -- I'm not
` litigation counsel -- perhaps they do clarify the
` record. Maxell did not make any reference to the
` additional evidence from the IPR and inform the
` District Court about that. Perhaps Apple will.
` But the point is you have different
` evidence and a different standard available to
` you to find whether on a reasonable likelihood
` standard Abowd is publicly available. The
` Court's ruling will not be inconsistent with
` yours because it's one of whether Apple has met
`
`Page 16
` its evidentiary standard under the clear and
` convincing standard.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right, thank
` you, counsel. Patent Owner, I'll give you one
` last word if there's anything else you want to
` say.
` We can't hear you.
` MR. PLUTA: I'm sorry, your Honor,
` I was on mute. The perils of doing this call from
` my cell phone in the work-at-home environment. I
` apologize.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Understood.
` MR. PLUTA: I will keep it very
` brief then.
` It's not incumbent upon Maxell to
` supplement the District Court record to match the
` evidence that Apple submitted in this proceeding.
` That's Apple's job.
` But as you pointed out, your Honor, in
` response to Mr. Seitz's arguments, I mean the
` burden is on us and in the District Court. So if
` we meet that burden and summary judgment is
` granted, the judge in the District Court will
` address the invalidity issues of the patents.
` And if we do not meet that burden and the case
`
`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
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`Page 17
`
` goes to trial, the jury will.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right.
` Thank you, counsel. I'm going to put everybody on
` hold for a short period of time while I confer
` with my colleagues.
` (Off the record.)
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: The panel is
` back on the call. We're going to take this matter
` under advisement.
` Petitioner, you arranged for the court
` reporter. We would like to have the transcript
` of this call filed as soon as possible.
` MR. SEITZ: Yes. Will do, your
` Honor. I'll file -- there was a similar
` proceeding between the parties where we had a
` discussion like this on Monday, and they asked me,
` IPR 2020-202, they asked me to submit the rough
` transcript immediate after the call and then the
` final when it was done. Would you like me to
` proceed the same here?
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes, we would
` like that, thank you.
` MR. PLUTA: This is Robert. Could
` you make one point? I just want wanted to clarify
` to the extent the board does allow further
`
`Page 18
` submissions in addition to what Apple requested to
` be submitted, we would also then request to
` complete the record and submit the other motions,
` the relevant motions.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: And what are the
` relevant motions?
` MR. PLUTA: Apple's Motion for
` Summary Judgment as well that further highlights
` the substantial overlap of the Hayashida
` reference.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Okay.
` MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, may I ask
` a brief clarification on that? This is Mr. Seitz.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes. Go ahead,
` counsel.
` MR. SEITZ: The only other motion
` I'm aware of to which he could be referring is a
` 101 motion, and I'm wondering if that's it.
` There's only a passing reference to the Hayashida
` in saying that people have been doing navigation
` on devices like this for years.
` If that's what he's referring to, I guess
` I'm just wondering if perhaps there's another
` motion that he's referring to that I'm unaware
` of.
`
`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
`
`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
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Mr. Pluta, can
` you clarify? Is it the 101 summary judgment
` motion?
` MR. PLUTA: Yes, your Honor, that
` is the motion. However, I disagree with
` Mr. Seitz's characterization of the passing
` reference.
` There are six or seven references to the
` Hayashida reference including about seven
` paragraphs of Apple's expert that discuss and are
` cited in the motion that discuss the Hayashida
` reference and its alleged applicability to the
` validity of the patents at issue here.
` JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you. If
` there's nothing else from the parties, then this
` call is adjourned. Thank you.
` (The hearing concluded at 1:21
` p.m.)
`
`Page 20
`
` 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
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`5 (Pages 17 to 20)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`

`

`
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020 TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`A
`A-b-o-w-d 6:18
`ability 20:5
`Abowd 6:17,20
`7:4,16 8:10,17
`9:19,22 10:12
`10:17 12:17,20
`15:2,23
`accessible 7:17
`9:5
`action 11:20
`12:8 20:9,13
`Adam 3:4 4:5,17
`5:23
`adam.seitz@e...
`3:6
`addition 18:1
`additional 6:21
`8:12,13 15:18
`address 4:22
`16:24
`adjourned 19:16
`ADMINISTRA...
`1:9
`advisement
`17:9
`afternoon 2:11
`4:10
`ahead 18:14
`Alaris 3:14
`alleged 6:6
`19:12
`allow 17:25
`alluded 12:16
`analysis 5:6,21
`6:6 10:1
`apologize 16:11
`Apparently 11:3
`Appeal 1:1 2:1,16
`Apple 1:2 2:2,16
`4:6 7:5,10,23
`9:1 11:24 13:1
`13:10,23 15:4
`15:15,19,25
`16:17 18:1
`Apple's 11:13,15
`
`12:3,12,24
`13:17,25 14:2
`14:13 16:18
`18:7 19:10
`applicability
`19:12
`applies 7:12
`applying 8:4
`10:7
`appropriate
`4:25
`argue 8:19
`argued 6:9
`argues 8:15
`arguing 13:20
`argument 5:25
`8:10 10:4 13:10
`arguments 9:3
`9:12 12:21 13:6
`14:1 16:20
`arranged 4:15
`4:17 17:10
`art 10:13 12:18
`12:21,25 13:22
`15:3
`article 7:4
`aside 14:1
`asked 17:16,17
`attorney 20:11
`authorization
`4:24
`authorized 8:6
`availability 6:18
`6:21
`available 7:5,6
`8:17 9:19 10:13
`15:21,23
`avoid 10:16
`aware 18:17
`B
`B2 1:5 2:5
`back 7:19 14:22
`17:8
`based 8:23
`10:15 13:19
`bases 7:2
`
`basis 12:22
`began 1:15
`behalf 4:11 5:23
`believe 5:17 6:4
`best 20:5
`board 1:1 2:1,16
`7:12,14,25
`8:24 9:6,12,13
`11:1,2,6,11,13,16
`12:14,14,22
`14:7,7,8 15:11
`15:12 17:25
`board's 7:13
`Boulevard 3:5
`brief 4:25 8:19
`14:17 16:14
`18:13
`briefed 6:19
`briefing 5:18
`6:22 8:12 11:10
`briefly 5:17
`bring 10:1
`BROWN 3:9
`brush 15:14
`burden 7:22
`16:21,22,25
`C
`
`C 3:2
`cake 9:16
`call 4:2,4,9,12
`4:21,22 16:9
`17:8,12,18
`19:16
`case 6:1 16:25
`cause 2:14 5:18
`CCR 1:13
`cell 16:10
`certain 2:14
`certainly 13:11
`CERTIFICATE
`20:1
`Certified 2:12
`20:2,3,19
`certify 20:4
`cetera 6:15
`challenged 5:3
`
`challenges 6:1
`6:17 15:3
`challenging
`8:10
`characterizati...
`19:6
`Chicago 3:10
`Chung 1:10 4:3
`circulate 8:11,16
`8:20 9:4
`cited 19:11
`City 3:15
`civil 7:9
`claims 10:19
`clarification
`18:13
`clarify 15:10,16
`17:24 19:2
`clarifying 14:21
`clear 7:7,10,23
`7:24 9:8 10:11
`15:5,9 16:1
`colleague 4:13
`colleagues 17:5
`College 3:5
`come 15:6
`complete 18:3
`completion 12:2
`12:2
`concern 13:25
`14:2
`concluded 19:17
`confer 5:12 17:4
`conference 1:15
`Congress 8:5
`considering
`11:13
`contacting 5:13
`context 11:14
`convincing 7:7
`7:10,23,25 9:9
`9:14 10:12 14:4
`15:5,9 16:2
`correct 10:14,20
`counsel 4:17
`10:5 14:17
`15:16 16:4 17:3
`
`18:15 20:7,11
`court 2:13 3:12
`4:15 5:2,8,25
`6:7,11 7:3,6,21
`8:7,15,22 9:7
`9:10 10:8,9,10
`11:20 12:8,19
`13:3,9,14 14:5
`14:12 15:7,8,19
`16:16,21,23
`17:10 20:2,19
`Court's 15:1,24
`Courts 7:9
`D
`day 2:9,11
`decide 14:14
`decided 6:11
`9:13
`decision 7:14
`11:12 12:9
`14:12
`declaration 9:2
`13:2,7,8,13
`denial 6:13 14:11
`denied 10:6
`deny 9:13 11:17
`deposed 12:4
`deposition 13:5
`13:12
`devices 18:21
`difference 8:6
`different 7:12
`8:5 9:6,7
`10:15 13:16
`15:11,12,20,21
`directed 11:22
`11:25
`direction 20:7
`disagree 19:5
`disclose 10:19
`discovery 12:2
`12:3
`discretion 10:7
`11:16
`discuss 6:8
`19:10,11
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`discussing 6:3
`discussion 17:16
`disseminated
`8:21
`District 5:2,8,25
`6:7,10 7:3,6,9
`7:21 8:7,15 9:7
`9:10 10:8,8,10
`11:20 12:7,18
`13:3,9,14 14:5
`15:1,7,8,19
`16:16,21,23
`doing 16:9
`18:20
`Drive 3:10
`due 12:9
`duplication
`12:15
`
`E
`
`E 3:2,2
`eat 9:16
`effort 12:15
`either 14:12
`email 4:23 5:5
`5:14 11:1,2,4
`emails 5:10
`employed 20:8
`20:11
`employee
`20:10
`environment
`16:10
`ERISE 3:5
`et 6:14
`everybody 17:3
`evidence 7:11
`7:23 8:1,13 9:6
`9:18 10:12
`12:24 13:17
`15:4,8,13,18,21
`16:17
`evidentiary 16:1
`examine 9:20
`examined 9:9
`examines 7:14
`example 12:16
`
`exhibit 4:21
`exhibits 4:25
`exist 13:9
`expert 9:3 12:3
`19:10
`experts 12:4
`explain 5:17
`expressly 8:5
`extent 11:12
`17:25
`
`F
`fact 9:17 12:2
`13:1,16
`Factor 5:7
`factors 6:8 10:7
`failed 7:10,24
`false 8:23
`favor 14:13
`favors 14:10
`features 12:11
`file 4:20,24
`17:14
`filed 5:1 6:17
`11:20,22,24
`11:25 12:1 13:13
`17:12
`final 12:8 14:11
`17:19
`financially
`20:12
`find 7:22,25
`15:22
`Fintiv 5:7,21 6:5
`6:8,12 8:4
`9:25 10:7 11:11
`11:17 14:9
`first 7:1 10:22
`14:6
`five 2:10
`forego 14:4
`foregoing 20:4
`forenoon 2:10
`forth 13:1
`forums 14:4
`forward 9:23
`found 14:9
`
`FREDERICK 1:11
`front 9:6
`fundamental
`6:24 7:1,3
`10:16 14:24
`further 8:19
`17:25 18:8
`20:9
`future 5:11
`G
`
`G 3:9
`give 14:17 16:4
`Go 18:14
`goes 14:8 17:1
`going 9:15
`14:22 17:3,8
`good 4:10 5:17
`gotten 13:11
`grant 14:12
`granted 6:8
`10:9 16:23
`grounds 6:13
`guess 18:22
`H
`Hart 3:4 4:7
`Hayashida 9:22
`10:17 13:21,24
`18:9,19 19:9,11
`hear 5:19 10:22
`16:7
`hearing 1:8 2:8
`12:5 19:17
`20:5,9
`heart 14:8
`heavy 12:15
`highest 7:8,8
`7:22
`highlights 11:15
`18:8
`hold 17:4
`Honor 4:11 5:22
`5:24 6:25 8:8
`8:25 9:24
`10:15,25 14:19
`16:8,19 17:14
`
`18:12 19:4
`Honor's 6:5
`Honors 9:20
`10:18
`Hopefully 11:2
`hours 2:9
`Hudalla 1:11 4:3
`Hulu 7:14
`I
`identical 13:2
`Illinois 3:10
`illustrate 13:22
`immediate 17:18
`impact 5:6 9:25
`important 8:9
`9:25
`importantly
`12:24 13:20
`including 19:9
`incomplete
`8:23
`inconsistency
`8:3
`inconsistent
`6:14 7:21
`15:24
`incorrect 9:4
`14:5
`incumbent
`16:15
`independent
`6:12
`indicates 8:20
`indulge 11:6
`inform 15:18
`information
`10:24 13:11
`informed 11:12
`institutes 12:14
`institution 9:13
`11:17
`intention 12:22
`interested
`20:12
`introduction
`8:13
`
`invalid 9:21
`invalidity 6:1
`13:18 14:5,6
`16:24
`involving 5:2
`IP 3:5
`IPR 15:18 17:17
`IPR2020-002...
`1:4 2:4
`IPRs 5:4,9 6:2
`8:6
`issue 9:15 11:11
`11:21,23 12:5
`12:17 19:13
`issues 5:8 6:11
`6:19 9:12 12:13
`14:10,14 16:24
`J
`JASON 1:10
`job 16:18
`JOHN 1:11
`joining 4:6
`judge 4:1,1,8,14
`4:19 9:14 10:3
`10:21 11:3,8
`14:16,23 16:3
`16:12,23 17:2,7
`17:21 18:5,11,14
`19:1,14
`Judges 1:9 4:2
`judgment 5:1,6
`5:20,24 6:16
`7:2 8:10,18
`10:9 12:19
`13:18 14:3,13
`15:2,3 16:22
`18:8 19:2
`July 1:12 2:9
`June 11:19
`jury 9:14,15
`14:13 17:1
`K
`Kansas 2:14 3:6
`3:15 20:4
`keep 16:13
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`key 9:18
`kind 13:17
`known 13:22
`L
`Laney 1:11 4:3
`Let's 5:16 10:21
`level 7:9
`librarian 9:3
`13:2
`likelihood 7:15
`7:17 8:2 9:8
`15:12,22
`limitations 10:19
`litigation 3:14
`5:8 15:16
`LLP 3:9
`Locust 3:14
`long 12:1
`look 9:18 14:6,6
`looking 8:4 14:4
`looping 7:19
`lost 14:24
`LYNNE 1:10
`M
`match 16:16
`matter 17:8
`matters 6:23
`Maxell 1:5 2:5
`2:17 4:12 5:1
`5:25 6:8,9,17
`7:2 8:15 9:11
`9:16 10:11
`11:24 13:4 14:3
`15:17 16:15
`Maxell's 10:9
`12:4,12,19
`14:13
`MAYER 3:9
`mean 16:20
`means 8:16
`meant 8:21
`meet 5:12 7:24
`15:5,9 16:22
`16:25
`meets 8:1
`
`Melvin 1:10 4:3
`merit 13:10
`merits 9:21
`10:17
`mess 14:25
`met 15:25
`MINN 1:10
`misnomer 13:17
`Missouri 2:14
`3:15 20:3,20
`Monday 17:16
`month 12:7
`months 12:8
`motion 5:1,6,20
`6:16 7:2 10:9
`11:25 12:12,12
`12:19 13:18,20
`18:7,16,18,24
`19:3,5,11
`motions 11:20
`11:22,24 12:1,6
`14:3 18:3,4,6
`Mumford 9:2
`13:3,8,12,13
`Mumford's 13:5
`mute 16:9
`N
`
`N 3:2
`navigation
`18:20
`nearly 13:1 14:7
`neither 20:7
`nine 2:9
`Notary 2:12
`O
`o'clock 2:10,10
`Office 1:1 2:1,15
`Okay 10:21 11:5
`18:11
`opportunity
`13:15
`oppose 10:23
`11:9
`opposes 5:11,15
`outcome 20:13
`
`Overland 3:6
`overlap 5:7 6:6
`6:9 7:20 12:13
`14:1,10 18:9
`Owner 1:6 2:6
`2:18 3:8 4:9
`4:12 5:11 10:22
`16:4
`
`P
`P 3:2,2,4
`P.A 3:5
`p.m 1:15 19:18
`page 8:18
`panel 17:7
`paragraphs
`19:10
`parallel 5:2
`Park 3:6
`part 10:4
`particular 5:19
`parties 5:12
`6:19 11:19
`12:14 17:15
`19:15 20:8,11
`partner 4:6
`party 4:14 5:15
`passing 18:19
`19:6
`patent 1:1,1,5,6
`1:9 2:1,1,5,6,15
`2:16,18 3:8
`4:9,11 5:10
`10:22 14:15
`16:4
`patents 5:3 6:2
`9:21 11:21,23
`11:25 12:4
`13:19 16:24
`19:13
`Paul 3:4 4:7
`pending 2:14
`people 18:20
`perils 16:9
`period 17:4
`petition 9:23
`10:18 13:22,24
`
`Petitioner 1:3
`2:3,17 3:3 4:4
`4:6,23 5:5,16
`5:23 7:15 8:13
`14:17 17:10
`Petitioner's 4:16
`petitions 6:23
`Pettigrew 1:10
`4:1,2,8,14,19
`10:3,21 11:3,8
`14:16,23 16:3
`16:12 17:2,7,21
`18:5,11,14 19:1
`19:14
`phone 16:10
`please 5:11,16
`Pluta 3:9 4:10,11
`10:25 11:5,9
`14:20,22 15:14
`16:8,13 17:23
`18:7 19:1,4
`point 6:25 10:10
`14:24 15:20
`17:24
`pointed 16:19
`points 13:6
`positions 7:21
`possible 4:21
`17:12
`potential 5:7
`precedential
`7:13 14:9
`precisely 12:25
`premise 7:3
`8:23
`present 14:3
`prevent 9:15
`printed 7:18
`prior 10:13 12:7
`12:17,20,25
`14:6,7 15:3
`probably 7:1
`proceed 17:20
`proceeding 5:2
`6:5 9:1 16:17
`17:15
`proceedings
`
`6:10 11:18,24
`12:5,10 13:4
`14:2
`proof 7:22
`proved 7:5
`PTAB 6:10
`public 2:12 6:18
`6:21 8:17,21
`9:5
`publication 7:18
`12:17,20,25
`publicly 7:5,6,16
`9:19 10:13
`15:23
`put 9:23 11:14
`17:3
`putting 13:25
`Q
`qualifies 7:18
`question 6:20
`7:4,19 10:16
`14:23 15:7
`questions 6:13
`R
`
`R 3:2,4
`raising 6:13
`reason 8:8
`15:10
`reasonable 7:15
`7:17 8:1 9:8
`15:11,22
`rebuttal 14:18
`received 4:23
`11:2
`recitation 10:20
`record 8:24
`15:17 16:16
`17:6 18:3
`reduced 20:6
`reference 6:17
`7:16,18 8:17
`8:20 10:12,18
`13:21 15:2,17
`18:10,19 19:7,9
`19:12
`
`www.alaris.us
`
`ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`

`

` TELEPHONIC HEARING 7/17/2020
`
`Understood
`16:12
`UNITED 1:1 2:1
`utilize 11:16
`V
`validity 11:23
`14:14 19:13
`vs 1:4 2:4
`W
`Wacker 3:10
`want 6:25 14:20
`14:24 15:10
`16:5 17:24
`wanted 17:24
`warning 8:20
`We're 17:8
`we've 9:23
`wondering
`18:18,23
`word 16:5
`work-at-home
`16:10
`written 12:9
`14:11
`
`X Y
`
`Yeah 11:1
`year 14:7
`years 18:21
`
`Z 0 1
`
`1:00 1:15
`1:21 19:17
`101 13:19 18:18
`19:2
`103 14:1
`11 12:8
`15th 12:6
`16 11:20
`1608 3:14
`
`table 15:15
`take 17:8
`taken 2:8 13:5
`20:5,9
`teachings 9:22
`telephone 2:11
`TELEPHONIC
`1:8 2:8
`ten 11:21
`thank 4:8,19
`5:23 10:25
`11:8 14:16,19
`16:3 17:3,22
`19:14,16
`thereto 20:12
`thing 7:1 14:22
`things 6:25
`11:14
`think 11:10 14:23
`thought 9:24
`three 5:3,4 6:1
`11:22
`time 17:4
`Tippins 1:13 2:12
`3:13 20:2
`Trademark 1:1
`2:1,15
`transcript 4:20
`17:11,18
`trial 1:1 2:1,16
`12:7 17:1
`tribunal 9:17,20
`trier 9:17
`two 6:24 11:24
`14:2
`two-page 4:24
`type 8:4
`typewriting
`20:6
`
`U
`U.S 2:15
`unaware 18:24
`underlying
`11:20
`understand
`10:4
`
`references
`13:23 19:8
`referring 18:17
`18:22,24
`regarding 6:6
`9:4
`related 20:7
`relates 8:11
`relating 4:25
`relative 20:10
`relevant 5:20
`6:4 18:4,6
`relies 13:23
`reply 6:22 8:14
`9:1
`reporter 2:13
`3:12 4:15,18
`17:11 20:1,2,3
`20:19
`request 5:11,15
`10:23 11:10,13
`11:15 18:2
`requested 5:18
`18:1
`requesting 4:23
`requests 5:13
`responded 11:1
`responding
`14:20,21
`response 11:7
`16:20
`rests 8:10
`right 4:19 16:3
`17:2
`risk 14:3
`Robert 3:9 4:11
`17:23
`rough 17:17
`rpluta@mayer...
`3:11
`ruling 8:22
`12:20 15:1,6
`15:24
`rulings 6:14
`S
`
`S 3:2
`
`Saqib 4:13
`Saundra 1:13
`2:12 3:13 20:2
`saying 10:6,11
`18:20
`scenario 7:20
`scheduled 4:22
`12:6
`secondarily 8:8
`Section 11:17
`13:19
`seeks 12:19
`13:18
`Seitz 3:4 4:5,5
`4:16,17 5:22
`5:23 10:14
`12:16 14:19,21
`17:13 18:12,13
`18:16
`Seitz's 13:6
`16:20 19:6
`September 12:6
`Services 3:14
`set 13:1
`seven 8:18