Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 1 of 39
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`CA No. 19-11586-IT
`
`)))))))))
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE INDIRA TALWANI
`
`SCHEDULING CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE
`
`John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
`Courtroom No. 9
`One Courthouse Way
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tuesday, March 24, 2020
`2:30 p.m.
`
`Cheryl Dahlstrom, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
`One Courthouse Way, Room 3510
`Boston, MA 02210
`Mechanical Steno - Transcript by Computer
`
`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
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0001
`
`
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`CA No. 19-11586-IT
`
`)))))))))
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE INDIRA TALWANI
`
`SCHEDULING CONFERENCE VIA TELECONFERENCE
`
`John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
`Courtroom No. 9
`One Courthouse Way
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tuesday, March 24, 2020
`2:30 p.m.
`
`Cheryl Dahlstrom, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
`One Courthouse Way, Room 3510
`Boston, MA 02210
`Mechanical Steno - Transcript by Computer
`
`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
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0001
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 2 of 39
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`By: Ruben J. Rodrigues, Esq.
`111 Huntington Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`By: Eley O. Thompson, Esq.
`321 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Also Present: Elias Schilowitz, Esq.
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
`GOULSTON & STORRS
`By: Jennifer B. Furey, Esq.
`400 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`By: Yar R. Chaikovsky, Esq.
` David Beckwith, Esq.
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`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
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0002
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 3 of 39
`
`3
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`THE CLERK: If we could start please with Philips
`North America counsel.
`MR. THOMPSON: Yes, thank you. This is Eley Thompson,
`of Foley & Lardner, on behalf of Philips. Also with me is
`Ruben Rodrigues of Foley & Lardner in Boston; and then in-house
`counsel for Philips may be joining. I'm not sure if they've
`dialed in yet. That would be Elias Schilowitz. I can spell
`that if you would like.
`THE CLERK: I would very much like.
`MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Elias is E-l-i-a-s, and
`Schilowitz is S-c-h-i-l-o-w-i-t-z.
`THE CLERK: Okay. Now, Mr. Schilowitz does not appear
`as counsel on the docket. Do you know if he will be entering
`an appearance?
`MR. THOMPSON: He's going to be observing right now.
`THE COURT: Okay. If -- he won't be speaking, is that
`correct?
`MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. He won't be speaking. I thought
`that I would mention that so that you knew that there was an
`additional person.
`THE CLERK: I appreciate that, Counsel.
`Will Lucas Silva be joining us?
`MR. THOMPSON: He will not be.
`THE CLERK: Okay. Go ahead.
`
`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
`
`02:27
`
`02:27
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0003
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 4 of 39
`
`4
`
`MR. THOMPSON: That's it for Philips.
`THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you very much.
`Hi. It's Gail Marchione I'm judge's courtroom deputy.
`We have counsel on the line for Philips North America. I've
`taken their names: Mr. Thompson and Mr. Rodrigues. Will
`Fitbit counsel please identify themselves for the record.
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Hi. This is Yar Chaikovsky, from
`Paul Hastings, on behalf of Fitbit.
`THE CLERK: Thank you.
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: We may have others on the line; and
`if they are, they will announce themselves. I think we have
`David Beckwith also on the line, but he can confirm.
`MR. BECKWITH: Yes. This is David Beckwith. I'm also
`on the line.
`THE CLERK: Thank you. Anyone else?
`MS. FUREY: Yes. This is Jennifer Furey, from
`Goulston & Storrs.
`THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
`MR. SCHILOWITZ: Yeah. It's Elias Schilowitz, counsel
`from Philips.
`MR. THOMPSON: I told them.
`THE CLERK: Thank you. Anyone else for Fitbit?
`Do we expect anyone else to call in later from Fitbit,
`or do you think we can go ahead now with the judge?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: No. I think that's everyone that's
`
`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
`
`02:28
`
`02:29
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0004
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 5 of 39
`
`5
`
`going to call in so we can proceed.
`THE CLERK: I have Mr. Beckwith, Ms. Furey, and Mr.
`Chaikovsky, correct?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Correct.
`THE CLERK: I can't really mute anyone. If you could
`give me a second, I'm going to send the judge an email and let
`her know that we're ready.
`Judge Talwani?
`MR. RODRIGUES: No. This is Ruben Rodrigues of Foley
`& Lardner.
`THE CLERK: Okay. Ruben Rodrigues?
`MR. RODRIGUES: That is correct.
`THE CLERK: Okay, good. Thank you.
`The next beep should be the judge.
`MR. RODRIGUES: I don't know if others have a similar
`problem, but I had to dial in a few times because I was
`getting --
`THE CLERK: I think we have everyone on the line now.
`MR. RODRIGUES: Okay.
`THE CLERK: Unless we've lost everyone. Do we still
`have people on the line? You can all sing out.
`I'm going to say this on the record when the judge
`comes on. But every single time you speak, if you could please
`state your name just to make it easier for our court reporter.
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`
`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
`
`02:31
`
`02:31
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0005
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 6 of 39
`
`6
`
`THE CLERK: Good afternoon, Judge Talwani. I'm going
`to call the case for the record, okay?
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`THE CLERK: Thank you. United States District Court
`is now in session. The Honorable Judge Indira Talwani
`presiding. This is Case No. 19-cv-11586, Philips North
`America, LLC v. Fitbit, Inc. The parties have previously
`identified themselves for the record and are instructed to
`state their full name each time they speak in order to keep an
`accurate record.
`THE COURT: So good afternoon.
`ALL: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`THE COURT: I'm going to try and work our way through
`a few things on this status conference -- or scheduling
`conference. So I'll go through my list; and when we're done,
`if you have other matters, you're welcome to raise them.
`I do want to start just with some concern about how
`today's conference was handled by counsel. We are all under
`pressure with the pandemic here. Not least among the groups
`under pressure are the courts. And we are trying to ensure
`that what may be a long haul here that people are able to have
`a judicial system that is functioning.
`You had an obligation here, in advance of this
`conference, to give me a status report. Maybe that wasn't that
`clear, my expectation. So a week ago, or perhaps more than a
`
`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
`
`02:32
`
`02:33
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0006
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 7 of 39
`
`7
`
`week ago, we -- I put an order on the docket, March 18, asking
`that you confer and promptly file an updated joint statement.
`I have a hard time understanding how it came to be
`that I didn't get a joint statement from you until a second
`request from my clerk and that it was then filed after close of
`our business day on Friday. So I can -- looks from the record
`that Philips made some effort. So perhaps this is directed at
`Fitbit.
`
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Okay. Your Honor, Yar Chaikovsky on
`behalf of Fitbit.
`At least as I am aware -- and we have a lot of people
`on the phone -- I guess I would respectfully disagree with
`respect to the effort. We received the document Thursday
`morning, last Thursday. Perhaps, you know, I would suggest --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. You received what document
`last Thursday morning?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: The draft of the joint statement,
`Thursday morning.
`THE COURT: So my order was March 18, which was
`Wednesday. So now proceed.
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Right. And so last Thursday -- now,
`I will take personal responsibility on behalf of Fitbit that,
`you know, as defendants, we perhaps could have, you know,
`gotten it out sooner, your Honor, given your order on the 18th
`-- I think you said your order was on the 18th. But we
`
`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
`
`02:35
`
`02:35
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0007
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 8 of 39
`
`8
`
`received it Thursday, on the 19th. After getting it on the
`19th, we worked on it. Now, we could have worked on it more
`expeditiously, but we got it out on the 20th, in the morning of
`the 20th.
`THE COURT: And instead of working on it, you were
`finalizing your motion for summary judgment. I just don't --
`I'm flabbergasted as to what made you think that motion, which
`had no due date, should come in front of my court order when I
`am trying to juggle many people's schedules. There are many
`flights. There's many people. We have a court personnel
`trying to set this thing up, and why you didn't think that my
`order was of higher priority than getting the motion for
`summary judgment filed.
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Again, all I can do is apologize,
`your Honor. You know, our team was working on it; and as far
`as I know, we worked on it diligently. It's not like we have
`people that can't work on two different things at once. And we
`turned around what is obviously, as you can see by the report,
`not necessarily a short report, expeditiously. Perhaps it
`could have been done faster. Again, all I can do is apologize
`to the Court, and we will not do it again.
`THE COURT: That's what I need to hear. We are all in
`a difficult world going forward. I understand that, when I'm
`getting requests of how it's been difficult to take people's
`depositions or how civil juries and criminal juries have been
`
`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
`
`02:36
`
`02:37
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0008
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 9 of 39
`
`9
`
`canceled and how we're trying to sentence criminal defendants
`when we can't transport them. All of these issues are issues
`that we're all dealing with. And it's tough and I'm trying to
`be considerate for what the parties needed. We're here
`telephonically. We're not here in person.
`But there is no way that the judicial system is going
`to function if lawyers don't have, as you're going through your
`checklist, No. 1, how are we going to make this work for the
`courts. You may think that you are strapped with your
`resources and your having to stay in your homes and not commute
`to the courts -- to your offices. It is no different for
`anyone. And if you want a judicial system that's working, I
`just have to tell you there is no excuse for not putting what
`the judges are asking you to do to try to make this work --
`putting that front burner.
`I needed to figure out if we needed to have this
`conference, if we needed to have it in person. And to not give
`me the courtesy of doing that before close of business on
`Friday night, it's just -- you know, I entered the order myself
`on Saturday morning so people didn't have to make travel
`arrangements. But I shouldn't be in that position. So it's
`not going to happen again. Understood?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Definitely apologies from the Fitbit
`perspective, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. So that was Item 1 on my agenda.
`
`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
`
`02:38
`
`02:38
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0009
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 10 of 39
`
`10
`
`Item 2 is to talk about the discovery so far.
`Please identify yourself.
`MR. THOMPSON: This is Eley Thompson - my apologies --
`for plaintiff, Philips.
`I could give you a summary of what the parties have
`been doing since our December scheduling conference if that
`would be helpful to your Honor.
`THE COURT: Yes. Well, let me ask the question this
`way: The proposed dates that you had come in with at the last
`scheduling conference and that I adopted had your initial
`disclosures for Rule 26 due January 10th. Did those goes out?
`MR. THOMPSON: Yes. The parties exchanged all of
`that, all of those items, and did even more per what I think
`the parties understood was the desire of the court, including
`exchanging interrogatories and requests for productions, and
`that's what I was going to summarize for you.
`THE COURT: Okay. I just -- the reason I was just
`checking first, and I would like to hear from the rest of them.
`But the reason I was checking first on the initial disclosures
`is that you have so much patent-specific disclosures worked
`into the rules and so on that sometimes people forget about the
`initial disclosures and seeing in the papers that there seems
`to be a dispute about who goes first and what information comes
`forward. Just to be clear, that the initial disclosures under
`Rule 26 are your witnesses and documents to support your claims
`
`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
`
`02:39
`
`02:40
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0010
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 11 of 39
`
`11
`
`or defenses. I want to make sure those happened.
`Have we lost everybody?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: No. Yar Chaikovsky for Fitbit is
`still here.
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson for Philips.
`I dropped off, and I don't know for kind of how long. So kind
`of right after I spoke, I think I -- at least my connection --
`I don't know about other people's -- was dropped.
`THE COURT: Okay. So to the extent that people are on
`lines that are on speaker phones -- hello? Have we lost
`everybody?
`MR. THOMPSON: I am here. This is Eley Thompson.
`THE COURT: I'm going to assume we're still on and
`keep going.
`My question I had asked was whether -- and just to
`double-check that I'm not talking about just the specific Rule
`16.6(d) disclosures, but I'm also talking about the general
`Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, i.e., your witnesses and
`documents that support your claims or defenses. Have those
`been disclosed?
`You have to -- right. Every time you speak, you have
`to identify yourself or we won't have a record here.
`MR. THOMPSON: Yes, your Honor. My apologies. It's
`Eley Thompson.
`And I believe the answer to that question is yes.
`
`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
`
`02:42
`
`02:42
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0011
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 12 of 39
`
`12
`
`It's certainly true as to the items that were on the schedule,
`and Rubin Rodrigues can also confirm that.
`THE COURT: Can't hear you.
`MR. RODRIGUES: This is Ruben Rodriguez, of Foley, on
`behalf of Philips.
`I can confirm that Philips served initial disclosures.
`I believe Fitbit did as well, but I'm double-checking that.
`THE COURT: For Fitbit, did you serve initial
`disclosures?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Yes, your Honor. We served initial
`disclosures for Fitbit. This is Yar Chaikovsky, apologies.
`Served initial disclosures and also served the patent
`local rule disclosures.
`THE COURT: Okay. So is there -- all of that should
`have happened before today. So have all the disclosures
`happened that are required under Rule 16.6(d)?
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson on behalf of
`Philips.
`I do believe that we have made our disclosures.
`THE COURT: And for Fitbit?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Your Honor, Yar Chaikovsky on behalf
`of Fitbit.
`Although I guess I could be corrected by my colleague,
`David Beckwith, if I'm incorrect, but I believe we have made
`all the requisite disclosures that are required by your Court
`
`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
`
`02:43
`
`02:44
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0012
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 13 of 39
`
`13
`
`pursuant to our last joint status conference, which was to
`respond to discovery but not produce documents, et cetera.
`THE COURT: Okay. But I'm trying to divide this up
`between a couple different things. I put no stay whatsoever or
`limitation whatsoever on either the initial disclosures under
`Rule 26 or the Rule 16.6 disclosures. So I just want to make
`sure those have happened before we get to the discovery that
`was served.
`Wait. This is who?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: This is Yar Chaikovsky for Fitbit. I
`apologize.
`We produced all our disclosures, you know, under the
`rule. To the extent there's any documents required under the
`rule, our interpretation was, given your order at the last
`status conference, we didn't produce technical documents
`because that was our understanding based on the prior hearing
`that I kind of would kind of avert that kind of notion of not
`producing documents or respond to requests for production, et
`cetera.
`
`So disclosures are there. Kind of the patent
`mechanics disclosures are all there, all produced. But if
`there are any necessary documents required -- technical
`documents required to be produced, those are not produced.
`THE COURT: So I didn't do a written order. We just
`spent what I said. So there may have been a misunderstanding.
`
`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
`
`02:45
`
`02:45
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0013
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 14 of 39
`
`14
`
`But here was my intention: One, there wasn't -- I
`didn't see there being an argument about initial disclosures,
`and I intended for you to do initial disclosures. Two,
`defendant asked me to stay discovery because they were -- had a
`pending motion to dismiss that was going to be refiled with the
`amended complaint.
`And what I said was not, I agree with you that the
`motion to stay should be granted. What I said was, I hate to
`delay things. I understand that we don't want to have
`unnecessary costs, but I don't know when I'm going to get to
`your motion to dismiss. I will do my best I can. I'm going to
`try something new here, which is that I'm going to have you
`serve your discovery, file your objections to discovery, serve
`your responses. And then we can have a focused scheduling
`conference about what is at issue. I don't think that anybody
`raised to me there that you wouldn't get your documents that
`would go with your initial disclosures. So I think we need to
`get those out.
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson on behalf of
`Philips. That's exactly what we were going to suggest because,
`in addition to those disclosures and not receiving the
`technical documents from the defendants, there were, you know,
`67 requests for productions that Philips had served on Fitbit
`and eight interrogatories. And all of that --
`THE COURT: You're fading off.
`
`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
`
`02:46
`
`02:47
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0014
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 15 of 39
`
`15
`
`MR. THOMPSON: Excuse me, your Honor.
`And the information -- I think that as counsel for
`Fitbit indicated, that information that is responsive to the
`document request and that sort of stuff that you would normally
`expect as being kind of the beginning of discovery has not been
`exchanged. Only some public documents have been provided by
`Fitbit.
`
`I will say that Philips has produced public documents
`and some additional, I'll say, company-type documents. But all
`of this is -- we were going to suggest that it would be a good
`time for the parties to start exchanging.
`And I'll note just one other thing since I'm kind of
`talking about the status, that Fitbit has subpoenaed five
`third-party entities for documents and depositions. MIT was
`one; HP Labs; and some others. And they also have not
`subpoenaed the inventors, the four inventors, relative to
`conception and reduction to practice.
`So from Philips' perspective, what we should do, given
`the -- you know, where we'll have challenges, we will address
`them as we go, but the parties' accumulated documents, that we
`can exchange those and start reviewing them. And that's why we
`suggested that --
`THE COURT: Any response?
`MR. BECKWITH: Your Honor, this is David Beckwith. I
`understand Mr. Chaikovsky was just cut off.
`
`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
`
`02:48
`
`02:49
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 16 of 39
`
`16
`
`In connection with the request -- I understand that
`the Court is saying is, for purposes of responding to the
`patent local rule disclosure, that the Court wants to get that
`information out. In connection with the Philips' counsel's
`comment about providing documents in response to requests for
`production, I think that it's more accurate to say neither
`party has produced any significant documents in response to the
`request for production.
`In connection with the subpoenas, the subpoenas were
`sent, but there have been no documents that have been produced
`pursuant to any of those subpoenas.
`And with respect to the discovery directed to the
`inventors, I think that was a separate topic that the Court may
`wish to address. But that was --
`THE COURT: So let's take this in pieces so we're not
`here all afternoon.
`Number 1, I tried to accommodate Fitbit's request by
`putting into place what I thought would be a way to tee up the
`legal issues by today. I failed. You guys haven't gotten
`those disclosures. That may be my not having put that out
`clearly. You also don't have teed up for me the legal issues
`to make decisions about what we do need and don't need going
`forward. And, further, I'm having cited back at me that I
`granted a motion to stay because I found that was the right
`thing to do on a discovery motion. I make no such finding.
`
`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
`
`02:50
`
`02:51
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0016
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 17 of 39
`
`17
`
`So we are back to just putting discovery in place. I
`am still committed to trying to get to that discovery motion as
`soon as I can. The less I have to deal with, you know, the
`silly things to be wasting my time, like, tracking people down
`on whether they filed a joint status report or not, the more I
`can put my attention to getting the substantive motion done. I
`will do that. I will do the best I can. In the meantime, we
`need the full compliance of the local rules, and we need to
`start getting responses to discovery.
`I don't, frankly -- I understood -- I am sympathetic
`to a defendant being hit with a lawsuit that they think there's
`no legal claim for and to be asked to do expensive discovery
`when it maybe should go on a 12(b)(6). I'm very sympathetic to
`that. I don't think that's what's happening here. The notion
`that I have the summary judgment motion served and that you're
`serving subpoenas and you're doing these other things, I just
`-- we're not going to do this litigation by playing games. So
`we are on full course ahead. I will get to the motion to
`dismiss as soon as I can.
`And now let's talk about the deadlines. Sounds like
`we need a new deadline for you to fulfill your -- on both
`sides, your initial disclosures. So how soon can we get all of
`the documents with the initial disclosures out?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Your Honor, Yar Chaikovsky for
`
`Fitbit.
`
`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
`
`02:52
`
`02:52
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0017
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 18 of 39
`
`18
`
`I think we can do it in approximately three weeks.
`THE COURT: Okay. Let's do that. We have -- in 21
`days, I expect all of the initial disclosures that were
`supposed to have been done by March 13 will be completed.
`Now, there was originally a proposed date for motions
`to amend of March 24th. Any disagreement with that being the
`date?
`
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson for Philips.
`Yes, that's fine from our perspective.
`THE COURT: Any disagreement from Fitbit?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Yar Chaikovsky.
`No disagreement, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. And then with regard to the rest of
`the dates here, I have four dates -- four sets of dates in
`front of me because I'm looking at the original proposed
`schedule that you gave me and the schedule that you've given me
`now. And the difference -- Philips did not just give the same
`dates as before. They've moved them out by about a month. And
`Fitbit didn't give me the same dates that they had proposed
`before, but they've moved them out by months.
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson for Philips.
`Just to explain why we moved them out, it was because
`of the way that it happened in the time period between December
`and today, that the -- you know, the documents were not
`provided. So we thought that, to have things move smoothly,
`
`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
`
`02:54
`
`02:54
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0018
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 19 of 39
`
`19
`
`maybe the way to do it was to extend those first dates,
`relative to claim construction, by a month and then hold to the
`overall schedule because this doesn't have proposed close of
`fact discovery until the fall.
`THE COURT: Is everyone still on?
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson. I'm still
`here. If I cut out, I'll just repeat the last couple things I
`said, was that we had extended it by 30 days to accommodate the
`lack of documents. And then the fact discovery, we propose,
`would be not -- wouldn't close until the fall. So there would
`be plenty of flexibility in that schedule.
`THE COURT: Now that I'm putting the initial
`disclosures' final date to April 14, which is 21 days, I think
`it would make sense to push these other dates out as well
`because you don't want to be doing your exchange of claim terms
`before the disclosures.
`So I think what I'm going to do here is I'm taking
`Philips' dates and adding 21 days to them all.
`MR. THOMPSON: Eley Thompson.
`Thank you, your Honor. That would be fine from our
`perspective.
`THE COURT: Okay. Now, in the event that we stumble
`on depositions, obviously, we are in a difficult situation. So
`if it looks like we're going to need depositions for claim
`construction, which I don't know that we would, but if we are
`
`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
`
`02:56
`
`02:56
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0019
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 20 of 39
`
`20
`
`going to need it and we need to do anything special to
`accommodate that, I am directing you to meet and confer with
`each other, see if you can figure out a way to do it.
`Videoconferencing is a way to get outside but -- and then make
`a joint proposal to me of how you want to handle those. So I'm
`going to take these dates.
`Now let's talk about this summary judgment motion.
`MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, Eley Thompson on behalf of
`Philips.
`Our view -- and I hope it was clear enough in the
`joint submission. Philips' view is that this is normally a
`topic that is handled in claim construction. It certainly has
`claim construction aspects. So we would propose that it be
`entered and then held for a scheduling of the briefing until
`after we take care of the claim construction, which is in our
`schedule, because, most likely, this will all be resolved in
`that context and is more efficient.
`THE COURT: What's the response from Fitbit?
`MR. CHAIKOVSKY: Your Honor, Yar Chaikovsky.
`I just wanted to paint a bright context of the summary
`judgment motion because -- I apologize. Actually, we had a --
`Judge Gilstrap actually had a Markman hearing in Marshall,
`Texas, on Wednesday, last Wednesday, that I got back late from.
`So perhaps some of this wasn't communicated, understanding you
`put the report on our problem. But I apologize. I got back
`
`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
`
`02:57
`
`02:58
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0020
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 21 of 39
`
`21
`
`midnight on Wednesday. So I was still traveling last week.
`Obviously, we think the 101 motions -- and I
`understand your Court's position are kind of -- we think
`there's a dispositive issue. We then are preparing IPRs, which
`we made very clear to Philips that we're preparing IPRs. In
`the process of preparing those IPRs, which are on all of the
`patents asserted, which -- to get filed by the end -- you know,
`this month, maybe beginning of April. That case, the Samsung
`case, which basically said, you know, with respect to
`indefiniteness, we can't go before the PTAB and file a summary
`-- you know, an IPR if there's a claim term that we believe is
`indefinite. That's why we had the summary judgment motion. We
`have IPR bar dates, basically, whenever there are complaints,
`beginning of July. We have an IPR bar date one year from the
`filing in which we have to file the IPRs.
`The reason the summary judgment was filed, not because
`we don't -- we really wouldn't have wanted to file it,
`effectively, is what I'm saying. Our focus is on the 101. Our
`focus is we believe these things are all invalid under 101.
`But because we have to file IPRs -- and we're filing IPRs in
`all of the patents-in-suit, we could not file them on the '007
`believing this one means-plus-function term to be indefinite.
`And we need guidance one way or the other. To be honest, if
`it's not indefinite, then we'll file the IPR; it's not
`indefinite. And we can go and say it's construed a certain
`
`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
`
`02:59
`
`03:00
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0021
`
`
`
`Case 1:19 cv 11586 IT Document 56 Filed 03/29/20 Page 22 of 39
`
`22
`
`way.
`
`It's a targeted issue that other courts do, for
`example, the District of Delaware, Northern District of
`California or East Texas, with respect to one issue, a
`means-plus-function issue. And it really relates to a matter
`that needs to be decided before July, the one year from the
`filing of the complaint so that we can -- if it's not
`indefinite, we file an IPR. If it is indefinite, well, then,
`it's been disposed of through indefiniteness.
`And, ergo, why Fitbit was actually working on that --
`and I apologize -- so quickly, because it's impacting our bar
`date that is coming up. Otherwise, again, it's not a motion we
`would have brought independently. It's not a motion we were --
`because, again, we were focused on the 101 aspects, not these
`claim construction issues, but because we can't file these
`IPRs, even though we've prepared one on the '007 patent, we
`needed to seek, you know, a resolution of this because Philips,
`meaning Philips, the Federal Circuit case, for claim
`construction is applied both now at the PTAB and before your
`Honor in district court. And so we can't take disparate views.
`I know some people that may. But we can't take disparate views
`of the claims before the PTAB and before your Honor, and that's
`how that motion came to be and why that motion is different
`than other claim construction issues and is an isolated issue
`really focusing on one term and one term only.
`
`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
`
`03:00
`
`03:01
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLC
`IPR2020-00828
`
`Fitbit, Inc. Ex. 1049 Page 0022
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
