1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`March 26, 2020
`
`CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`
`W-19-CV-712
`W-19-CV-714
`W-19-CV-716
`
`*
`
`* *
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`BROADBAND ITV, INC.
`
`VS.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., ET AL
`DIRECTV, LLC
`DISH NETWORK, LLC
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`11
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Jeremiah A. Armstrong, Esq.
`Robert F. Kramer, Esq.
`Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim
` Tonkovich & Beloli
`577 Airport Blvd., Suite 250
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`
`Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
`Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Pkwy
`Longview, TX 75604
`
`Andrea L. Fair, Esq.
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`PO Box 1231
`Longview, TX 75606
`
`For Defendants AT&T & DirecTV:
`
`Roger J. Fulghum, Esq.
`Baker Botts LLP
`One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Timothy S. Durst, Esq.
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
`Dallas, TX 75201-2980
`
`BBiTV EX2020
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV
`IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`March 26, 2020
`
`CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`
`W-19-CV-712
`W-19-CV-714
`W-19-CV-716
`
`*
`
`* *
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`BROADBAND ITV, INC.
`
`VS.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., ET AL
`DIRECTV, LLC
`DISH NETWORK, LLC
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`11
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Jeremiah A. Armstrong, Esq.
`Robert F. Kramer, Esq.
`Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim
` Tonkovich & Beloli
`577 Airport Blvd., Suite 250
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`
`Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
`Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Pkwy
`Longview, TX 75604
`
`Andrea L. Fair, Esq.
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`PO Box 1231
`Longview, TX 75606
`
`For Defendants AT&T & DirecTV:
`
`Roger J. Fulghum, Esq.
`Baker Botts LLP
`One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Timothy S. Durst, Esq.
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
`Dallas, TX 75201-2980
`
`BBiTV EX2020
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV
`IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`For Defendant Dish Network:
`
`2
`
`John P. Palmer, Esq.
`Naman Howell Smith & Lee
`P.O. Box 1470
`Waco, TX 76703-1470
`
`Clement Seth Roberts, Esq.
`Alyssa Caridis, Esq.
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Kristie M. Davis
`United States District Court
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`3
`
`(March 26, 2020, 3:42 p.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Gentlemen, this is Alan Albright. Let me
`
`start.
`
`Mr. Hill, are you going to be speaking on behalf of
`
`plaintiff?
`
`MR. HILL: Yes, sir, Your Honor. I will be. And if I
`
`need assistance with something, Mr. Kramer may speak up as
`
`well.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then I heard the warm, comforting
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`03:42
`
`10
`
`voice of Robert Fulghum in there, which I haven't heard in way
`
`03:42
`
`11
`
`too long. Good -- good to hear from you and Mr. Durst again,
`
`03:42
`
`12
`
`and so welcome aboard. Mr. Fulghum, who will speaking on
`
`03:42
`
`13
`
`behalf of AT&T?
`
`03:42
`
`14
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Judge, thanks for that warm welcome. And
`
`03:42
`
`15
`
`I'll be speaking for AT&T and DirecTV.
`
`03:42
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: And then, Mr. Palmer, will you or Mr. Roberts
`
`03:42
`
`17
`
`be speaking?
`
`03:43
`
`18
`
`MR. ROBERTS: I'll be speaking, Your Honor. This is
`
`03:43
`
`19
`
`Mr. Roberts.
`
`03:43
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Roberts, you are the first person I've met
`
`03:43
`
`21
`
`ever, I think, that has the same first name as my grandfather
`
`03:43
`
`22
`
`did. So I just -- you know, I look forward to having you in my
`
`03:43
`
`23
`
`court.
`
`03:43
`
`24
`
`So I apologize. I'm going to -- did I get everyone who
`
`03:43
`
`25
`
`might be speaking? I hope so.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Okay. I'll take that as a yes.
`
`I'm looking at my cheat sheet that Josh prepared for me,
`
`and it looks like in this case that if I'm correct -- good
`
`gosh. Let me see just what we've got here. I apologize.
`
`We've run over a little bit. So -- but what I have down here
`
`is that there is some desire to have early discovery on behalf
`
`of defendants; is that correct?
`
`MR. HILL: Your Honor, Wesley Hill for the plaintiff.
`
`Actually, it's some early discovery on behalf of the plaintiff.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:43
`
`03:44
`
`03:44
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: Oh, okay. Then I misread Josh's notes.
`
`03:44
`
`11
`
`Mr. Hill, if you would be so kind as to tell me what it is that
`
`03:44
`
`12
`
`you need.
`
`03:44
`
`13
`
`MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor. What we're interested in is
`
`03:44
`
`14
`
`pursuing some third-party document discovery related to the
`
`03:44
`
`15
`
`operation of the accused products. These would -- this would
`
`03:44
`
`16
`
`be material in the possession of third parties that we think
`
`03:44
`
`17
`
`that in a case where it was in possession of a defendant would
`
`03:44
`
`18
`
`be something that was responsive to their obligation to produce
`
`03:44
`
`19
`
`materials sufficient to show the operation of an accused
`
`03:44
`
`20
`
`product with their invalidity contentions.
`
`03:44
`
`21
`
`In our case that material in some instances is going to be
`
`03:44
`
`22
`
`in the possession of a third party. There's five of them in
`
`03:44
`
`23
`
`particular. We provided a list of those to Mr. Yi before the
`
`03:44
`
`24
`
`call and had discussed those with the defendants. And our
`
`03:44
`
`25
`
`hope, Your Honor, was that we could take this third-party
`
`
`
`5
`
`document discovery regarding the technical operation of the
`
`product in parallel with the defendants also producing that
`
`information with their invalidity contentions or their portion
`
`of that information and then we would have the full set of
`
`information a plaintiff would normally have, pre-Markman,
`
`post-invalidity contentions, to prepare for the claim
`
`construction process and get ready to move forward with the
`
`case thereafter. And so that is the discovery we seek.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And tell me -- help me out just a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:44
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`03:45
`
`10
`
`little bit more about when you say you'd like third-party
`
`03:45
`
`11
`
`discovery. What -- are you talking subpoenaing documents, or
`
`03:45
`
`12
`
`are you talking depositions? What is it that you'd like to get
`
`03:45
`
`13
`
`done?
`
`03:45
`
`14
`
`MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor. We're looking at document
`
`03:45
`
`15
`
`subpoenas. So our focus is on the document subpoenas. Now,
`
`03:45
`
`16
`
`you know, obviously there could -- a situation could arise
`
`03:45
`
`17
`
`where a deposition became necessary, but in the first instance
`
`03:45
`
`18
`
`we're looking for document subpoenas. And if there was any
`
`03:45
`
`19
`
`bigger issue where a depo was necessary, we would raise that
`
`03:45
`
`20
`
`with defendant and the third party and of course come back to
`
`03:46
`
`21
`
`the Court if we couldn't resolve that by agreement.
`
`03:46
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from Mr. Fulghum.
`
`03:46
`
`23
`
`MR. FULGHUM: To start with, Mr. Roberts is going to start
`
`03:46
`
`24
`
`for us.
`
`03:46
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Roberts.
`
`
`
`6
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Your Honor, if that would be okay.
`
`THE COURT: Of course.
`
`MR. ROBERTS: And Mr. Fulghum, I think, would like to be
`
`heard on this as well.
`
`Your Honor, we would oppose that for a couple of reasons.
`
`The first is, I want to just make sure the Court's aware that
`
`this is a slightly unusual case in that we don't yet have the
`
`infringement contentions from the plaintiff. Normally I
`
`understand under the Court's rules we would have the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`03:46
`
`10
`
`infringement contentions, and so we would be able to look with
`
`03:46
`
`11
`
`them at what it is that they need from us in terms of documents
`
`03:46
`
`12
`
`and whether or not third parties actually have relevant
`
`03:46
`
`13
`
`documents. But because of the COVID problems, we agreed to the
`
`03:46
`
`14
`
`plaintiff's request to push that out for two weeks. And so we
`
`03:46
`
`15
`
`don't yet have those contentions.
`
`03:46
`
`16
`
`So from my perspective looking at this, other than the
`
`03:47
`
`17
`
`facts that it's not provided for in the rules, we don't have
`
`03:47
`
`18
`
`any reason to think that third-party documents are really
`
`03:47
`
`19
`
`necessary because we don't have their contentions, and we
`
`03:47
`
`20
`
`therefore don't have any reason to think that we wouldn't have
`
`03:47
`
`21
`
`all of the information necessary for them relative to an
`
`03:47
`
`22
`
`infringement theory.
`
`03:47
`
`23
`
`And in light of that sort of lack of information and also
`
`03:47
`
`24
`
`obviously the substantial burdens that come with third-party
`
`03:47
`
`25
`
`discovery not only for us because we have to go and talk to
`
`
`
`7
`
`those third parties insofar as they're partners of ours, work
`
`out defense agreements, have conversations with third-party
`
`counsel, talk through indemnity, all of those issues that come
`
`along with it --
`
`THE REPORTER: Counsel, can you please slow down?
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Too fast?
`
`THE REPORTER: Yes.
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Absolutely.
`
`THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:47
`
`03:47
`
`03:47
`
`03:47
`
`10
`
`MR. ROBERTS: I'm from Boston, northeast, bad habit. My
`
`03:47
`
`11
`
`apologies, ma'am.
`
`03:47
`
`12
`
`The burden on the third parties themselves is also, I
`
`03:47
`
`13
`
`think, material here. Obviously they're not here to defend
`
`03:48
`
`14
`
`themselves. But we don't actually even know what the
`
`03:48
`
`15
`
`plaintiffs are asking for with this document discovery because
`
`03:48
`
`16
`
`they haven't told us. And they didn't give us the names of the
`
`03:48
`
`17
`
`third parties until last night even though we had the call to
`
`03:48
`
`18
`
`discuss this previously.
`
`03:48
`
`19
`
`So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of even
`
`03:48
`
`20
`
`evaluating the request because I don't know what the
`
`03:48
`
`21
`
`contentions are. I don't know what we would have and the third
`
`03:48
`
`22
`
`parties would have. I don't know what documents they want from
`
`03:48
`
`23
`
`the third parties, and we haven't had a chance to discuss it.
`
`03:48
`
`24
`
`So my -- my view is that the Court ought to sort of deny
`
`03:48
`
`25
`
`it, and if after we get their contentions, we produce the
`
`
`
`8
`
`information the Court requires us to produce, they think they
`
`don't have it, we have a normal meet and confer where we talk
`
`about what additional categories of information they think they
`
`need from us or from third parties, and then if there's a
`
`focused dispute, we can bring it back to the Court very quickly
`
`is our understanding. But that's how we would propose to
`
`proceed.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Fulghum?
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Let me just make a couple of points.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:48
`
`03:48
`
`03:48
`
`03:48
`
`03:48
`
`03:48
`
`03:49
`
`03:49
`
`03:49
`
`03:49
`
`10
`
`Everyone knows who comes into this courtroom that this Court
`
`03:49
`
`11
`
`has a well-established structure for managing discovery, for
`
`03:49
`
`12
`
`managing claim construction. There are a lot of obvious
`
`03:49
`
`13
`
`benefits from having claim construction in delaying the start
`
`03:49
`
`14
`
`of discovery. It allows both parties to focus on their
`
`03:49
`
`15
`
`contentions. It allows the defendant to focus on its
`
`03:49
`
`16
`
`invalidity contentions. And it allows both parties to focus on
`
`03:49
`
`17
`
`claim construction to get the claims construed, to get the
`
`03:49
`
`18
`
`indefinite claims out of the case and then to move forward with
`
`03:49
`
`19
`
`discovery on a more focused basis. That has savings and
`
`03:49
`
`20
`
`benefits for everyone. If we're going to allow discovery of
`
`03:49
`
`21
`
`products in advance to aid one side or another's contentions,
`
`03:49
`
`22
`
`then I think that disserves the balance that's been set up in
`
`03:49
`
`23
`
`this court. And we all knew these rules coming in. We all
`
`03:49
`
`24
`
`knew how this court functioned coming in. Broadband iTV knew
`
`03:50
`
`25
`
`that when they filed this lawsuit. So we would request that
`
`
`
`9
`
`this either be denied or at least postponed as Mr. Roberts
`
`proposed.
`
`THE COURT: Let me ask you this -- let me start this way.
`
`Mr. Hill, is there anyone that you are seeking -- that you
`
`think you will be seeking this kind of discovery from where if
`
`you -- let me give you an example. And I think of the case
`
`where Mr. Durst and I were sitting, unfortunately, across the
`
`table from each other. As I recall, we had a case where there
`
`was a piece of art that we thought was located in a German
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`03:50
`
`10
`
`university library which meant it wasn't going to be overly
`
`03:50
`
`11
`
`easy to obtain.
`
`03:50
`
`12
`
`Is there any -- is there anything that you're seeking that
`
`03:50
`
`13
`
`you think if I delay your ability to start asking for it, that
`
`03:51
`
`14
`
`it will -- you won't be able to get it? Are there any of the
`
`03:51
`
`15
`
`third parties in that group? And if so, let me -- why don't
`
`03:51
`
`16
`
`you put them on the record, and then I can hear from opposing
`
`03:51
`
`17
`
`counsel of their views on it. So let's limit the discussion
`
`03:51
`
`18
`
`being to just that.
`
`03:51
`
`19
`
`MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. Judge, I do not
`
`03:51
`
`20
`
`think that the five parties that we've identified would be
`
`03:51
`
`21
`
`entities that are overseas or would require international
`
`03:51
`
`22
`
`discovery. Ericsson is one. There's an Ericsson entity. But,
`
`03:51
`
`23
`
`you know, beyond that, that they would be entities that we
`
`03:51
`
`24
`
`couldn't get discovery from later in the case. I've got to
`
`03:51
`
`25
`
`concede that to the Court.
`
`
`
`10
`
`But the issue -- Your Honor, the biggest -- for instance,
`
`the biggest potential target for this third-party discovery
`
`would be Comcast. This -- this case deals with patents that in
`
`part cover the delivery of video-on-demand services. And there
`
`are connections -- or there are interrelationships between the
`
`defendants in this case and some cloud services at Comcast and
`
`others provide to -- provide the content that is delivered over
`
`those video-on-demand services.
`
`And so this really is material that would go to the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:51
`
`03:51
`
`03:51
`
`03:51
`
`03:52
`
`03:52
`
`03:52
`
`03:52
`
`03:52
`
`03:52
`
`10
`
`operation of the accused products and it's materials that we by
`
`03:52
`
`11
`
`reason of what we can tell publicly. And, again, as the
`
`03:52
`
`12
`
`plaintiff we're at a disadvantage in what we can know. But
`
`03:52
`
`13
`
`from what we can tell publicly may be in the possession of
`
`03:52
`
`14
`
`these third parties, we're not going to see it from the
`
`03:52
`
`15
`
`defendants necessarily.
`
`03:52
`
`16
`
`And so we were looking at trying to get ourselves in a
`
`03:52
`
`17
`
`position where that we would be in the same shape at the time
`
`03:52
`
`18
`
`that invalidity contention disclosures are served as you would
`
`03:52
`
`19
`
`be in the normal case where a defendant has complete possession
`
`03:52
`
`20
`
`of materials that are pertinent to show the operation of the
`
`03:53
`
`21
`
`accused product.
`
`03:53
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Well, let me tell you what I'm going to do. I
`
`03:53
`
`23
`
`am extremely reluctant to alter any one piece of the structure
`
`03:53
`
`24
`
`I have for how things are done. So here's what I'm going to
`
`03:53
`
`25
`
`do. You know, fortunately, I'm very familiar with the lawyers
`
`
`
`11
`
`on the defense side, and I -- the representation I took from
`
`defense counsel was pretty much, Judge, we think we probably
`
`have everything, and that ought to be the starting point.
`
`And so I'm going to presume that that's correct. And so,
`
`you know, they're -- if you need something, you know, they have
`
`their obligation of what they -- you know, we all have our
`
`obligations here what to provide. If it turns out, once the
`
`plaintiff starts obtaining information from third parties, that
`
`you receive information that the defendant did not provide to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:53
`
`03:53
`
`03:53
`
`03:53
`
`03:53
`
`03:53
`
`03:54
`
`03:54
`
`03:54
`
`03:54
`
`10
`
`you and you believe that it affected your ability to make
`
`03:54
`
`11
`
`infringement contentions, then, you know, you need to of course
`
`03:54
`
`12
`
`first ask defense counsel whether they're going to oppose you
`
`03:54
`
`13
`
`or not. But the Court is -- part of the reason I hold off on
`
`03:54
`
`14
`
`those kind of discovery through Markman is I really want to get
`
`03:54
`
`15
`
`parties focused on the Markman.
`
`03:54
`
`16
`
`As you know, Mr. Hill, you're going to have the
`
`03:54
`
`17
`
`constructions the same day as the Markman, and so if -- down
`
`03:54
`
`18
`
`the road if you're able to show me any prejudice by my decision
`
`03:54
`
`19
`
`in March of 2020 in terms of not having been able to get
`
`03:55
`
`20
`
`information from third parties, I can assure you I'm going to
`
`03:55
`
`21
`
`be very liberal in allowing you to amend your infringement
`
`03:55
`
`22
`
`contentions. I understand why an argument could be made that
`
`03:55
`
`23
`
`it'd be better for you to have it now and not have to go
`
`03:55
`
`24
`
`through that process, but there are an awful lot of
`
`03:55
`
`25
`
`procedural -- procedures I have in my -- up through Markman
`
`
`
`12
`
`that are all tied together, and that's just one of the
`
`consequences of it.
`
`So I -- you will -- again, if for any reason -- let me
`
`make clear, for any reason plaintiff feels like they will be
`
`disadvantaged in terms of -- because of who the third party is,
`
`they won't be able to quickly get discovery once discovery
`
`begins immediately after the Markman, please let me know, and
`
`I'm happy to adjust and allow you to get started sooner to make
`
`sure that you're not prejudiced just by that delay for that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:55
`
`03:56
`
`03:56
`
`10
`
`reason. But if you think you're going to be able to get to
`
`03:56
`
`11
`
`discovery, then I think you said that.
`
`03:56
`
`12
`
`Also let me put down on the record, just so you all have
`
`03:56
`
`13
`
`it down the road when I can't remember this case from others,
`
`03:56
`
`14
`
`when counsel for defendant is dealing with the third-party
`
`03:56
`
`15
`
`lawyers, who -- I assume they will be in terms of production,
`
`03:56
`
`16
`
`defense counsel who's on the line should let those parties know
`
`03:56
`
`17
`
`that I am strongly encouraging them to cooperate with what the
`
`03:56
`
`18
`
`plaintiff is seeking as long as it's done in a -- obviously in
`
`03:56
`
`19
`
`a manner that is only asking for relevant documents. But I
`
`03:56
`
`20
`
`will make sure that the plaintiff doesn't suffer any prejudice
`
`03:56
`
`21
`
`in terms of their ability to get stuff from third parties by my
`
`03:57
`
`22
`
`denial to allow you to do that now. So...
`
`03:57
`
`23
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Your Honor, this is Mr. Roberts. If I could
`
`03:57
`
`24
`
`just say one thing, because I want to make sure that my
`
`03:57
`
`25
`
`statements were clear to the Court, especially since you got --
`
`
`
`13
`
`you know, took them as a representation. We assume on the
`
`defense side that they have means to the proper parties. And
`
`as I said, we don't have their infringement contentions yet.
`
`So my view that we ought to have everything is based upon the
`
`notion that they're suing us and not making some kind of joint
`
`infringement allegation that we're the defendant, that it's our
`
`products that they claim to infringe and therefore that the
`
`material would be in our possession. But I -- I do not have
`
`their infringement theories yet in hand, and so I'm somewhat
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`03:57
`
`10
`
`handicapped in my ability to make that prediction.
`
`03:57
`
`11
`
`So I just wanted to add that note of caution so that if we
`
`03:57
`
`12
`
`return to it later, the Court understood the context.
`
`03:57
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: I've been on your side of the case at least as
`
`03:57
`
`14
`
`many times as the plaintiff's side. I fully understand exactly
`
`03:57
`
`15
`
`what you meant. And so you are at no peril with me. I'm just
`
`03:57
`
`16
`
`trying to --
`
`03:58
`
`17
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
`
`03:58
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: I'm just trying to let everyone know that I
`
`03:58
`
`19
`
`want it on the record why it is I think at this point I would
`
`03:58
`
`20
`
`not allow that third-party discovery to take place. Again, I'm
`
`03:58
`
`21
`
`not going to -- and I -- as -- at least -- well, all of you
`
`03:58
`
`22
`
`know, I guess. You've all been in front of me a bunch. It
`
`03:58
`
`23
`
`never goes over well with me for the argument to start off by
`
`03:58
`
`24
`
`anybody about how the other party, the other lawyers are -- you
`
`03:58
`
`25
`
`know, say something crappy about the other side. I know all
`
`
`
`14
`
`the lawyers in this group pretty much. I'm anticipating all of
`
`you guys acting the way I would really want lawyers to act.
`
`And if -- when this comes up, if it turns out the plaintiff
`
`needs third-party discovery because it was unavailable from the
`
`defendants in this case, they just need to let me know that.
`
`And they need to let you know that first, but if you guys can't
`
`work it out, just come to me. And it's very rare -- I think
`
`everyone on the phone knows that I will take that as a sign of
`
`bad faith. And I really don't like lawyers starting off by
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`03:58
`
`03:58
`
`03:58
`
`03:58
`
`03:58
`
`03:59
`
`03:59
`
`03:59
`
`03:59
`
`03:59
`
`10
`
`accusing other lawyers of not acting in good faith as -- in any
`
`03:59
`
`11
`
`way. So...
`
`03:59
`
`12
`
`MR. HILL: Thank you, Your Honor. And let me just say
`
`03:59
`
`13
`
`that's the point that the Court makes and that Mr. Roberts
`
`03:59
`
`14
`
`makes is a fair point. We certainly hope the defendants will
`
`03:59
`
`15
`
`have all the materials that we're going to need that will go to
`
`03:59
`
`16
`
`the operation of the products. And to his credit, they do not
`
`03:59
`
`17
`
`have our infringement contentions yet.
`
`03:59
`
`18
`
`Your Honor, can I take from your comments that once we get
`
`03:59
`
`19
`
`their invalidity contention disclosures and their production,
`
`03:59
`
`20
`
`if we then do see that there are gaps where third-party
`
`03:59
`
`21
`
`discovery is going to be required -- as I understand it, our
`
`04:00
`
`22
`
`Markman hearing in this case is going to be October 16th. So
`
`04:00
`
`23
`
`we will still be many months before claim construction. Would
`
`04:00
`
`24
`
`the Court entertain us raising the issue at that point if we
`
`04:00
`
`25
`
`thought it ripe?
`
`
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: I will always entertain -- Mr. Hill, you're
`
`one of my favorite people on the planet. I will invite you
`
`to -- I will enjoy hearing from you any time. I would only --
`
`my only caution would be to reach out to defense counsel,
`
`explain to them why you think you need it and why what you have
`
`is inadequate. If they say too bad, which they might, then
`
`just call Josh Yi. And I would recommend you get a copy of the
`
`transcript so that -- you know, and -- so I can look back and
`
`remember what it was I -- and put everything in context.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`04:00
`
`10
`
`But my overarching goal here is to maintain the structure
`
`04:01
`
`11
`
`of the rules the way I have them because I think it's
`
`04:01
`
`12
`
`precariously with everybody. But if you were to convince me --
`
`04:01
`
`13
`
`or if you were to believe and want to try to convince me that
`
`04:01
`
`14
`
`you and your client were being prejudiced, then come back to
`
`04:01
`
`15
`
`the Court any time, and I'll revisit anything.
`
`04:01
`
`16
`
`MR. HILL: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that
`
`04:01
`
`17
`
`opportunity. And rest assured we will fully vet everything and
`
`04:01
`
`18
`
`try to do it through nonjudicial resolution by agreement at
`
`04:01
`
`19
`
`every turn.
`
`04:01
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: I didn't -- I had no doubt that you would.
`
`04:01
`
`21
`
`Is there anything else from the plaintiffs to take up?
`
`04:01
`
`22
`
`MR. HILL: Your Honor, that was the first issue. We had
`
`04:01
`
`23
`
`one additional issue. We understand that the defendants in the
`
`04:01
`
`24
`
`case intend to file motions to transfer venue. Their time for
`
`04:01
`
`25
`
`that has not come yet. But they've --
`
`
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. HILL: And I just wanted to flag it for you and to ask
`
`a question because of the colloquy I heard you have on the last
`
`case about venue discovery, Your Honor. Once we see their
`
`motions and we see what's there, it may be that we see also the
`
`need to take venue discovery. And we will talk to the other
`
`side about it, and if we can't agree on it, come to the Court
`
`about it at that time.
`
`What I would was curious about, Your Honor, is, is it your
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`10
`
`preference that we seek that discovery and then delay the
`
`04:02
`
`11
`
`response to the venue motion until that's resolved and then the
`
`04:02
`
`12
`
`discovery is complete so that you get a fulsome response with
`
`04:02
`
`13
`
`all the evidence, or do you prefer that we respond and then
`
`04:02
`
`14
`
`supplement the record with the discovery later on?
`
`04:02
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: I would prefer -- that's a great question. If
`
`04:02
`
`16
`
`you believe you need discovery, then I'm absolutely okay with
`
`04:02
`
`17
`
`that, because in my opinion, when a defendant prepares a motion
`
`04:02
`
`18
`
`to transfer, they have a much greater insight to what they're
`
`04:03
`
`19
`
`arguing than the plaintiff does. I would -- obviously talk to
`
`04:03
`
`20
`
`opposing counsel. I would assume, me having said that, as long
`
`04:03
`
`21
`
`as what you are seeking is reasonable, they would agree to it.
`
`04:03
`
`22
`
`I would very much prefer -- you know, I don't know -- I think
`
`04:03
`
`23
`
`however you do it -- I can think of a number of ways. I could
`
`04:03
`
`24
`
`see you -- you have their motion. You know what they're saying
`
`04:03
`
`25
`
`your deficiencies are. If you think that you need discovery to
`
`
`
`17
`
`help you make a compelling response, get that done. You
`
`certainly don't need to worry about the deadlines for your
`
`response if you're doing that kind of discovery.
`
`Once you get your response done, you know, file it.
`
`Obviously, the defendants will get a chance to give a reply.
`
`But I would certainly encourage everyone to do it in a manner
`
`that's quick and that -- so that I can get the case -- I'm
`
`sorry. I can get the motion resolved in advance of the
`
`Markman.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`10
`
`MR. HILL: Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`04:04
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Anything else from plaintiff?
`
`04:04
`
`12
`
`MR. HILL: I believe that was our only issues, Your Honor.
`
`04:04
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: And from the defendants?
`
`04:04
`
`14
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Yes, Your Honor. This is Roger Fulghum for
`
`04:04
`
`15
`
`AT&T. We had just a few issues, and we will move quickly.
`
`04:04
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`04:04
`
`17
`
`MR. FULGHUM: As the Court -- as the Court noticed,
`
`04:04
`
`18
`
`there's an AT&T case, which is the 712 case, and there's a
`
`04:04
`
`19
`
`DirecTV case, which is the 714 case. We believe those cases
`
`04:04
`
`20
`
`should be consolidated for all purposes, including trial.
`
`04:04
`
`21
`
`We've talked to Broadband iTV about this. I think they're
`
`04:04
`
`22
`
`inclined to go along with that, but I would like to raise that
`
`04:04
`
`23
`
`issue at the hearing to see if we can get to a final resolution
`
`04:04
`
`24
`
`on that point.
`
`04:04
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Fulghum. Well, let
`
`
`
`18
`
`me start off by saying, if everyone agrees, I'm completely fine
`
`with it. So let me find out from plaintiff.
`
`MR. HILL: Your Honor, Wesley Hill for the plaintiff. We
`
`owe Mr. Fulghum a response on that, Your Honor. We are
`
`inclined toward consolidation. What I've yet to have an
`
`opportunity to do is to fully vet this with my client about
`
`whether that's consolidation for all purposes including trial
`
`or only up until trial. And so I just need to update him on
`
`our position. But that's where --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:04
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: Well, okay. Let me say a couple of things.
`
`04:05
`
`11
`
`For one, they will be consolidated regardless of whether your
`
`04:05
`
`12
`
`client wants it or not up to trial. So that's number one.
`
`04:05
`
`13
`
`With respect to number two, if your client is like any
`
`04:05
`
`14
`
`plaintiff client I had, they -- I think one of the things they
`
`04:05
`
`15
`
`will ask is, does that negatively impact this, for example, in
`
`04:05
`
`16
`
`terms of hours or how we try the case?
`
`04:05
`
`17
`
`I can promise you that I would rather have -- y'all will
`
`04:06
`
`18
`
`get to do what you want, but I would much prefer to have one
`
`04:06
`
`19
`
`trial than two. And so if we wind up having one trial because
`
`04:06
`
`20
`
`they're consolidated, you can -- everyone can assure their
`
`04:06
`
`21
`
`clients that when I'm deciding how much time to give you at
`
`04:06
`
`22
`
`trial, I don't -- I already don't have -- I don't have a cookie
`
`04:06
`
`23
`
`cutter, it's a patent trial, you get X number of hours. What
`
`04:06
`
`24
`
`will happen in terms of how many hours you get will be, at the
`
`04:06
`
`25
`
`pretrial conference I'll talk to you guys, and, you know, the
`
`
`
`19
`
`plaintiff might say -- I'm just pulling a number out. The
`
`plaintiff might say, we'd like 20 hours.
`
`And my response to you would be, okay. Justify that by
`
`telling me who all the -- you know, who all's going to be at,
`
`you know, hearings, what's going to get tried. And if you all
`
`persuade me that it's -- 20 hours per side is the appropriate
`
`amount to give everyone a fair opportunity to try the case,
`
`that's what I'm going to give you.
`
`And so I don't go into this with an already set amount.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`10
`
`And so -- but it's up to you guys. I would -- I'll tell you I
`
`04:07
`
`11
`
`would much prefer for it to be one trial, but I don't know that
`
`04:07
`
`12
`
`I -- I don't know that I have the power to say that it will be.
`
`04:07
`
`13
`
`I don't know that jurisdictionally I do. Mr. Fulghum, if you
`
`04:07
`
`14
`
`think I do, let me know now, but I'm not sure that it doesn't
`
`04:07
`
`15
`
`have to be something that the plaintiff would consent to.
`
`04:07
`
`16
`
`MR. HILL: You know, Your Honor, if they don't consent, we
`
`04:07
`
`17
`
`would have to file a motion to consolidate. We'd have to
`
`04:07
`
`18
`
`consult the law in the area. The consolidation can occur for
`
`04:07
`
`19
`
`trial, but it's just something we'd have to visit. Hopefully
`
`04:07
`
`20
`
`we'll get past this and be able to move forward.
`
`04:07
`
`21
`
`I have a couple more issues, Judge.
`
`04:07
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Let me say -- let me say one more thing, which
`
`04:07
`
`23
`
`is, if this helps, Mr. Hill, if I had the discretion, you
`
`04:07
`
`24
`
`should tell your client I would be inclined to consolidate them
`
`04:08
`
`25
`
`if that helps.
`
`
`
`20
`
`MR. HILL: Understood, Your Honor. Understood. Thank
`
`you.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Fulghum?
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Yeah. The next thing I'd like to take up is
`
`claim construction briefing, and then we'll end with transfer.
`
`On claim construction briefing, this is a five-patent
`
`case. That means the briefing is 30, 30 patent. And we
`
`reached out to Broadband iTV, and we have an agreement to look
`
`for a modest -- what I would call, Judge, a modest upward
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`10
`
`adjustment of the page count to 40, 40, 20, and the reason I
`
`04:08
`
`11
`
`raise that is because of the fact that in terms of the accused
`
`04:08
`
`12
`
`products, we're going to be --
`
`04:08
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Let me cut you off and say you underbid
`
`04:08
`
`14
`
`yourself. I think we already gave away 45 once today. So if
`
`04:08
`
`15
`
`you guys can live with 40, that'll be fine. What you just
`
`04:08
`
`16
`
`suggested will be fine.
`
`04:08
`
`17
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Thank you, Judge.
`
`04:08
`
`18
`
`With regard to transfer, speaking for AT&T and DirecTV, we
`
`04:09
`
`19
`
`are considering a motion to transfer to the Austin Division,
`
`04:09
`
`20
`
`with the same judge of course. That motion is due to be filed
`
`04:09
`
`21
`
`by April 9th. And we're investigating that. I'll let
`
`04:09
`
`22
`
`Mr. Roberts speak with regard to Dish issues.
`
`04:09
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`04:09
`
`24
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Your Honor. We're considering a motion
`
`04:09
`
`25
`
`to transfer to Colorado where Dish is located, but we're
`
`
`
`21
`
`looking intensely at the facts to make sure we think it's very
`
`well supported before raising it.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Your Honor, we have a few agreements, minor
`
`disagreements on discovery limits. We're going to postpone
`
`that discussion until later in time. And with any luck we'll
`
`be able to agree, but if not, we'll raise it only if necessary.
`
`THE COURT: Okie dokie. Anything else from defendants?
`
`MR. FULGHUM: Nothing for DirecTV and AT&T, Your Honor.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:10
`
`10
`
`Thank you.
`
`04:10
`
`11
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Your Honor, the only --
`
`04:10
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, please.
`
`04:10
`
`13
`
`MR. ROBERTS: Sorry. This is Mr. Roberts. I only had one
`
`04:10
`
`14
`
`other thing, which is, obviously with the corona virus, there's
`
`04:10
`
`15
`
`a fast-changing situation. Does the Court -- let's say that
`
`04:10
`
`16
`
`things are more serious a month from now than they
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
