·1· ·PROCEEDINGS:
`
`·2· ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC.,CASE NO.
`· · ·IPR2020-01267, U.S. PATENT NO. 10,028,026
`·3
`· · ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`·4· ·IPR2020-01268, U.S. PATENT NO. 10,028,026
`
`·5· ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`· · ·IPR2020-1280, U.S. PATENT NO. 9,998,791
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :
`· · ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`·7· ·IPR2020-1281, U.S. PATENT NO. 9,998,791
`
`·8· ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`· · ·IPR2020-1332, U.S. PATENT NO. 10,506,269
`·9
`· · ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`10· ·IPR2020-1333, U.S. PATENT NO. 10,506,269
`
`11· ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`· · ·IPR2020-1359, U.S. PATENT NO. 9,648,388
`12
`
`13· ·DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. BROADBAND iTV, INC., CASE NO.
`· · ·IPR2020-1360, U.S. PATENT NO. 9,648,388
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · ·Wednesday, November 25, 2020
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · · 3:00 p.m.
`
`17· ·BEFORE:
`
`18· ·JUDGES:· ARBIS, SMITH AND GALLIGAN
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BBiTV EX2030
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV
`IPR2020-01267
`
`

`

`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`·4· · · · · ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
`· · · · · · BY: PATRICK HERMAN, ESQUIRE
`·5
`· · · · · · · · ALYSSA CARIDIS, ESQUIRE
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT
`
`·9· · · · · STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, LLC
`· · · · · · BY: MICHAEL D. SPECHT, ESQUIRE
`10
`· · · · · · · · RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQUIRE
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · REPORTED BY: JOSEPH HENRY
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Good
`
`·2· · · · afternoon.· This is Judge Arbis of the patent
`
`·3· · · · trial and appeal board.· I have with me on the
`
`·4· · · · line, Judge Smith and Judge Galligan.· This is
`
`·5· · · · a conference call in a series of eight cases,
`
`·6· · · · IPR2020-1267 through 1360.· Do we have counsel
`
`·7· · · · for petitioner on the line?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· Yes, Your Honor.· This is
`
`·9· · · · Patrick Herman from Orrick, Herrington &
`
`10· · · · Sutcliffe, here on behalf of petitioner.· And
`
`11· · · · also on the line with me is Alyssa Caridis,
`
`12· · · · also from Orrick.
`
`13· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`14· · · · Thank you.· And counsel for patent owner?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· Yes, Your Honor.· This is
`
`16· · · · Mike Specht.· I'm with Sterne Kessler, counsel
`
`17· · · · for patent owner.· And also with me is Richard
`
`18· · · · Bemben, who's also with Sterne Kessler, and
`
`19· · · · counsel for patent owner.· I believe there also
`
`20· · · · should be a court reporter on.· We arranged for
`
`21· · · · one.
`
`22· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Sure,
`
`23· · · · that's fine.· And, Counsel, if you can please
`
`24· · · · file a copy of the transcript as an exhibit in
`
`25· · · · all eight proceedings once it's available.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· We will do that.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`·3· · · · I believe the call today was requested by
`
`·4· · · · petitioner to seek authorization to file a
`
`·5· · · · reply in these cases.· So, counsel for
`
`·6· · · · petitioner, would you like to explain the basis
`
`·7· · · · for your request?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· Yes, Your Honor.· In all
`
`·9· · · · eight of the IPR proceedings, patent owner has
`
`10· · · · filed a preliminary response that dedicates a
`
`11· · · · substantial amount of space to Section 314,
`
`12· · · · discretionary denial issue, and petitioner
`
`13· · · · would like to file a short reply addressing an
`
`14· · · · aspect of the arguments that patent owner is
`
`15· · · · making.· In particular, though, it's relating
`
`16· · · · to the scheduled trial date in the co-pending
`
`17· · · · Western District of Texas litigation.· And it's
`
`18· · · · petitioner's view that good cause for a reply
`
`19· · · · that, because in the middle of November, the
`
`20· · · · federal circuit issues a decision that in
`
`21· · · · petitioner's view has bearing on the viability
`
`22· · · · of the currently scheduled trial date, and
`
`23· · · · whether trial will occur at all in the current
`
`24· · · · venue.· And that that decision did not become
`
`25· · · · available until this November.· It's not
`
`

`

`·1· · · · something that petitioner could have addressed
`
`·2· · · · in the petition when they were originally
`
`·3· · · · filed.· I'm happy to go more into what we'd
`
`·4· · · · like to say, but I just don't want to stray too
`
`·5· · · · far into the substance, unless Your Honors
`
`·6· · · · would like to hear that.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Yes,
`
`·8· · · · actually, if you can give us a little bit more
`
`·9· · · · detail as to why you believe that decision
`
`10· · · · impacts the potential trial date or the
`
`11· · · · viability of having a trial in that venue.
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· Sure.· So, with respect to
`
`13· · · · the viability of the trial date, it's
`
`14· · · · petitioner's view that the decision essentially
`
`15· · · · held that it was error for the district court
`
`16· · · · to consider its early scheduled trial date in
`
`17· · · · determining whether it was appropriate to
`
`18· · · · transfer to another jurisdiction.· And instead,
`
`19· · · · it should have been looking at the average time
`
`20· · · · to trial in that particular jurisdiction.
`
`21· · · · Particularly because that particular judge in
`
`22· · · · that particular jurisdiction does not have a
`
`23· · · · significant amount of experience in actually
`
`24· · · · making it to trial, so the more relevant
`
`25· · · · metric, according to the federal circuit, is
`
`

`

`·1· · · · not the date that was actually scheduled, since
`
`·2· · · · there's no historical data to back up that
`
`·3· · · · trial can actually occur that quickly, but
`
`·4· · · · instead, the relevant date to consider is the
`
`·5· · · · date that it's implied by the general
`
`·6· · · · statistics and time trial specifics in the
`
`·7· · · · jurisdiction.· So it's our view that the
`
`·8· · · · situation is analogist here that an early trial
`
`·9· · · · date has been scheduled, but there's no
`
`10· · · · indication whatsoever, based on the
`
`11· · · · jurisdiction's experience, that trial will
`
`12· · · · actually occur as of that early date.· So it's
`
`13· · · · our view that the federal circuit has now
`
`14· · · · weighed it with respect to whether this
`
`15· · · · throughly scheduled trial date was something
`
`16· · · · that's factually relevant, and something that's
`
`17· · · · factually relevant that should be considered
`
`18· · · · when assessing transfer, and at the same time,
`
`19· · · · whether it's something that's factually
`
`20· · · · relevant that should be considered when
`
`21· · · · assessing whether to institute IPR.· The second
`
`22· · · · point relates to transfer.· And it's my
`
`23· · · · understanding that the court here that was
`
`24· · · · waiting for this particular decision before
`
`25· · · · making its transfer decision in the co-pending
`
`

`

`·1· · · · district court litigation in this case, and the
`
`·2· · · · federal circuit essentially found that transfer
`
`·3· · · · was required and appropriate and the district
`
`·4· · · · court abused the discretion and not granted
`
`·5· · · · granting transfer.· And it's the petitioner's
`
`·6· · · · view that that meaningfully increases the odds
`
`·7· · · · and the chances that the petitioner here will
`
`·8· · · · be successful in getting his own transfer
`
`·9· · · · motion granted in front of the same judge and
`
`10· · · · in the same court with analogist facts.
`
`11· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`12· · · · A couple questions.· One, there is still a
`
`13· · · · trial date set in the district court case,
`
`14· · · · correct?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· I believe so, yes.
`
`16· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`17· · · · And there is a motion for transfer pending.· Is
`
`18· · · · there -- and I'll ask counsel for patent owner
`
`19· · · · the same question.· Is there any -- there
`
`20· · · · hasn't been a decision on that yet, I take it.
`
`21· · · · Is there any indication when that will be
`
`22· · · · decided?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· It's pending.· And I believe
`
`24· · · · that the court has indicated that there will be
`
`25· · · · a decision within a month of approximately
`
`

`

`·1· · · · today.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`·3· · · · Great.· Counsel for patent owner, would you
`
`·4· · · · like to respond?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· Yes, sir.· Again, this is
`
`·6· · · · Mike Specht, counsel for Broadband iTV, the
`
`·7· · · · patent owner here.· As a threshold issue, you
`
`·8· · · · know, leave to file a reply is based on good
`
`·9· · · · cause showing, we don't think that's been
`
`10· · · · demonstrated here.· And as we note from the
`
`11· · · · trial practice guide, replies will only be
`
`12· · · · granted infrequently, and this is not one of
`
`13· · · · those instances when we believe a reply should
`
`14· · · · be permitted.· And our reasons for that are
`
`15· · · · several.· First of all, the decision that
`
`16· · · · petitioner refers to, and I'm not sure if he
`
`17· · · · mentioned the specific decision caption here on
`
`18· · · · this call, but in our meet and confer, my
`
`19· · · · understanding is that they're relying on in re
`
`20· · · · Apple, which is 5th Circuit Case 2020-135.
`
`21· · · · This was a mandamus writs, and it was decided
`
`22· · · · November 9th.· Our view is that that decision
`
`23· · · · has little or no bearing, quite frankly, on the
`
`24· · · · Fintiv factors there presented.· That decision
`
`25· · · · goes through and applies to circuit case law in
`
`

`

`·1· · · · terms of transfer requests, goes through the
`
`·2· · · · eight public and private factors, and reaches
`
`·3· · · · the conclusion in that particular situation
`
`·4· · · · that Judge Albright abused in discretion.· And
`
`·5· · · · that decision was -- there was a strong defense
`
`·6· · · · as well in that decision.· So that's point one.
`
`·7· · · · Point two is with respect to the arguments that
`
`·8· · · · counsel just made, he commented that there's
`
`·9· · · · error to consider the trial date and should
`
`10· · · · rather consider the average trial times, I
`
`11· · · · presume he was referring to in Texas.· First of
`
`12· · · · all, that's one of many factors that was
`
`13· · · · considered in the in re Apple decision.
`
`14· · · · Secondly, relying on an average trial date
`
`15· · · · would be a significant deviation from what the
`
`16· · · · board currently does.· The board has said time
`
`17· · · · and time again, we don't speculate on trial
`
`18· · · · dates.· And here we have a trial date that is
`
`19· · · · set, and that the judge, Judge Albright, has
`
`20· · · · confirmed many, many times he's going to go to
`
`21· · · · trial on that date.· So, with that impartment,
`
`22· · · · we don't think there is merit.· With respect to
`
`23· · · · what I understand the second argument to be,
`
`24· · · · the decision in in re Apple increases the
`
`25· · · · likelihood that transfer will occur here.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · Again, that's pure speculation.· The facts in
`
`·2· · · · the in re Apple case were very different from
`
`·3· · · · the facts here, and it really provides little
`
`·4· · · · or no guidance as to whether or not this case
`
`·5· · · · would be transferred.· You asked a question,
`
`·6· · · · Your Honor, in terms of when we might expect a
`
`·7· · · · decision on the transfer motion.· It is
`
`·8· · · · currently pending, as opposing counsel
`
`·9· · · · indicated, but, also, Judge Albright, in a
`
`10· · · · Markman hearing that was held, I believe it was
`
`11· · · · November 13th, confirmed that he would be
`
`12· · · · putting out a decision on the transfer motion
`
`13· · · · soon.· So it's certainly on his radar screen.
`
`14· · · · And to suggest that in re Apple's current
`
`15· · · · decision changes Judge Albright's perspective
`
`16· · · · on what he may do in terms of managing his own
`
`17· · · · docket, I think that's highly speculative.
`
`18· · · · And, in fact, post in re Apple, Judge Albright
`
`19· · · · issued new standing orders on how he would
`
`20· · · · address and allow further discovery on transfer
`
`21· · · · motions, presumably to address some of the
`
`22· · · · issues that came out of the in re Apple
`
`23· · · · decision.· And last point is with respect to
`
`24· · · · the overall Fintiv analysis, as you know, there
`
`25· · · · are five factors that are considered.· This
`
`

`

`·1· · · · relates only to one factor, factor two, the
`
`·2· · · · trial date factor.· And, as I've indicated, we
`
`·3· · · · think it's just pure speculation, and it's not
`
`·4· · · · particularly ripe.· If we're going to get a
`
`·5· · · · transfer motion at that point, or a decision on
`
`·6· · · · the transfer motion, at that point, we can
`
`·7· · · · update the board.· So I'll pause there, and if
`
`·8· · · · you have any questions, I'll answer those.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Thank
`
`10· · · · you.· Counsel for petitioner, is that right
`
`11· · · · that the reply would only be directed to factor
`
`12· · · · two of the --
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· So, yes, Your Honor. I
`
`14· · · · believe that our intent is essentially just to
`
`15· · · · challenge the presumption or the assumption
`
`16· · · · that trial will actually occur in the Western
`
`17· · · · District of Texas in November of 2021, as
`
`18· · · · opposed to at some other time or in some other
`
`19· · · · place.· And to the extent that only relates to
`
`20· · · · factor number two, I think that
`
`21· · · · characterization would be correct.
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· Your Honor, just to clarify,
`
`23· · · · this is Mike Specht, one thing I stated, I made
`
`24· · · · the comment, five factors.· I meant five
`
`25· · · · factors in addition to this factor.· So six
`
`

`

`·1· · · · total factors, as you know.· Five additional
`
`·2· · · · factors beyond factor two that are considered,
`
`·3· · · · just to clarify my comment.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Yes.
`
`·5· · · · Thank you.· Counsel for petitioner, if we were
`
`·6· · · · to authorize a reply, how many pages would you
`
`·7· · · · request, and what time frame?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· So five pages, Your Honor, I
`
`·9· · · · think would be sufficient.· And if, Your Honors
`
`10· · · · are willing, perhaps two weeks from today for
`
`11· · · · petitioner's reply brief.
`
`12· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`13· · · · And counsel for patent owner, the panel will
`
`14· · · · confer that if we were to authorize a reply,
`
`15· · · · would you want a sur-reply to respond to that?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· Yes, Your Honor, we would
`
`17· · · · absolutely want a sur-reply.· And, to your
`
`18· · · · comment, to the extent that the board is
`
`19· · · · considering granting a reply, we think it
`
`20· · · · absolutely should be limited to Fintiv factor
`
`21· · · · two.· And frankly, the other point I wanted to
`
`22· · · · make is, in terms of making the board aware of
`
`23· · · · the in re Apple decision, this call has done
`
`24· · · · that, and I'm not sure that any further
`
`25· · · · briefing is needed.· The board certainly is
`
`

`

`·1· · · · familiar with case law and able to understand
`
`·2· · · · that decision without our briefing here.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`·4· · · · And are there any other facts of what has
`
`·5· · · · occurred in the district court case since the
`
`·6· · · · party's briefing in these IPRs, is there any
`
`·7· · · · other facts that we should be aware of, Counsel
`
`·8· · · · for Petitioner?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· Not that I'm aware of, Your
`
`10· · · · Honor.
`
`11· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`12· · · · Counsel for Patent Owner?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· The only other factor, which
`
`14· · · · I mentioned to you, is that the court did hold
`
`15· · · · the Markman hearing on November 13th.· That was
`
`16· · · · in some of the POPRs, the ones that we filed
`
`17· · · · recently.· Four of them were filed before that
`
`18· · · · hearing.· So the court may be aware of it, but
`
`19· · · · I'm making aware of it just in case that
`
`20· · · · happened on November 13th.· And, you know,
`
`21· · · · yeah.· I'll leave it at that.
`
`22· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`23· · · · If all parties can stay on the line for just a
`
`24· · · · moment while the panel confers, and we'll be
`
`25· · · · back shortly.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·-· -· -· - -
`
`·2· · · · · · (At this time, a short break was taken.)
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · ·-· -· -· - -
`
`·4· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`·5· · · · This is Judge Arbis.· Are there still counsel
`
`·6· · · · for the parties on the line?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· Counsel for patent owner,
`
`·8· · · · yes.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Thank
`
`10· · · · you.· The panel has conferred, we do believe
`
`11· · · · that there is good cause for a very short reply
`
`12· · · · and sur-reply on this issue.· Given the
`
`13· · · · circuit's decision and petitioner's arguments
`
`14· · · · regarding its potential impact on the analysis
`
`15· · · · here, so the reply will be limited to only
`
`16· · · · issued to of the Fintiv test, and because it is
`
`17· · · · a very discrete issue, we think that three
`
`18· · · · pages is necessary, and three pages is
`
`19· · · · warranted for that issue.· So petitioner will
`
`20· · · · have five business days to file a reply limited
`
`21· · · · to three pages on that issue.· The same reply
`
`22· · · · should be filed in all eight proceedings.
`
`23· · · · Patent owner will then have five business days
`
`24· · · · from that to file a sur-reply, also limited to
`
`25· · · · three pages.· If there are any further
`
`

`

`·1· · · · developments in the district court case that
`
`·2· · · · you believe we should be made aware of, please
`
`·3· · · · email the court and request another conference
`
`·4· · · · call.· Otherwise we will receive the parties'
`
`·5· · · · briefing and go from there.· Any other
`
`·6· · · · questions or issues from the parties?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· This is counsel for patent
`
`·8· · · · owner.· One question I had, as I indicated
`
`·9· · · · there, was the claim construction hearing on
`
`10· · · · November 13th, and there were final claim
`
`11· · · · constructions.· We submitted those in the four
`
`12· · · · IPRs that -- or four POPRs that we recently
`
`13· · · · filed, wanted to seek permission to file those
`
`14· · · · or add those to the record in the first four
`
`15· · · · POPRs.· Does that make sense?
`
`16· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Yes.
`
`17· · · · The panel is aware of that.· Counsel for
`
`18· · · · Petitioner, would you have any objection to
`
`19· · · · patent owner just filing that document as an
`
`20· · · · exhibit in the other proceedings?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· No, Your Honor.
`
`22· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`23· · · · Great.· Counsel for Patent Owner, you can file
`
`24· · · · those in the other proceedings in which it has
`
`25· · · · not been filed yet.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· Okay.· Great.· Thank you very
`
`·2· · · · much.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ARBIS:· Okay.
`
`·4· · · · And we will put out the written order following
`
`·5· · · · the call that the parties should proceed with
`
`·6· · · · that briefing schedule.· And patent owner,
`
`·7· · · · please, again, file a copy of the transcript
`
`·8· · · · when it's available.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. SPECHT:· We will do so, Your Honor.
`
`10· · · · Thank you, and have a nice Thanksgiving.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. HERMAN:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · -· -· -· - -
`
`13· · · · · · ·(Meeting concluded at 3:20 p.m.)
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · -· -· -· - -
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T I O N
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I, hereby certify that the
`
`·5· ·proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and
`
`·6· ·accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the
`
`·7· ·foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of
`
`·8· ·the same.
`
`·9
`
`10· · · · · · ·__________________________________________
`
`11· · · · · · · ·Joseph Henry - Notary Public
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · ·(The foregoing certification of this
`
`14· ·transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by
`
`15· ·any means, unless under the direct control and/or under the
`
`16· ·supervision of the certifying.
`
`17· ·reporter.)
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Proceedings
`November 25, 2020
`
`appeal
`
`3:3
`
`8:20 9:13,24
`Apple
`10:2,18,22 12:23
`
`Apple's
`
`10:14
`
`applies
`
`8:25
`
`approximately 7:25
`Arbis 3:1,2,13,22 4:2
`5:7 7:11,16 8:2 11:9
`12:4,12 13:3,11,22
`14:4,5,9 15:16,22
`16:3
`
`argument
`
`arguments
`14:13
`
`9:23
`
`4:14 9:7
`
`arranged 3:20
`
`aspect
`
`4:14
`
`assessing 6:18,21
`
`11:15
`assumption
`authorization 4:4
`
`authorize
`
`12:6,14
`
`5:19 9:10,14
`average
`12:22 13:7,9,
`aware
`18,19 15:2,17
`
`cases
`
`3:5 4:5
`
`challenge
`chances
`
`11:15
`7:7
`
`characterization
`11:21
`
`circuit
`
`4:20 5:25
`
`6:13 7:2 8:20,25
`circuit's
`14:13
`
`claim 15:9,10
`
`clarify 11:22 12:3
`
`4:16 6:25
`co—pending
`comment
`11:24 12:3,18
`commented
`9:8
`
`concluded 16:13
`
`conclusion 9:3
`
`confer
`
`8:18 12:14
`
`conference
`
`3:5 15:3
`
`conferred 14:10
`
`confers
`
`13:24
`
`confirmed 9:20 10:11
`
`considered 6:17,20
`9:13 10:25 12:2
`
`construction 15:9
`
`15:11
`
`
`
`
`
`1360
`
`3:6
`
`10:11 13:15,20
`13th
`15:10
`
` 2 2
`
`020-135
`
`8:20
`
`11:17
`2021
`
`
`
`
`314
`
`4:11
`
`16:13
`3:20
`
`
`
`
`5th 8:20
`
`
`
`
`
`
` B b
` A
`
`ack
`
`6:2 13:25
`
`9th
`
`8:22
`
`based
`
`6:10 8:8
`
`basis
`
`4:6
`
`bearing
`behalf
`
`Bemben
`
`bit
`
`5:8
`
`4:21 8:23
`
`3:10
`
`3:18
`
`board 3:3 9:16 11:7
`
`12:18,22,25
`break 14:2
`
`constructions
`
`3:24 16:7
`copy
`correct
`7:14 11:21
`
`counsel 3:6,14,16,19,
`23 4:5 7:18 8:3,6
`9:8 10:8 11:10 12:5,
`13 13:7,12 14:5,7
`15:7,17,23
`
`couple
`court
`
`7:12
`3:20 5:15 6:23
`
`7:1,4,10,13,24 13:5,
`14,18 15:1,3
`current
`4:23 10:14
`
`briefing 12:25 13:2,6
`15:5 16:6
`
`Broadband
`
`8:6
`
`business
`
`14:20,23
`
`ata
`
`6:2
`
` D d
` C c
`
`3:5 4:3 8:18
`all
`12:23 15:4 16:5
`
`caption 8:17
`Caridis
`3:11
`
`4:16,22 5:10,13,
`date
`16 6:1,4,5,9,12,15
`7:13 9:9,14,18,21
`11:2
`
`dates
`
`9:18
`
`14:20,23
`days
`decided 7:22 8:21
`
`case 7:1,13 8:20,25
`10:2,4 13:1,5,19
`15:1
`
`decision 4:20,24 5:9,
`14 6:24,25 7:20,25
`8:15,17,22,24 9:5,6,
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`absolutely 12:17,20
`abused 7:4 9:4
`
`add
`
`15:14
`
`addition 11:25
`
`additional
`
`12:1
`
`10:20,21
`address
`addressed 5:1
`
`addressing 4:13
`ADMINISTRATIVE 3:1,
`13,22 4:2 5:7 7:11,
`16 8:2 11:9 12:4,12
`13:3,11,22 14:4,9
`15:16,22 16:3
`afternoon 3:2
`
`Albright
`18
`
`9:4,19 10:9,
`
`Albright's
`
`10:15
`
`Alyssa
`amount
`
`3:11
`4:11 5:23
`
`analogist
`
`6:8 7:10
`
`analysis
`
`10:24 14:14
`
`

`

` I 1
`
`4:14
`
`impact
`
`impacts
`
`5:10
`
`impartment
`
`9:21
`
`implied 6:5
`increases
`7:6 9:24
`
`indication 6:10 7:21
`
`infrequently 8:12
`instances
`8:13
`
`institute 6:21
`
`intent
`
`11:14
`
`IPR 4:9 6:21
`
`IPR2020—1267
`
`3:6
`
`IPRS
`
`13:6 15:12
`
`4:12 8:7 14:12,
`issue
`17,19,21
`issued 10:19 14:16
`
`issues
`15:6
`
`4:20 10:22
`
`Proceedings
`November 25, 2020
`
`13,24 10:7,12,15,23
`11:5 12:23 13:2
`14:13
`
`file 3:24 4:4,13 8:8
`14:20,24 15:13,23
`16:7
`
`filed 4:10 5:3 13:16,
`17 14:22 15:13,25
`
`filing 15:19
`final
`15:10
`
`fine
`
`3:23
`
`Fintiv 8:24 10:24
`12:20 14:16
`
`found
`
`7:2
`
`frame
`
`12:7
`
`frankly 8:23 12:
`front
`7:9
`
` G
`
`dedicates
`
`4:10
`
`defense
`
`9:5
`
`demonstrated 8:10
`
`denial
`
`4:12
`
`detail
`
`5:9
`
`determining 5:17
`
`15:1
`developments
`deviation 9:15
`
`directed 11:11
`
`discovery 10:20
`discrete 14:17
`
`discretion 7:4 9:4
`
`discretionary 4:12
`district
`4:17 5:15
`
`7:1,3,13 11:17 13:5
`15:1
`
`docket
`
`10:17
`
`document
`
`15:19
`
`Galligan 3:4
`
`general
`
`6:5
`
`give
`
`5:8
`
`litigation 4:17 7:1
`
`good 3:1 4:18 8:
`14:11
`
`granted 7:4,9 8:
`
`granting 7:5 12:
`Great
`8:3 15:23
`
`guidance
`
`10:4
`
` E
`
`early
`email
`error
`
`5:16 6:8,12
`15:3
`
`5:15 9:9
`
`essentially
`11:14
`
`5:14 7:2
`
`exhibit
`
`3:24 15:20
`
`expect
`
`10:6
`
`experience
`
`5:23 6:11
`
`explain 4:6
`extent
`11:19 12:18
`
` F f
`
`act
`
`10:18
`
`factor 11:1,2,11,20,
`25 12:2,20 13:13
`
`8:24 9:2,12
`factors
`10:25 11:24,25 12:1,
`2
`
`7:10 10:1,3
`facts
`13:4,7
`
`factually
`familiar
`
`6:16,17,19
`13:1
`
`4:20 5:25
`federal
`6:13 7:2
`
`itv 8:6
`
` J
`
`judge 3:1,2,4,13,22
`4:2 5:7,21 7:9,11,16
`8:2 9:4,19 10:9,15,
`18 11:9 12:4,12
`13:3,11,22 14:4,5,9
`15:16,22 16:3
`
`jurisdiction 5:18,20,
`22 6:7
`
`jurisdiction's
`
` K
`
`6:11
`
`Kessler 3:16,18
`
` L l
`
`aw 8:25 13:1
`
`leave
`
`8:8 13:21
`
`likelihood 9:25
`
`limited 12:20 14:15,
`20,24
`
`guide
`
`8:11
`
` H 1
`
`happened
`
`3:20
`
`happy
`hear
`
`5:3
`5:6
`
`hearing
`18 15:9
`
`10:10 13:15,
`
`held 5:15 10:10
`
`Herman 3:8,9 4:8 5:12
`7:15,23 11:13 12:8
`13:9 14:7 15:21
`16:11
`
`Herrington 3:9
`
`highly 10:17
`historical
`6:2
`
`hold 13:14
`
`Honor 3:8,15 4:8 10:6
`11:13,22 12:8,16
`13:10 15:21 16:9,11
`Honors
`5:5 12:9
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`

`

`Proceedings
`November 25, 2020
`
`owner 3:14,17,19 4:9,
`14 7:18 8:3,7 12:13
`13:12 14:7,23 15:8,
`19,23 16:6
`
`p.m.
`
`6:13
`
`pages
`21,25
`
`12:6,8 14:18,
`
`12:13 13:24
`panel
`14:10 15:17
`
`13:23 14:6
`parties
`15:6 16:5
`
`parties'
`
`15:4
`
`party's
`
`13:6
`
`patent 3:1,2,13,14,
`17,19,22 4:2,9,14
`5:7 7:11,16,18 8:2,
`3,7 11:9 12:4,12,13
`13:3,11,12,22 14:4,
`7,9,23 15:7,16,19,
`22,23 16:3,6
`Patrick 3:9
`
`made
`
`:8 11:23 15:2
`
`make
`
`12:22 15:15
`
`4:15 5:24 6:25
`making
`12:22 13:19
`
`managing
`mandamus
`
`10:16
`8:21
`
`Markman
`
`10:10 13:15
`
`meaningfully 7:6
`meant
`11:24
`
`meet
`
`8:18
`
`meeting 16:13
`mentioned 8:17 13:14
`
`merit
`
`9:22
`
`metric
`
`middle
`
`5:25
`
`4:19
`
`Mike
`
`3:16 8:6 11:23
`
`moment
`
`13:24
`
`month
`
`7:25
`
`motion 7:9,17 10:7,12
`11:5,6
`motions
`
`10:21
`
`pause
`
`11:7
`
`pending 7:17,23 10:8
`
`referring 9:11
`refers
`8:16
`
`permission 15:13
`
`permitted 8:14
`
`relates
`
`6:22 11:1,19
`
` Q
` P 1
` M 9
`
`3:25 4:9
`proceedings
`14:22 15:20,24
`
`public
`
`9:2
`
`pure
`
`10:1 11:3
`
`put
`
`16:4
`
`putting 10:12
`
`question 7:19 10:5
`15:8
`
`questions
`15:6
`
`7:12 11:8
`
`quickly 6:3
`
` R 1
`
`radar
`
`0:13
`
`reaches
`reasons
`
`receive
`
`9:2
`
`8:14
`
`15:4
`
`recently
`record 15:14
`
`13:17 15:12
`
`16:6
`
`perspective
`
`10:15
`
`petition 5:2
`
`petitioner 3:7,10
`4:4,6,12 5:1 7:7
`8:16 11:10 12:5 13:8
`14:19 15:18
`
`4:18,21
`petitioner's
`5:14 7:5 12:11 14:13
`
`relating 4:15
`relevant
`5:24 6:4,16,
`17,20
`
`relying
`
`8:19 9:14
`
`replies
`
`8:11
`
`reply 4:5,13,18 8:8,
`13 11:11 12:6,11,14,
`19 14:11,15,20,21
`
`reporter
`
`3:20
`
`place
`
`11:19
`
`request
`
`4:7 12:7 15:3
`
`requested 4:3
`
`requests
`
`9:1
`
`required 7:3
`
`5:12 6:14
`respect
`9:7,22 10:23
`
`respond 8:4 12:15
`
`4:10
`response
`Richard 3:17
`
`ripe
`
`11:4
`
` S s
`
`chedule
`
`6:22 9:6,7
`point
`10:23 11:5,6 12:21
`
`POPRS
`
`13:16 15:12,15
`
`post
`
`10:18
`
`potential
`
`practice
`
`5:10 14:14
`
`8:11
`
`preliminary
`
`4:10
`
`presented 8:24
`
`presume
`
`9:11
`
`presumption
`
`private
`
`9:2
`
`proceed 16:5
`
`11:15
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
` N n
`
`eeded
`
`12:25
`
`nice
`
`16:10
`
`note
`
`8:10
`
`November 4:19,25 8:22
`10:11 11:17 13:15,20
`15:10
`
`number
`
`11:20
`
` O
`
`objection 15:18
`occur
`4:23 6:3,12
`9:25 11:16
`
`occurred 13:5
`
`odds
`
`7:6
`
`opposed
`
`11:18
`
`10:8
`opposing
`order
`16:4
`
`orders
`
`10:19
`
`originally 5:2
`Orrick 3:9,12
`
`

`

`Proceedings
`November 25, 2020
`
`thing 11:23
`threshold 8:7
`
`throughly 6:15
`time
`5:19 6:6,18
`9:16,17 11:18 12:7
`14:2
`
`times
`
`9:10,20
`
`today 4:3 8:1 12:10
`total
`12:1
`
`3:24 16:7
`transcript
`5:18 6:18,
`transfer
`22,25 7:2,5,8,17
`9:1,25 10:7,12,20
`11:5,6
`transferred 10:5
`
`3:3 4:16,22,23
`trial
`5:10,11,13,16,20,24
`6:3,6,8,11,15 7:13
`8:11 9:9,10,14,17,
`18,21 11:2,16
`
` U 9
`
`understand
`
`:23 13:1
`
`understanding
`8:19
`
`6:23
`
`update
`
`11:7
`
`scheduled 4:16,22
`5:16 6:1,9,15
`screen 10:13
`
`Section 4:11
`
`seek
`
`4:4 15:13
`
`sense
`
`15:15
`
`series
`
`3:5
`
`set
`
`7:13 9:19
`
`short
`
`4:13 14:2,11
`
`shortly 13:25
`
`showing
`
`8:9
`
`significant
`sir
`8:5
`
`5:23 9:15
`
`situation
`
`6:8 9:3
`
`Smith
`
`3:4
`
`space
`
`4:11
`
`3:15,16 4:1
`Specht
`8:5,6 11:22,23 12:16
`13:13 15:7 16:1,9
`
`specific 8:17
`
`specifics
`
`6:6
`
`speculate
`
`9:17
`
`speculation 10
`
`speculative
`
`10:
`
`standing 10:19
`stated 11:23
`
`statistics
`
`6:6
`
`stay 13:23
`Sterne 3:16,18
`
`stray 5:4
`
`strong 9:5
`submitted
`
`15:11
`
`substance
`
`5:5
`
`substantial
`
`4:11
`
`successful
`
`7:8
`
`sufficient
`
`12:9
`
`suggest
`
`10:14
`
`sur—reply
`14:12,24
`Sutcliffe 3:10
`
`12:15,17
`
` T
`
`terms
`12:22
`
`9:1 10:6,16
`
`whatsoever
`
`6:
`
`writs
`
`8:21
`
`test
`
`14:16
`
`Texas
`
`4:17 9:11 11:17
`
`Thanksgiving 16:10
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`written 16:4
`
` V 4
`
`venue
`
`:24 5:11
`
`viability
`13
`
`4:21 5:11,
`
`view 4:18,21 5:14
`6:7,13 7:6 8:22
`
` W 6
`
`waiting
`wanted
`
`:24
`
`12:21
`
`warranted 14:
`
`weeks
`
`12:10
`
`weighed
`Western
`
`6:14
`4:17
`
`