throbber
1
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
` WACO DIVISION
`BROADBAND ITV, INC.
`) Docket No. WA 19-CA-716 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Waco, Texas
` )
`DISH NETWORK, LLC
`) August 31, 2020
`__________________________________________________________
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` AUSTIN DIVISION
`BROADBAND ITV, INC.
`) Docket No. A 20-CA-717 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Austin, Texas
` )
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.,
`)
`AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, )
`DIRECTV, LLC
`) August 31, 2020
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For DISH Network:
`
`Mr. David Alberti
`Mr. Robert F. Kramer
`Feinberg, Day, Kramer, Alberti,
`Lim, Tonkovich & Beloli
`577 Airport Boulevard, Suite 250
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Ms. Andrea L. Fair
`Mr. Jack Wesley Hill
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`
`Ms. Alyssa Caridis
`Orrick, Herrington
`& Sutcliffe, LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street,
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`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
`
`BBiTV EX2002
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV
`IPR2020-01268
`
`

`

`(Appearances Continued:)
`For DISH Network:
`
`For AT&T Services:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`2
`
`Mr. Clement S. Roberts
`Orrick, Herrington
`& Sutcliffe, LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Mr. John P. Palmer
`Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee
`P.O. Box 1470
`Waco, Texas 76703
`
`Mr. Roger J. Fulghum
`Baker Botts, LLP
`One Shell Plaza
`910 Louisiana Street
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Mr. Jeff Becker
`Mr. Timothy S. Durst
`Baker Botts, LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`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
`
`

`

`3
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon. It's Alan Albright.
`Suzanne, would you call the case?
`THE CLERK: Sure.
`Telephonic conference in Civil Action
`1:20-CV-717, styled, Broadband iTV, Incorporated vs. AT &
`T Services, Incorporated, AT & T Communications, LLC and
`DIRECTV, LLC; and telephonic conference in Civil Action
`6:19-CV-716, styled, Broadband iTV, Incorporated vs. DISH
`Network, LLC.
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`If I could hear first from plaintiff's counsel
`and then, from counsel for the defendants.
`MR. HILL: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`Wesley Hill on behalf of the Plaintiff BBiTV.
`With me here on the phone this afternoon, your Honor, is
`Robert Kramer, David Alberti and Andrea Fair. And we are
`ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: Thank you so much.
`If I could hear from defense counsel for AT & T.
`MR. FULGHUM: Good afternoon, Judge.
`This is Roger Fulghum for the AT & T Defendants.
`With me is Lon Outland, senior IP counsel for AT & T. And
`also on the line are Tim Durst and Jeff Becker.
`THE COURT: And for DISH.
`MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:31:01
`
`15:31:03
`
`15:31:04
`
`15:31:05
`
`15:31:09
`
`15:31:14
`
`15:31:17
`
`15:31:23
`
`15:31:29
`
`15:31:30
`
`15:31:32
`
`15:31:34
`
`15:31:38
`
`15:31:39
`
`15:31:42
`
`15:31:45
`
`15:31:49
`
`15:31:49
`
`15:31:51
`
`15:31:55
`
`15:31:56
`
`15:31:59
`
`15:32:02
`
`15:32:06
`
`15:32:12
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`4
`
`This is Clem Roberts with Orrick Herrington.
`With me is my partner, Alyssa Caridis. And I believe that
`Mr. Palmer is also on the line.
`THE COURT: Very good.
`A whole host of my favorite lawyers all across
`America. Who could be any luckier than me to get to --
`you all to invite me to get together with you this
`afternoon.
`So I am happy to hear -- a reminder of two
`things. I think you all know this. One is, if any of you
`are going to speak, please identify yourself for the
`record so we could keep the record accurate. And number
`two, if you are on a cellphone, please mute yourself when
`you're not talking. Other than that, I am happy to hear
`whatever it is you all would like to take up.
`MR. FULGHUM: Well, thank you. Judge, this is
`Roger Fulghum for AT & T.
`And I think I'm the one who sent the first e-mail
`that may have initiated this phone call. We have a claim
`construction hearing in this case set for November 13th.
`And our opening brief is September 10th, and that's a week
`from Thursday. And we sent an e-mail to the Court asking
`for permission to brief and have the Court construe a
`total of 22 terms between our case, the AT & T case, and
`the DISH case, and that breaks down like this.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:32:12
`
`15:32:15
`
`15:32:18
`
`15:32:20
`
`15:32:23
`
`15:32:25
`
`15:32:29
`
`15:32:31
`
`15:32:32
`
`15:32:37
`
`15:32:39
`
`15:32:43
`
`15:32:46
`
`15:32:51
`
`15:32:54
`
`15:32:58
`
`15:33:00
`
`15:33:01
`
`15:33:04
`
`15:33:06
`
`15:33:09
`
`15:33:12
`
`15:33:15
`
`15:33:19
`
`15:33:25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`5
`
`AT & T is proposing that the Court construe 18
`terms spread across five patents. DISH is proposing that
`the Court construe 16 terms spread across four patents.
`There are 12 terms in common between AT & T and DISH, and
`of those 12 terms, AT & T and DISH agree on nine
`constructions; and we have our differences on three
`constructions, and that goes to the fact that AT & T and
`DISH here are different parties, different products,
`different systems.
`We've worked independently of one another on
`prior art issues, as well. This case involves five
`patents, five patents asserted against AT & T, four of
`those patents asserted against DISH. I realize that the
`number of -- the number 12 is higher than the Court's
`presumed limit, but we think there's good reason for that
`in this particular case.
`As I mentioned, five patents and against AT & T,
`there are a total --
`THE COURT: Mr. Fulghum, I am -- it's a
`five-patent case, I am -- that number doesn't offend me
`very much.
`Let me hear from the plaintiff real quick. The
`numbers you're giving me, while they are -- let me say
`this. We may need to have more than one hearing just --
`we'll see. It depends how it shakes out what the total
`
`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
`
`15:33:27
`
`15:33:31
`
`15:33:35
`
`15:33:42
`
`15:33:48
`
`15:33:53
`
`15:33:55
`
`15:33:58
`
`15:34:01
`
`15:34:01
`
`15:34:05
`
`15:34:10
`
`15:34:15
`
`15:34:18
`
`15:34:21
`
`15:34:24
`
`15:34:26
`
`15:34:29
`
`15:34:30
`
`15:34:34
`
`15:34:37
`
`15:34:39
`
`15:34:42
`
`15:34:45
`
`15:34:50
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`6
`
`number is. I didn't hear you give me a number of claims
`that the plaintiff might want construed, as well. And so,
`the only issue I see is, maybe it will take us two
`hearings to get this all done, and may not kill myself and
`my law clerks, but they will be pretty close.
`But let me hear from the plaintiff as to why, Mr.
`Hill, or whoever's going to be speaking, why this is too
`many terms.
`MR. HILL: Thank you, your Honor. Wesley Hill on
`behalf of the Plaintiff BBiTV.
`Your Honor, we think it is too many terms for
`this case. We think the limit that the Court has recently
`indicated or its guidepost in its most recent order
`governing proceedings of about 12 terms for this number of
`patents is more appropriate. And, your Honor, we say that
`because there are only five independent claims asserted
`across the five patents, one independent claim per patent,
`and the patents all stem from a common parent.
`There is a continuation, in part, involved that
`adds some matter that would have to be considered, but
`effectively it's a single-patent family. And so, we've
`got five patents across a single family with five
`independent claims. And what the defendants together are
`asking for, your Honor, is effectively 19 terms across
`five claims. They have three other terms that only appear
`
`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
`
`15:34:54
`
`15:34:58
`
`15:35:00
`
`15:35:05
`
`15:35:09
`
`15:35:12
`
`15:35:17
`
`15:35:21
`
`15:35:22
`
`15:35:24
`
`15:35:27
`
`15:35:29
`
`15:35:32
`
`15:35:35
`
`15:35:38
`
`15:35:40
`
`15:35:43
`
`15:35:47
`
`15:35:49
`
`15:35:52
`
`15:35:55
`
`15:35:59
`
`15:36:02
`
`15:36:06
`
`15:36:10
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`7
`
`in independent -- or, excuse me, dependent claims, but
`that seemed a bit high to us.
`In terms of just a construction, a straight
`construction, your Honor, we've got one term we're
`submitting for construction. Our other positions are
`plain and ordinary meaning positions where we have also
`indicated what we believe that plain and ordinary meaning
`to be, which we would address in our briefing. But under
`the circumstances, your Honor, we thought it was a bit
`high.
`
`I'll throw one other issue on the table, your
`Honor, separate from this claim term discussion.
`Defendants sent an e-mail to the Court raising this issue,
`posing these questions to the Court. We responded with
`our position, but we also responded with a question of our
`own, your Honor, regarding the trial setting in the case
`and the trial timing in the case, based on indications the
`defendants had given at the PTAB, to the PTAB that they
`expect the date to be delayed, potentially even this
`Markman hearing date to be delayed.
`So as a part of what we discussed in addition to
`these terms, your Honor, we'd like, to the extent the
`Court's willing, to get some clarity about the date
`issues.
`
`THE COURT: Let me add this. Let me put you on
`
`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
`
`15:36:14
`
`15:36:17
`
`15:36:21
`
`15:36:23
`
`15:36:25
`
`15:36:28
`
`15:36:31
`
`15:36:33
`
`15:36:38
`
`15:36:41
`
`15:36:42
`
`15:36:45
`
`15:36:49
`
`15:36:54
`
`15:36:56
`
`15:36:58
`
`15:37:01
`
`15:37:06
`
`15:37:09
`
`15:37:12
`
`15:37:14
`
`15:37:16
`
`15:37:18
`
`15:37:21
`
`15:37:23
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`8
`
`hold for just one second because I wasn't ready to handle
`the date issue, and Josh usually helps me coordinate with
`that. So let me get back to you just in one second, okay?
`He's briefed me generally on these, but he's going to
`better know the details. So let me make sure he's here to
`help me with this. Give me one second.
`MR. HILL: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. We're back on the record.
`Y'all took me a little bit off of guard -- off
`guard with the last issue. Let me make clear. The Court
`has moved a couple of trial dates, and I think 100 percent
`of the time, it was because the parties jointly requested
`us to do so. I think most of the time that we did it, it
`was to deal with issues that I couldn't fix in terms of
`timing because of some either discovery issues or
`whatever. And we obviously had a couple of problems with
`COVID that I decided it was fairest to the parties to push
`back the trial date because they were sort of right in the
`middle of trying to get fact discovery done or expert
`discovery done, and COVID was preventing their experts and
`others from being able to move about.
`So let me say this on the record. I'm going to
`trial. My cases this month have settled. I will be going
`to trial in October on cases that are set in October. And
`I don't know what might have led anyone in this case, and
`
`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
`
`15:37:27
`
`15:37:31
`
`15:37:34
`
`15:37:37
`
`15:37:40
`
`15:37:42
`
`15:37:46
`
`15:39:36
`
`15:39:37
`
`15:39:40
`
`15:39:47
`
`15:39:54
`
`15:39:58
`
`15:40:03
`
`15:40:09
`
`15:40:11
`
`15:40:15
`
`15:40:23
`
`15:40:25
`
`15:40:28
`
`15:40:31
`
`15:40:33
`
`15:40:38
`
`15:40:46
`
`15:40:50
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`9
`
`I asked Josh what might have led anyone in this case, to
`believe that I would push back the trial in this case.
`It's not going to be delayed. We're going to go to trial.
`So, my comment -- the comments I made with regard
`to the Markman are simply if I accommodate the defendants'
`request for additional claim terms, you know, typically we
`have about 12. And I know how hard it is for us to get
`those done and get you all preliminary constructions,
`which I like doing the day before. And so, I could see
`us, you know, splitting these out by a couple of weeks if
`we had to do that. We may not have to do that. I don't
`know. We can look at them when we get them.
`But I can assure you that even if I were to split
`up the Markman hearing into two Markman hearings, that
`will not affect the trial date. So I'm slightly uncertain
`of whatever that underlying issues were that raised
`concern on anyone's part about me moving the trial date,
`but that's not going to happen. So hopefully that takes
`that issue off the board.
`Now, getting back to the claim term issue, the
`number of claim terms, sounds to me, if my math is right
`-- and I think every lawyer on the call knows my ability
`to do math. So I will -- which is not great. But it
`sounds to me like we have 20 claim terms between the two
`defendants and the plaintiff, and with respect to 19 of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:40:53
`
`15:40:56
`
`15:41:03
`
`15:41:07
`
`15:41:11
`
`15:41:20
`
`15:41:22
`
`15:41:27
`
`15:41:31
`
`15:41:33
`
`15:41:36
`
`15:41:39
`
`15:41:41
`
`15:41:46
`
`15:41:50
`
`15:41:57
`
`15:42:02
`
`15:42:06
`
`15:42:09
`
`15:42:10
`
`15:42:14
`
`15:42:19
`
`15:42:23
`
`15:42:26
`
`15:42:31
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`10
`
`the 20, the plaintiff is going to be taking the position
`of plain and ordinary meaning. Likely, we can accommodate
`all of the claim terms at one Markman.
`Although, as you all know, it's not unusual, I
`think in about 25 to 30 percent of the cases, the Court
`will proffer either it's plain and ordinary meaning, we
`will articulate what the plain and ordinary meaning is, or
`if there's a contested claim term, we've been known to
`give our own claim construction.
`So I am not -- given that there are two different
`parties and there are disputes over some of the number of
`claims, I am not going to reduce the number of claims from
`what AT & T and DISH are advocating for at this time. I
`think with five patents, even though there are only five
`independent claims being asserted, I will tell you, of
`course, that, you know, as we go through and see which
`claim terms you all believe were -- needed to be
`construed, I'm going to at this time be optimistic that
`all of them do need to be construed.
`It has been my experience that there are usually
`more claim terms that are sought to be construed than
`probably were necessary. I hope it doesn't turn out that
`way here. So that's just an observation from as recently
`as today at my Markman hearing where I think I handled a
`dozen claim terms, and there were only two patents.
`
`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
`
`15:42:36
`
`15:42:40
`
`15:42:45
`
`15:42:47
`
`15:42:51
`
`15:42:54
`
`15:43:00
`
`15:43:03
`
`15:43:07
`
`15:43:12
`
`15:43:19
`
`15:43:21
`
`15:43:29
`
`15:43:39
`
`15:43:41
`
`15:43:46
`
`15:43:50
`
`15:43:56
`
`15:43:59
`
`15:44:03
`
`15:44:08
`
`15:44:12
`
`15:44:16
`
`15:44:21
`
`15:44:26
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`11
`
`So having done that long soliloquy, Mr. Hill, is
`there anything else that we needed to take up from the
`plaintiff's perspective?
`MR. HILL: Yes, your Honor. I have a question.
`I appreciate the Court's comments about the trial date,
`your Honor.
`I think part of the I won't say inspiration but
`at least the opportunity for the comments that defendants
`made to the PTAB about the delay of the trial setting stem
`from the fact that we don't have an assigned trial date in
`this case. We have a last date in our scheduling order of
`October 1, 2021 to file a joint pretrial order, which
`indicates to me a November trial setting.
`THE COURT: Mr. Hill, when is the Markman date?
`MR. HILL: The Markman date is November 13th of
`this year, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second. You all
`are about to have a trial date. So give me just one
`second. Okeydokey. We will be setting the trial for
`November 15th of 2021.
`MR. HILL: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Did plaintiffs have anything else?
`MR. HILL: No, sir.
`THE COURT: Mr. Fulghum?
`MR. FULGHUM: Yeah, Judge. Just one point of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:44:30
`
`15:44:34
`
`15:44:37
`
`15:44:40
`
`15:44:42
`
`15:44:44
`
`15:44:44
`
`15:44:47
`
`15:44:49
`
`15:44:52
`
`15:44:56
`
`15:44:59
`
`15:45:04
`
`15:45:06
`
`15:45:09
`
`15:45:11
`
`15:45:12
`
`15:45:16
`
`15:45:18
`
`15:46:57
`
`15:47:02
`
`15:47:03
`
`15:47:05
`
`15:47:06
`
`15:47:08
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`12
`
`clarification.
`Mr. Hill's comments, he talks about the
`defendants and the defendant, certain activity on the part
`of the defendants at the PTAB. AT & T has not filed an
`IPR petition. I just want that to be clear. And the
`defendants were not involved in doing that.
`MR. HILL: I apologize for the loose language,
`your Honor.
`THE COURT: Let me say this one more time. I
`know I look incredibly young. Actually, not as young as
`Mr. Hill. I wish I did. And I wish I looked as young as
`Mr. Fulghum does when he's on Facebook. But I have been a
`lawyer long enough that when lawyers make those kind of
`comments, I just -- there's something in me that just sort
`of tunes them out.
`So, Mr. Fulghum, I appreciate that. But, you
`know, I just -- I found I don't -- none of that stuff
`sticks. So -- and in part because if it's one of the
`defendants is making an argument that protects their
`client, you know, I think good on them. There's no group
`of lawyers I have more affection or respect for than the
`lawyers on this call. So I know there's no one on this
`call who would not be doing whatever they should ethically
`to zealously represent your client.
`Mr. Hill is doing his best to -- I'm sure, to
`
`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
`
`15:47:11
`
`15:47:11
`
`15:47:15
`
`15:47:19
`
`15:47:24
`
`15:47:25
`
`15:47:28
`
`15:47:30
`
`15:47:31
`
`15:47:34
`
`15:47:40
`
`15:47:44
`
`15:47:50
`
`15:47:55
`
`15:47:59
`
`15:48:00
`
`15:48:04
`
`15:48:10
`
`15:48:16
`
`15:48:18
`
`15:48:26
`
`15:48:29
`
`15:48:32
`
`15:48:36
`
`15:48:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`13
`
`represent his and in responding to whatever's said about
`an IPR. So I think you all are -- as Judge Lautner
`(phonetic) used to say, you're all great lawyers, and
`you're all doing a fine job. He usually said that right
`before he did something awful to me and my client.
`MR. FULGHUM: Well, Judge, nothing further for AT
`
`& T.
`
`THE COURT: Anything from DISH?
`MR. HILL: No, your Honor, unless your Honor had
`any questions that you had about what we had said to the
`PTAB or why, I'd be very happy to address them. But I'm
`not looking to argue. So if --
`THE COURT: I neither know nor care. What you
`all do with the -- in your IPR is in front of another
`court. It was not constitutionally created like mine was,
`and that's why I feel like everyone oughta get a jury
`trial in front of an Article III judge. I don't feel
`badly about the fact that I want to give people an
`opportunity to try their case.
`So whatever you are doing on behalf of DISH with
`the IPR, I wish you the best of luck and God's speed, but
`it's independent of what I'm doing.
`MR. HILL: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: You bet.
`Hearing nothing else, I -- by the way, let me say
`
`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
`
`15:48:43
`
`15:48:47
`
`15:48:53
`
`15:48:55
`
`15:48:58
`
`15:49:02
`
`15:49:04
`
`15:49:04
`
`15:49:07
`
`15:49:10
`
`15:49:13
`
`15:49:17
`
`15:49:18
`
`15:49:22
`
`15:49:27
`
`15:49:35
`
`15:49:40
`
`15:49:43
`
`15:49:46
`
`15:49:47
`
`15:49:50
`
`15:49:55
`
`15:49:58
`
`15:49:58
`
`15:50:00
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`14
`
`this, though, and I'm saying this because my law clerk
`isn't in here and can't hit me. If you are going to have
`that many claim terms, you ought to -- I would reach out
`to Josh and see what he wants to do about any -- and he
`has discretion because he reads them first. But you might
`want to check with him about any modification with respect
`to the page limits.
`Nothing else? You guys be safe out there. In
`COVID world, I was about to tell you all to have a nice
`weekend, but that's just because it's been a long Monday.
`So have a good day. Take care. Bye.
`MR. FULGHUM: Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. HILL: Thank you, your Honor.
`(End of proceeding.)
`
`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
`
`15:50:04
`
`15:50:06
`
`15:50:12
`
`15:50:17
`
`15:50:22
`
`15:50:24
`
`15:50:27
`
`15:50:30
`
`15:50:35
`
`15:50:37
`
`15:50:41
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`* * * * * *
`
`15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS )
`
`I, LILY I. REZNIK, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`Registered Merit Reporter, in my capacity as Official
`Court Reporter of the United States District Court,
`Western District of Texas, do certify that the foregoing
`is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in
`the above-entitled matter.
`I certify that the transcript fees and format comply
`with those prescribed by the Court and Judicial Conference
`of the United States.
`WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 2nd day of September,
`2020.
`
`/s/Lily I. Reznik
`LILY I. REZNIK, CRR, RMR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`Austin Division
`501 W. 5th Street,
`Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`SOT Certification No. 4481
`Expires: 1-31-21
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket