· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`· · · · -----------------------------------------------
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·WEBER, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-vs-
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·IPR2020-01556 and IPR2020-01557
`
`· · · · -----------------------------------------------
`
`·
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·HEARING BEFORE USPTO JUDGES:
`
`· · · · JON JURGOVAN, MITCH WEATHERLY, FRANCES IPPOLITO
`
`·
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·July 8, 2024 - 11:30 a.m. EST
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`1
`
`Weber EX1092
`Weber v. Provisur
`IPR2020-01557
`
`
`
`· · · · -----------------------------------------------
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·WEBER, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-vs-
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·IPR2020-01556 and IPR2020-01557
`
`· · · · -----------------------------------------------
`
`·
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·HEARING BEFORE USPTO JUDGES:
`
`· · · · JON JURGOVAN, MITCH WEATHERLY, FRANCES IPPOLITO
`
`·
`
`· · · · · · · · · ·July 8, 2024 - 11:30 a.m. EST
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`1
`
`Weber EX1092
`Weber v. Provisur
`IPR2020-01557
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·July 8, 2024
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11:30 a.m. EST
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·Hearing before Maria M. Siatkowski,
`
`·6· · · Registered Diplomate Reporter, Certified
`
`·7· · · Realtime Reporter, Certified Realtime
`
`·8· · · Captioner, and Notary Public.
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·REMOTE APPEARANCES:
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·BY: RICHARD A. CRUDO, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · · · · ·BY: RALPH W. POWERS, III, ESQUIRE
`·5· · · · · · · · ·BY: TREVOR M. O'NEILL, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · · · · ·Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`·6· · · · · · · · · ·PLLC
`· · · · · · · · · ·1101 K Street NW 10th Floor
`·7· · · · · · · · ·Washington, DC· 20005
`· · · · · · · · · ·202-371-2600
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · ·COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER:
`·9
`· · · · · · · · · ·BY: MITCHELL FELDHAKE, ESQUIRE
`10· · · · · · · · ·BY: MICHAEL G. BABBITT, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · · · · ·300 N La Salle Drive
`11· · · · · · · · ·Chicago, IL· 60654
`· · · · · · · · · ·312-728-9000
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay.· Patent
`
`·3· · · Owner, I believe you're requesting a stay in
`
`·4· · · this case.· Could you please proceed with
`
`·5· · · explaining why there's -- there may be good
`
`·6· · · cause in this case to do so.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Yes, your
`
`·8· · · Honor.· So that's why we are requesting a stay
`
`·9· · · because Provisur filed a --
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·(Reporter clarification on speaker.)
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Yes, yes.
`
`12· · · Will do.
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·So this is -- this is
`
`14· · · Mitchell Feldhake on behalf of Patent Owner.
`
`15· · · We are requesting a stay in this case because
`
`16· · · Provisur recently filed a Cert petition because
`
`17· · · Provisur believes that the PTAB correctly
`
`18· · · decided that Weber's user manuals do not
`
`19· · · constitute printed publications available as
`
`20· · · prior art in an IPR.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·Provisur's petition for writ
`
`22· · · presented two questions.· The first question
`
`23· · · was whether the federal circuit erred by
`
`24· · · holding that Weber's product manual prior art
`
`25· · · constitutes a printed publication that can be
`
`
`
`·1· · · asserted in an IPR.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·And the second question presented
`
`·3· · · was whether the Federal Circuit's determination
`
`·4· · · that a product manual constitutes a printed
`
`·5· · · publication because it was distributed with an
`
`·6· · · on-sale product, is consistent with 35 U.S.C.
`
`·7· · · 311(b) which expressly excludes on-sale prior
`
`·8· · · art from grounds that can be asserted in an
`
`·9· · · IPR.
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·So as I'm sure Your Honors are
`
`11· · · aware, all of the petition grounds rely on the
`
`12· · · product manuals at issue here.
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·So if the Supreme Court takes up
`
`14· · · Provisur's issue and vacates the Federal
`
`15· · · Circuit's finding that Weber's manuals
`
`16· · · qualifies as prior art, it will undoubtedly
`
`17· · · impact the board's decision on remand.
`
`18· · · · · · · · ·So in Your Honors' and Provisur's
`
`19· · · opinion, that's sufficient to show good cause
`
`20· · · to stay these proceedings and I believe that is
`
`21· · · consistent with SOP 9.
`
`22· · · · · · · · ·There are other cases that are cited
`
`23· · · in SOP 9 that provide additional commentary on
`
`24· · · this good cause that I'm happy to briefly
`
`25· · · address, but I think that squarely addresses
`
`
`
`·1· · · what SOP 9 hones in on.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay.· As my
`
`·3· · · colleague pointed out to me, SOP 9 is not --
`
`·4· · · it's been moved to SOP 3, basically.· So SOP 3
`
`·5· · · is what we're working from.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Thank you,
`
`·7· · · Your Honor.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Anything
`
`·9· · · further to add at this time, Patent Owner?
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Nothing
`
`11· · · further.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay.· Can we
`
`13· · · hear from Petitioner, please.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY CRUDO:· Yes.· Thank
`
`15· · · you, Your Honor.· This is Richard Crudo, again
`
`16· · · on behalf of the Petitioner.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·We believe that the Patent Owner
`
`18· · · cannot establish good cause for its stay
`
`19· · · request for three principal reasons.
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·First, the Patent Owner's Cert
`
`21· · · petition is very unlikely to be granted and, in
`
`22· · · fact, the Supreme Court has recently denied
`
`23· · · Cert in cases involving nearly identical public
`
`24· · · accessibility issues in the past three years.
`
`25· · · · · · · · ·One case that I wanted to point out,
`
`
`
`·1· · · Your Honors, is the Centripetal Networks case,
`
`·2· · · which was cited by the board in its institution
`
`·3· · · decision.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·And the Cert petition there
`
`·5· · · addressed the issue of whether a product manual
`
`·6· · · can qualify as a printed publication in an IPR,
`
`·7· · · notwithstanding the high cost of the
`
`·8· · · accompanying product.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·That's the exact same issue that the
`
`10· · · Patent Owner's petition raises here.· And the
`
`11· · · Supreme Court denied Cert in that case in
`
`12· · · October of 2021.
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·This is no reason to believe that
`
`14· · · the Patent Owner's petition here would fare any
`
`15· · · better, particularly given that certiorari is
`
`16· · · an extremely rare and extraordinary remedy.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·Second, a stay would not promote
`
`18· · · efficiency, given that the issues raised in the
`
`19· · · Cert petition don't overlap with the issues
`
`20· · · before the board.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·The issue raised in the Cert
`
`22· · · petition is limited to public accessibility of
`
`23· · · the prior art manuals, as Patent Owner
`
`24· · · indicated.· And the board no longer has to
`
`25· · · address that issue on remand.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Rather, the remand is limited to a
`
`·2· · · few discrete issues regarding obviousness, and
`
`·3· · · in particular, a motivation to combine.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·And I think that lack of overlap is
`
`·5· · · very important because what it means is that
`
`·6· · · there is zero chance that the board would have
`
`·7· · · to redo any of the work that it is currently
`
`·8· · · doing in the absence of the stay, even if the
`
`·9· · · Supreme Court were to grant Cert and reverse,
`
`10· · · which as I noted is extremely unlikely.
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·In fact, a stay would undermine
`
`12· · · efficiency here because the parties are
`
`13· · · scheduled to go to trial on these patents in
`
`14· · · the parallel District Court litigation in
`
`15· · · January of next year.
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·And, in fact, the District Court
`
`17· · · moved trial back from November of this year to
`
`18· · · the end of January next year, specifically so
`
`19· · · that the court could wait and see what the
`
`20· · · board would do here.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·And that makes sense.· The board's
`
`22· · · ruling, of course, would have an impact on the
`
`23· · · length and complexity of the trial.· It would
`
`24· · · be a tremendous waste of judicial resources to
`
`25· · · go to trial before the board has the
`
`
`
`·1· · · opportunity to address the patent validity in
`
`·2· · · the normal course.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·And then third, finally, Your
`
`·4· · · Honors, Petitioner would be prejudiced by a
`
`·5· · · stay.· These proceedings have been pending for
`
`·6· · · nearly four years and the target date for the
`
`·7· · · board's final written decision is only a few
`
`·8· · · months away.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·It would be unfair if the Patent
`
`10· · · Owner were permitted to use a run-of-the-mill
`
`11· · · Cert petition to delay that decision from
`
`12· · · issuing so that it can rush to trial in the
`
`13· · · parallel litigation.
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·And I would note, Your Honors, the
`
`15· · · Patent Owner gave no indications that the
`
`16· · · Patent Owner would be prejudiced if this case
`
`17· · · were not stayed.
`
`18· · · · · · · · ·And I'll note that the Patent Owner
`
`19· · · never moved to stay the Federal Circuit's
`
`20· · · mandate nor did it meet and confer with us
`
`21· · · prior to E-mailing the board or previewed this
`
`22· · · issue to the board during the party's April
`
`23· · · 25th conference.
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·And so I think if Patent Owner were
`
`25· · · concerned about efficiency and prejudice, they
`
`
`
`·1· · · would have tried to work with Petitioner to try
`
`·2· · · to manage these proceedings.· I think it's
`
`·3· · · telling that they didn't as to where the
`
`·4· · · equities lie.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·And finally, Your Honor, if these
`
`·6· · · facts give rise to good cause to support a
`
`·7· · · stay, I think it's difficult to think of a case
`
`·8· · · where facts would not give rise to good cause.
`
`·9· · · And, of course, that would turn the board's
`
`10· · · presumption against stays on its head.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · I'm happy to answer any
`
`12· · · questions you --
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay, thank
`
`14· · · you.· No questions at this time.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Let's go back to -- to Patent Owner
`
`16· · · and hear Patent Owner's reply.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Thank you,
`
`18· · · Your Honor.· This is Mitchell Feldhake on
`
`19· · · behalf of Patent Owner.· So to try to briefly
`
`20· · · respond to the points that were made there.
`
`21· · · · · · · · ·So the first point that I heard was
`
`22· · · that Cert is unlikely to be granted and
`
`23· · · Petitioner tried to draw some analogies to I
`
`24· · · think it was the Centripetal Network's case.
`
`25· · · · · · · · ·So there are more issues at play in
`
`
`
`·1· · · this petition than just cost.· There were
`
`·2· · · things like -- that I know Your Honors recall,
`
`·3· · · but the issues of confidentiality that were at
`
`·4· · · play.· Industry expectations.· The explicit
`
`·5· · · confidentiality provisions that were in the
`
`·6· · · manual.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·So there are different facts that
`
`·8· · · are at play here that are -- do not make this
`
`·9· · · analogous to the Centripetal Networks case.
`
`10· · · · · · · · ·The second point that I heard was
`
`11· · · relating to efficiency and a representation
`
`12· · · that the District Court pushed back the case
`
`13· · · because they were waiting to see what the board
`
`14· · · does in this proceeding.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·I am counsel and that -- in the
`
`16· · · District Court proceeding and I do not recall
`
`17· · · such order from the District Court.· They did
`
`18· · · push back the proceeding, that is true, by
`
`19· · · about two months.
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·Because -- but the -- the District
`
`21· · · Court did not give an order for the reasons why
`
`22· · · they pushed back that proceeding.· Petitioner
`
`23· · · made their arguments that were -- that were
`
`24· · · representative of -- related to other IPRs that
`
`25· · · I know that your -- Your Honors are also not on
`
`
`
`·1· · · the Bates 408, 109 patents.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·And, you know, for reasons unknown
`
`·3· · · to us because the District Court did not issue
`
`·4· · · an order, the District Court pushed back the
`
`·5· · · trial date by about two months.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·The third point that I heard was
`
`·7· · · prejudice.· And, you know, Your Honors, I think
`
`·8· · · the prejudice issue could go either way here.
`
`·9· · · We have an outstanding jury judgment for
`
`10· · · multiple million dollars against Petitioner.
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·And I -- our client would like to
`
`12· · · receive its judgment, so delaying -- any delay
`
`13· · · here could cut in either direction.· Both
`
`14· · · parties have accused each other of delay in
`
`15· · · previous proceedings, so I think delay could
`
`16· · · cut either direction at -- on this issue.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·And then the final point that I
`
`18· · · heard was this -- the point about requesting a
`
`19· · · Federal Circuit mandate stay.· So there are two
`
`20· · · cases that appear in SOP 3, thank you for that
`
`21· · · correction, in neither of those cases did
`
`22· · · the -- did counsel actually move to say -- stay
`
`23· · · the Federal Circuit mandate.
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·So it -- I don't think that is a
`
`25· · · relevant consideration here because there is
`
`
`
`·1· · · precedent that appears in the SOP that allows
`
`·2· · · Your Honors to still stay that case.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·And I think that is all that I have
`
`·4· · · to respond to at this time.· Thank you, Your
`
`·5· · · Honors.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay.· Thank
`
`·7· · · you.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Let's hear, again, from Petitioner.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY CRUDO:· Yes, thank
`
`10· · · you, Your Honors.· Richard Crudo, again, on
`
`11· · · behalf of petitioners.
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·I just wanted to reiterate that the
`
`13· · · grant rate of Cert petitions is 1 percent.
`
`14· · · Meaning, the vast majority of Cert petitions
`
`15· · · fail.· As I noted, the Supreme Court has
`
`16· · · recently denied Cert in a related case, the
`
`17· · · Centripetal Networks case.
`
`18· · · · · · · · ·There's also another case, Your
`
`19· · · Honors, BE Arrow Space, which addressed whether
`
`20· · · expert testimony based on proprietary
`
`21· · · product-related documents circumvents the
`
`22· · · prohibition against non printed publications in
`
`23· · · an IPR.
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·And that's similar to the second
`
`25· · · issue, Your Honors, the Patent Owner's Cert
`
`
`
`·1· · · petition raises.· The Supreme Court denied Cert
`
`·2· · · in that case in January of 2021.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·So I don't think it makes sense
`
`·4· · · to -- to throw a wrench in these proceedings
`
`·5· · · based on an event that is very likely to -- to
`
`·6· · · not occur.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·With regard to the reason for the
`
`·8· · · District Court pushing back trial, Your Honor,
`
`·9· · · we made the argument that the court should wait
`
`10· · · and see what the board does.· And, in fact,
`
`11· · · there's E-mail correspondence with the District
`
`12· · · Court on this issue.· And ultimately that the
`
`13· · · District Court agreed.
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·I think it's a matter of judicial
`
`15· · · efficiency.· That makes sense because it
`
`16· · · doesn't make sense to rush to trial only for
`
`17· · · the board, we hope, to invalidate the claims on
`
`18· · · remand or even a subset of those claims.
`
`19· · · · · · · · ·And then my final point, Your
`
`20· · · Honors, is that the Supreme Court is currently
`
`21· · · on summer recess, which means that it will not
`
`22· · · resolve any Cert petitions, including Patent
`
`23· · · Owners, during this time.
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·Rather, the earliest that the court
`
`25· · · will resolve the petition is its first
`
`
`
`·1· · · conference, the first week of October.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·And as Your Honors know, the target
`
`·3· · · date for the final written decision in these
`
`·4· · · IPRs is also early October.· So in the ordinary
`
`·5· · · course without a stay, it's very likely that
`
`·6· · · the board would issue its decision before the
`
`·7· · · Supreme Court even takes up the petition.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·There's no reason to draw out these
`
`·9· · · proceedings and we think that the board can and
`
`10· · · should address the issues now, while they're
`
`11· · · front of mind rather than picking them up again
`
`12· · · three, four or more months down the line.
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·Thank you, Your Honors.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Thank you.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Who arranged for the court reporter,
`
`16· · · please?
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY CRUDO:· We did, Your
`
`18· · · Honor, Petitioner.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay.· Thank
`
`20· · · you.· And can you please file the transcript of
`
`21· · · this hearing or this call as soon as possible?
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY CRUDO:· Yes, Your
`
`23· · · Honor.· We certainly will.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay, thank
`
`25· · · you.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Are there any more questions that we
`
`·2· · · need to resolve today on this call?
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Nothing
`
`·4· · · from Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY CRUDO:· Nothing from
`
`·6· · · Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE JURGOVAN:· Okay.· We're
`
`·8· · · adjourned then.· Thank you very much for your
`
`·9· · · time.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FELDHAKE:· Thank you,
`
`11· · · Your Honors.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY CRUDO:· Thank you,
`
`13· · · Your Honors.
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·(At 11:49 a.m., the hearing was
`
`15· · · concluded.)
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ---
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·I hereby certify that the
`
`·7· · · proceedings and evidence are contained fully
`
`·8· · · and accurately in the stenographic notes taken
`
`·9· · · by me on the hearing of the within cause, and
`
`10· · · that this is a correct transcript of the same.
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · _____________________________
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · Maria M. Siatkowski
`· · · · · · · · · · · Registered Diplomate Reporter
`14· · · · · · · · · · Certified Realtime Reporter
`· · · · · · · · · · · Certified Realtime Captioner
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Cert
`4:16 6:20,23
`7:4,11,19,21
`8:9 9:11
`10:22 13:13,
`14,16,25
`14:1,22
`certiorari
`7:15
`
`confidentiali
`
`Centripetal
`7:1 10:24
`11:9 13:17
`
`chance
`8:6
`
`circuit
`4:23 12:19,
`23
`
`Circuit's
`5:3,15 9:19
`circumvents
`13:21
`
`cited
`5:22 7:2
`
`claims
`14:17,18
`clarification
`4:10
`
`client
`12:11
`colleague
`
`commentary
`5:23
`complexity
`8:23
`
`concerned
`9:25
`
`confer
`9:20
`
`conference
`9:23
`
`back
`8:17 10:15
`11:12,18,22
`12:4 14:8
`
`based
`13:20 14:5
`basically
`6:4
`
`Bates
`12:1
`
`behalf
`4:14 6:16
`10:19 13:11
`
`believe
`4:3 5:20
`6:17 7:13
`
`believes
`4:17
`
`better
`7:15
`
`board
`7:2,20,24
`8:6,20,25
`9:21,22
`11:13 14:10,
`17
`
`board's
`5:17 8:21
`9:7 10:9
`briefly
`5:24 10:19
`
`Cc
`
`case
`
`4:4,6,15
`6:25 7:1,11
`9:16 10:7,24
`11:9,12
`13:2,16,17,
`18 14:2
`cases
`
`5:22 6:23
`12:20,21
`
`Hearing
`2024
`July 08,
`
`add
`6:9
`
`additional
`5:23
`
`address
`5:25 7:25
`9:1
`
`addressed
`7:5 13:19
`
`addresses
`5:25
`agreed
`14:13
`
`allows
`13:1
`analogies
`10:23
`analogous
`11:9
`answer
`
`10:11
`
`appears
`13:1
`April
`9:22
`
`argument
`14:9
`
`arguments
`11:23
`
`Arrow
`13:19
`
`3
`
`6:4 12:20
`311 (b)
`5:7
`
`35
`5:6
`
`9
`
`5:21,23 6:1,
`3
`
`A
`
`absence
`8:8
`accessibility
`6:24 7:22
`accompanying
`7:8
`
`accused
`12:14
`
`art
`4:20,24 5:8,
`16 7:23
`
`asserted
`5:1,8
`ATTORNEY
`4:7,11 6:6,
`10,14 10:17
`13:9
`
`available
`4:19
`aware
`
`5:11
`
`Legal Support
`
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`
`
`10:21 11:10
`
`gave
`9:15
`give
`10:6,8 11:21
`given
`7:15,18
`good
`4:5 5:19,24
`6:18 10:6,8
`grant
`8:9 13:13
`granted
`6:21 10:22
`grounds
`5:8,11
`
`6:6,10
`10:17,18
`filed
`4:9,16
`final
`9:7 12:17
`14:19
`finally
`9:3 10:5
`finding
`5:15
`
`first
`4:22 6:20
`10:21 14:25
`
`four
`9:6
`
`H
`
`happy
`5:24 10:11
`
`head
`10:10
`
`hear
`6:13 10:16
`13:8
`
`heard
`
`event
`14:5
`
`exact
`7:9
`
`excludes
`5:7
`expectations
`11:4
`
`expert
`13:20
`explaining
`4:5
`explicit
`11:4
`expressly
`5:7
`extraordinary
`7:16
`extremely
`7:16 8:10
`
`F
`
`fact
`6:22 8:11,16
`14:10
`
`facts
`10:6,8 11:7
`fail
`13:15
`
`fare
`7:14
`
`federal
`4:23 5:3,14
`9:19 12:19,
`23
`
`Feldhake
`4:7,11,14
`
`Hearing
`2024
`July 08,
`
`consideration
`12:25
`
`consistent
`5:6,21
`constitute
`4:19
`
`14,15
`delaying
`12:12
`
`denied
`6:22 7:11
`13:16 14:1
`
`end
`8:18
`equities
`10:4
`
`erred
`4:23
`
`constitutes
`4:25 5:4
`
`determination
`5:3
`
`establish
`6:18
`
`correction
`12:21
`correctly
`4:17
`correspondenc
`e
`
`14:11
`
`cost
`7:7 11:1
`
`counsel
`11:15 12:22
`course
`
`8:22 9:2
`10:9
`
`court
`5:13 6:22
`7:11 8:9,14,
`16,19 11:12,
`16,17,21
`12:3,4 13:15
`14:1,8,9,12,
`13,20,24
`Crudo
`6:14,15
`13:9,10
`cut
`12:13,16
`
`D
`
`date
`9:6 12:5
`
`decided
`4:18
`
`decision
`5:17 7:3
`9:7,11
`delay
`9:11 12:12,
`
`different
`11:7
`
`difficult
`10:7
`
`direction
`12:13,16
`discrete
`8:2
`
`distributed
`
`5:5
`
`District
`8:14,16
`11:12,16,17,
`20 12:3,4
`14:8,11,13
`documents
`13:21
`doing
`8:8
`
`dollars
`12:10
`
`draw
`10:23
`
`E
`
`
`14:11
`
`E-MAILING
`9:21
`
`earliest
`14:24
`efficiency
`7:18 8:12
`9:25 11:11
`14:15
`
`either
`12:8,13,16
`
`Legal Support
`
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`
`
`Honor
`4:8 6:7,15
`10:5,18 14:8
`Honors
`5:10 7:1
`9:4,14 11:2,
`25 12:7
`13:2,5,10,
`19,25 14:20
`Honors'
`5:18
`hope
`14:17
`
`5:19
`
`8:5 14:21
`
`14:6
`
`meet
`9:20
`
`million
`12:10
`
`Mitchell
`4:14 10:18
`
`months
`9:8 11:19
`12:5
`
`motivation
`8:3
`
`October
`7:12
`Okay
`4:2 6:2,12
`10:13 13:6
`
`on-sale
`5:6,7
`One
`6:25
`opinion
`
`Legal Support
`
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`Hearing
`2024
`July 08,
`
`IPRS
`11:24
`
`issue
`5:12,14 7:5,
`9,21,25 9:22
`12:3,8,16
`13:25 14:12
`
`issues
`6:24 7:18,19
`8:2 10:25
`11:3
`issuing
`9:12
`
`J
`
`January
`8:15,18 14:2
`JUDGE
`4:2 6:2,8,12
`10:13 13:6
`judgment
`12:9,12
`judicial
`8:24 14:14
`
`JURGOVAN
`4:2 6:2,8,12
`10:13 13:6
`jury
`12:9
`
`limited
`7:22 8:1
`litigation
`8:14 9:13
`longer
`7:24
`
`made
`10:20 11:23
`14:9
`majority
`13:14
`
`make
`11:8 14:16
`
`makes
`8:21 14:3,15
`
`manage
`10:2
`
`mandate
`9:20 12:19,
`23
`
`manual
`4:24 5:4 7:5
`11:6
`
`manuals
`4:18 5:12,15
`7:23
`
`matter
`14:14
`Meaning
`13:14
`means
`
`move
`
`12:22
`
`moved
`6:4 8:17
`9:19
`multiple
`12:10
`
`N
`
`Network's
`10:24
`
`Networks
`7:1 11:9
`13:17
`never
`
`9:19
`
`normal
`9:2
`
`note
`9:14,18
`noted
`8:10 13:15
`
`notwithstandi
`
`ng
`7:7
`
`November
`8:17
`
`Oo
`
`obviousness
`8:2
`occur
`
`12:6,18
`high
`7:7
`holding
`4:24
`
`hones
`6:1
`
`I
`
`identical
`6:23
`impact
`5:17 8:22
`important
`8:5
`including
`14:22
`
`indicated
`7:24
`
`indications
`9:15
`Industry
`11:4
`
`institution
`7:2
`
`invalidate
`14:17
`involving
`6:23
`
`IPR
`4:20 5:1,9
`7:6 13:23
`
`
`
`8:2
`
`permitted
`9:10
`petition
`4:16,21 5:11
`6:21 7:4,10,
`14,19, 22
`9:11 11:1
`14:1,25
`Petitioner
`6:13,16 9:4
`10:1,23
`11:22 12:10
`13:8
`petitioners
`13:11
`petitions
`13:13,14
`14:22
`play
`10:25 11:4,8
`please
`4:4 6:13
`point
`6:25 10:21
`11:10 12:6,
`17,18 14:19
`pointed
`6:3
`points
`10:20
`precedent
`13:1
`prejudice
`9:25 12:7,8
`prejudiced
`9:4,16
`presented
`4:22 5:2
`presumption
`10:10
`previewed
`9:21
`previous
`12:15
`principal
`6:19
`
`12:4
`pushing
`14:8
`
`Q
`
`qualifies
`5:16
`qualify
`7:6
`question
`4:22 5:2
`questions
`4:22 10:12,
`14
`
`R
`
`raised
`7:18,21
`raises
`7:10 14:
`rare
`
`7:16
`
`rate
`13:13
`reason
`
`7:13 14:
`reasons
`
`6:19 11:
`12:2
`
`recall
`11:2,16
`receive
`12:12
`recently
`4:16 6:22
`13:16
`recess
`
`14:21
`
`redo
`8:7
`regard
`14:7
`regarding
`
`opportunity
`9:1
`
`order
`11:17,21
`12:4
`outstanding
`12:9
`overlap
`7:19 8:4
`
`Owner
`4:3,14 6:9,
`17 7:23
`9:10,15,16,
`18,24 10:15,
`19
`
`Owner's
`6:20 7:10,14
`10:16 13:25
`
`Owners
`14:23
`
`P
`
`parallel
`8:14 9:13
`particular
`8:3
`parties
`8:12 12:14
`
`party's
`9:22
`
`past
`6:24
`
`patent
`4:2,14 6:9,
`17,20 7:10,
`14,23 9:1,9,
`15,16,18,24
`10:15,16,19
`13:25 14:22
`
`patents
`8:13 12:1
`pending
`9:5
`
`percent
`13:13
`
`Hearing
`2024
`July 08,
`
`printed
`4:19,25 5:4
`7:6 13:22
`prior
`4:20,24 5:7,
`16 7:23 9:21
`proceed
`4:4
`proceeding
`11:14,16,18,
`22
`
`proceedings
`5:20 9:5
`10:2 12:15
`14:4
`product
`4:24 5:4,6,
`12 7:5,8
`product-—
`related
`13:21
`prohibition
`13:22
`
`promote
`7:17
`proprietary
`13:20
`provide
`5:23
`provisions
`11:5
`
`Provisur
`4:9,16,17
`Provisur's
`4:21 5:14,18
`PTAB
`
`4:17
`public
`6:23 7:22
`publication
`4:25 5:5 7:6
`publications
`4:19 13:22
`push
`11:18
`pushed
`11:12,22
`
`Legal Support
`
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`
`
`11:13
`
`summer
`
`14:21
`
`support
`10:6
`
`Supreme
`5:13 6:22
`7:11 8:9
`13:15 14:1,
`20
`sure
`
`5:10
`
`takes
`5:13
`
`target
`9:6
`telling
`10:3
`testimony
`13:20
`
`thank
`6:6,14
`10:13,17
`12:20 13:4,
`6,9
`things
`11:2
`
`think
`5:25 8:4
`9:24 10:2,7,
`24 12:7,15,
`24 13:3
`14:3,14
`third
`9:3 12:6
`
`three
`6:19,24
`throw
`14:4
`
`time
`6:9 10:14
`13:4 14:23
`
`tremendous
`8:24
`
`trial
`8:13,17,23,
`25 9:12 12:5
`14:8,16
`true
`11:18
`
`try
`10:1,19
`turn
`10:9
`
`two
`4:22 11:19
`12:5,19
`
`U
`
`U.S.C.
`5:6
`ultimately
`14:12
`
`undermine
`8:11
`undoubtedly
`5:16
`
`unfair
`9:9
`
`unknown
`12:2
`user
`
`4:18
`
`Vv
`
`vacates
`5:14
`validity
`9:1
`
`vast
`13:14
`
`Ww
`
`wait
`8:19 14:9
`waiting
`
`Hearing
`2024
`July 08,
`
`reiterate
`13:12
`
`related
`11:24 13:16
`relating
`11:11
`
`relevant
`12:25
`rely
`5:11
`
`remand
`5:17 7:25
`8:1 14:18
`remedy
`7:16
`reply
`10:16
`
`reporter
`4:10
`representatio
`n
`
`11:11
`representativ
`e
`
`11:24
`
`request
`6:19
`requesting
`4:3,8,15
`12:18
`
`resolve
`14:22,25
`resources
`
`8:24
`respond
`10:20 13:4
`reverse
`
`8:9
`
`Richard
`6:15 13:10
`
`rise
`10:6,8
`ruling
`8:22
`
`run-of-the-
`mill
`9:10
`
`rush
`9:12 14:16
`
`Ss
`
`scheduled
`8:13
`
`second
`5:2 7:17
`11:10 13:24
`see
`
`8:19 11:13
`14:10
`sense
`
`8:21 14:3,
`15,16
`show
`5:19
`
`similar
`13:24
`
`SOP
`5:21,23 6:1,
`3,4 12:20
`13:1
`
`Space
`13:19
`speaker
`4:10
`specifically
`8:18
`squarely
`5:25
`
`stay
`4:3,8,15
`5:20 6:18
`7:17 8:8,11
`9:5,19 10:7
`12:19, 22
`13:2
`stayed
`9:17
`
`stays
`10:10
`
`subset
`14:18
`
`sufficient
`5:19
`
`U.S.
`
`Legal Support
`
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`
`
`Hearing
`July 08, 2024
`
`wanted
`6:25 13:12
`
`waste
`8:24
`
`way
`12:8
`
`Weber's
`4:18,24 5:15
`work
`8:7 10:1
`
`6:24 9:6
`
`wrench
`14:4
`
`writ
`4:21
`
`written
`9:7
`
`year
`8:15,17,18
`
`years
`
`U.S. Legal Support
`
`| www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`6
`
`
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
