`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-108 ADA
`)
`) Waco, Texas
`)
`) September 2, 2020
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.
`vs.
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOCONFERENCE MOTION HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Mr. Jason S. Charkow
`Mr. Ronald M. Daignault
`Mr. Chandran B. Iyer
`Goldberg Segalla, LLP
`711 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
`New York, New York 10017
`Ms. Stephanie R. Mandir
`Goldberg Segalla, LLP
`Reston Town Center
`11921 Freedom Drive, 5th Floor
`Reston, Virginia 20190
`Mr. Raymond W. Mort, III
`The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
`100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Mr. James E. Wren, III
`Baylor University Law School
`One Bear Place #97288
`Waco, Texas 76798
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`(Appearances Continued:)
`For the Defendant:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`2
`
`Mr. Jason Choy
`Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering,
`Hale and Door, LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue,
`Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Ms. Sarah B. Petty
`Mr. Michael Summersgill
`Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering,
`Hale and Door, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`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
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`3
`
`Good afternoon.
`THE COURT:
`Good afternoon, your Honor.
`MR. WREN:
`Suzanne, would you be so kind --
`THE COURT:
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Good afternoon, Judge.
`THE COURT:
`Would you call the case, please?
`THE CLERK:
`Sure.
`Motion hearing in Civil Action W-20-CV-108,
`styled, ParkerVision, Incorporated vs. Intel Corporation.
`THE COURT:
`If I could hear from counsel of
`record, please, starting with the plaintiff, whoever will
`be speaking during this hearing.
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`This is Ron Daignault from Goldberg Segalla for
`the Plaintiff ParkerVision. And with me today are also
`Jeff Parker, the CEO of ParkerVision, along with Chandran
`Iyer, Jason Charkow, Ray Mort and Stephanie Mandir.
`THE COURT: Welcome to all of you, especially
`your client. I appreciate him taking the time to attend.
`MR. PARKER: Thank you. Good afternoon.
`MR. WREN: Your Honor, Jim Wren here for Intel.
`I want to introduce from Wilmer Hale, Michael Summersgill,
`Jason Choy and Sarah Petty. I also want to introduce from
`Intel, Kim Schmitt, Brad Waugh and Lien Dang.
`And, your Honor, conspicuously missing in action
`today is Steve Ravel, who encountered a hopefully brief
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`14:02:57
`
`14:02:57
`
`14:02:59
`
`14:03:02
`
`14:03:07
`
`14:03:09
`
`14:03:12
`
`14:03:14
`
`14:03:15
`
`14:03:18
`
`14:03:22
`
`14:03:28
`
`14:03:31
`
`14:03:33
`
`14:03:38
`
`14:03:40
`
`14:03:43
`
`14:03:49
`
`14:03:54
`
`14:03:58
`
`14:04:01
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`4
`
`health issue this week and for whom I am subbing in. Mr.
`Ravel is doing well, sends his regards to the Court and
`opposing counsel.
`And Mr. Summersgill will be taking the lead for
`Intel today, and then, I'll join in on some brief points.
`THE COURT: We missed Mr. Ravel yesterday, as
`well. So I hope he is -- let him know, I hope he's
`feeling better.
`MR. WREN: I will. Thank you, Judge.
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me tell you part of the
`reason -- the primary reason I set this. We have done a
`lot of work already on this motion. I think we feel like
`we're in pretty good shape, generally speaking, on what
`you all submitted. The briefs as usual are terrific. But
`what I don't know is -- other than every other citizen in
`the United States is what the current status is of the
`courts in Oregon.
`And I think it is -- I would like to hear first,
`I guess, from the defendants since it's their motion to
`transfer. I'd like to hear first whether or not counsel
`knows what the current situation is regarding the docket
`of the federal court where you're seeking this to be
`transferred to and the impact. I don't know -- I feel
`kind of ignorant other than seeing the news. But it seems
`to me as a casual observer that with a hundred nights in a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`14:04:08
`
`14:04:12
`
`14:04:16
`
`14:04:17
`
`14:04:21
`
`14:04:24
`
`14:04:26
`
`14:04:30
`
`14:04:32
`
`14:04:33
`
`14:04:35
`
`14:04:41
`
`14:04:44
`
`14:04:49
`
`14:04:54
`
`14:05:01
`
`14:05:05
`
`14:05:08
`
`14:05:12
`
`14:05:15
`
`14:05:20
`
`14:05:24
`
`14:05:29
`
`14:05:35
`
`14:05:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`5
`
`row of protests and violence, that that has to have had
`some impact on the judiciary and what's happening in
`Portland. But I could be totally wrong. That might just
`be surmise on my side.
`So what I'd like to hear if counsel from either
`side knows, and I'll start with counsel for defendant who
`is the movant, if you know whether or not the -- what the
`status of the federal courts are and how the last 100 days
`or longer has impacted what they're doing with their civil
`docket.
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, this is Michael
`Summersgill.
`Thank you for holding the hearing. And the way
`Mr. Wren and I had divided the issues is that I was going
`to focus more on the private interest factors, and he was
`going to focus on the public interest factors. But I have
`spent a fair amount of time in Portland, so I thought I'd
`like a crack at this. And then, if Mr. Wren has
`additional thoughts, he could add them.
`That the court up in Portland is one that we've
`been before a number of times. There are currently 14
`patent cases pending up there. So it's a relatively light
`load. The judges up there are very experienced with
`patent cases, though, despite the relatively light load.
`I'm not aware of the protests having any impact
`
`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
`
`14:05:43
`
`14:05:48
`
`14:05:52
`
`14:05:55
`
`14:05:56
`
`14:05:58
`
`14:06:01
`
`14:06:05
`
`14:06:10
`
`14:06:14
`
`14:06:15
`
`14:06:17
`
`14:06:19
`
`14:06:21
`
`14:06:24
`
`14:06:28
`
`14:06:31
`
`14:06:34
`
`14:06:36
`
`14:06:39
`
`14:06:45
`
`14:06:50
`
`14:06:56
`
`14:06:58
`
`14:07:04
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`6
`
`right now on the judiciary. Now I can't say for certain
`that it hasn't had any impact at all, your Honor, but I
`will say this, that for whatever reason, periodically
`there have been flare-ups like that up in Portland even
`before these most recent through the COVID-related unrest.
`And in fact, even when I have been there for hearings in
`other cases, that it has had no impact on the judiciary,
`and I think, in part, it's because they tend to happen in
`locations that are well away from the court.
`So it is a jurisdiction that we're very familiar
`with that we've litigated in, that Intel has litigated in
`before, and that we're in touch with folks in that
`jurisdiction and not aware of any disruptions relating to
`the protests.
`THE COURT: And can you give me an idea from --
`with regard to the whatever -- I was going to use the word
`"handful." Whatever -- I think you said 14, whatever,
`whatever the number is of patent cases you have any
`personal experience or general understanding specifically
`about in terms of how quickly they get things done on
`patent cases.
`We always have all these, you know, metrics and
`we've got Oregon, we've got districts. But I feel much
`more -- for example, I know when people cite numbers for
`the Western District of Texas, that doesn't necessarily --
`
`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
`
`14:07:10
`
`14:07:14
`
`14:07:17
`
`14:07:22
`
`14:07:26
`
`14:07:30
`
`14:07:35
`
`14:07:41
`
`14:07:44
`
`14:07:49
`
`14:07:50
`
`14:07:56
`
`14:08:00
`
`14:08:05
`
`14:08:05
`
`14:08:08
`
`14:08:13
`
`14:08:16
`
`14:08:22
`
`14:08:26
`
`14:08:29
`
`14:08:30
`
`14:08:34
`
`14:08:37
`
`14:08:42
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`7
`
`is not necessarily accurate, for example, the Waco
`Division. So any information you have that you could put
`on the record with respect to how quickly things move
`where you're seeking this litigation be transferred to
`with regards specifically to patent litigation would be
`helpful.
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Yes, your Honor.
`And I don't know if Mr. Wren has the specific
`metrics, but I agree with your Honor that sometimes the --
`for the general metrics aren't quite accurate. I think
`the general metrics for Portland are quite fast. Now, in
`our experience, the patent litigations up in Portland have
`moved very expeditiously. Trial somewhere between, you
`know, 24 to 30 months out from the complaint.
`Again, they don't have the same type of load of
`patent cases, but they have extensive experience with
`patent cases and move them along quite quickly. And then,
`I've had two recent cases there in both -- and I don't
`remember the specific numbers, your Honor, but trial was
`set roughly 24 to 28 months after the complaint.
`THE COURT: So at least from your experience,
`your personal experience, your anecdotal experience, which
`is important, it's a relatively -- in a normal patent
`case, it's a -- it's 24 to whatever number of months.
`Twenty-four to 30 months would probably be a fair average?
`
`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
`
`14:08:45
`
`14:08:49
`
`14:08:52
`
`14:08:56
`
`14:09:00
`
`14:09:03
`
`14:09:04
`
`14:09:05
`
`14:09:09
`
`14:09:12
`
`14:09:17
`
`14:09:23
`
`14:09:28
`
`14:09:31
`
`14:09:38
`
`14:09:44
`
`14:09:47
`
`14:09:52
`
`14:09:57
`
`14:09:59
`
`14:10:07
`
`14:10:10
`
`14:10:14
`
`14:10:18
`
`14:10:23
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`8
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. WREN: And, your Honor, if I might join in,
`it's essentially the same, but when I looked that up on
`Docket Navigator yesterday, the time to trial on patent
`cases was essentially equivalent to what's already been
`quoted to the Court in the briefing for the cases to trial
`generally, and it was falling in that 24-month category.
`THE COURT: Okay. Very good.
`If I could hear from counsel for the plaintiff
`with respect to initial question about if you have any
`personal, anecdotal, something you think is inaccurate
`with respect to what's happening with regard to litigation
`in federal courts in the Portland area where transfer is
`sought.
`
`It is Portland, right? It's being sought to be
`transferred to Portland, I think?
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: That's correct, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. If the plaintiff would like to
`-- if the plaintiff has any relevant knowledge they would
`like to impart to the Court, I welcome it.
`MR. DAIGNAULT: No, your Honor. We don't have
`any specific evidence in how the Portland court is
`functioning, given, you know, what's going on in Portland
`these days both with the -- you know, the unrest but,
`
`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
`
`14:10:27
`
`14:10:28
`
`14:10:30
`
`14:10:33
`
`14:10:36
`
`14:10:41
`
`14:10:44
`
`14:10:48
`
`14:10:51
`
`14:10:52
`
`14:10:57
`
`14:11:00
`
`14:11:06
`
`14:11:10
`
`14:11:15
`
`14:11:16
`
`14:11:19
`
`14:11:22
`
`14:11:23
`
`14:11:26
`
`14:11:28
`
`14:11:31
`
`14:11:32
`
`14:11:35
`
`14:11:38
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`9
`
`also, with the coronavirus.
`I do know, for example, in Delaware, not Oregon
`obviously, but in Delaware, it's taking us about six to
`nine months before you even get a CMC conference. So one
`concern that we have is that if this case is, in fact,
`transferred to Oregon, it may be a while before you even
`get in front of a judge.
`Again, we have nothing specific to offer in that
`regard, but we do share the Court's concerns about that.
`And in this case, your Honor, we already have a claim
`construction hearing scheduled for January, a trial date
`February 7, '22, which actually is about 24 months from
`when we filed the case. So according to our studies, your
`Honor, and the information we provided in our declaration
`and in the brief, the median time for trial in Oregon is
`25 months while the Western District was the 24.6 months.
`You know, six -- a slight difference.
`But also, to pick up on your Honor's comment, I
`don't believe that takes into consideration the Waco
`Division's operation and the fact that we now have a trial
`set for February 7, '22. So even if this case were
`transferred to Oregon, we believe that it's highly
`unlikely that we will get a trial date any earlier than
`that February date in '22.
`THE COURT: Understood.
`
`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
`
`14:11:41
`
`14:11:43
`
`14:11:46
`
`14:11:49
`
`14:11:53
`
`14:11:57
`
`14:11:59
`
`14:12:01
`
`14:12:04
`
`14:12:09
`
`14:12:11
`
`14:12:14
`
`14:12:20
`
`14:12:26
`
`14:12:29
`
`14:12:32
`
`14:12:35
`
`14:12:39
`
`14:12:42
`
`14:12:46
`
`14:12:48
`
`14:12:52
`
`14:12:55
`
`14:13:00
`
`14:13:04
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`10
`
`So all -- I'm sorry. Did someone else want to
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, this is -- go
`
`comment?
`
`ahead.
`
`MR. MORT: Your Honor, this is Ray Mort.
`I'm just looking here on my -- on some of the
`numbers. Of the 15 cases, it looks like half of them in
`Oregon were filed in 2017, one of them 2018. I just
`looked at one of them in 2017, they're still in discovery.
`I think if your Honor would want more information, we
`could pull the data for these cases and pull the
`scheduling orders and what's happened in that -- this
`would be helpful to the Court, we could do that.
`THE COURT: Yeah. I think this is, given the
`representation -- and, Mr. Summersgill, I'll let you speak
`in just one second.
`I think given Mr. Summersgill's representation
`that -- of how quickly he believes cases are getting to
`trial, getting through Markman, and then, getting through
`trial, Mr. Mort, if you have any more -- or whoever for
`plaintiff, if you have any more granular information and
`you can get it to the Court, we're working on this right
`now. I don't know if we'll get it out immediately, but I
`know that we're focused on this motion and that's why I
`asked for this hearing to be set.
`
`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
`
`14:13:05
`
`14:13:10
`
`14:13:13
`
`14:13:14
`
`14:13:15
`
`14:13:17
`
`14:13:20
`
`14:13:24
`
`14:13:30
`
`14:13:35
`
`14:13:36
`
`14:13:39
`
`14:13:42
`
`14:13:45
`
`14:13:48
`
`14:13:51
`
`14:13:55
`
`14:14:00
`
`14:14:06
`
`14:14:09
`
`14:14:13
`
`14:14:18
`
`14:14:20
`
`14:14:22
`
`14:14:25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`11
`
`But, Mr. Mort, if you could get that to us, say,
`by the end of the workweek, obviously share it with Mr.
`Summersgill and team, and if there's anything they would
`like any rebuttal evidence, for lack of a word, or -- what
`I'm anticipating, Mr. Mort, is you just getting to us the
`actual documents themselves that would allow us, the
`Court, to figure out a better idea of what the lay of the
`land is in Portland.
`But certainly, Mr. Summersgill, if and when you
`get the information from Mr. Mort and the plaintiffs, if
`you feel that it doesn't provide the Court a full picture
`of what's happening there, I'd certainly invite you -- I
`certainly want you to have an opportunity to give me the
`full picture. And so, why don't we do this.
`Mr. Mort, if you could get to me -- it's
`Wednesday -- by at the end of the week, by the end of the
`workday Friday, whatever you're going to submit, obviously
`provide it to counsel for defendant. I'll wait. I'm not
`going to formally state anything, but I'll give the
`defendant through the end of the day Tuesday to supplement
`you all's record to make sure I have an accurate picture
`of what's happening procedurally in Portland.
`Mr. Summersgill, let me start with -- Mr. Mort,
`does that give you sufficient time?
`MR. MORT: Absolutely.
`
`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
`
`14:14:27
`
`14:14:31
`
`14:14:34
`
`14:14:37
`
`14:14:43
`
`14:14:46
`
`14:14:50
`
`14:14:55
`
`14:14:57
`
`14:15:00
`
`14:15:04
`
`14:15:08
`
`14:15:13
`
`14:15:16
`
`14:15:21
`
`14:15:24
`
`14:15:28
`
`14:15:34
`
`14:15:38
`
`14:15:41
`
`14:15:47
`
`14:15:50
`
`14:15:53
`
`14:15:55
`
`14:15:57
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: And, Mr. Summersgill, does that give
`defendants sufficient time?
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. So that being said, why don't
`we do this and I -- y'all may have gotten more inspired
`and more ready for this hearing than what I needed to get
`done today, and if so, I apologize because I have another
`hearing I've gotta take up. We covered what I really care
`about.
`
`I also think that having the additional
`information, Mr. Mort, addressed -- I think that's going
`to be an important issue in this particular motion. Maybe
`more so than -- I think it will be because it is a
`different can of worms than my ordinary transfer to
`northern California, which I'm pretty aware of the delta
`in that situation.
`So I would feel more comfortable having that
`additional information because I think it really may make
`a difference in this case. And so, what I would propose
`we do and since I get to propose and decide that's what
`we'll do both, but at least because their client's on
`board, I don't want them to think I'm too much of a flake.
`I think having the additional information would
`be better, and we'll reset this hearing for next -- end of
`next week, Thursday or -- Wednesday, Thursday or Friday,
`
`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
`
`14:15:58
`
`14:16:00
`
`14:16:02
`
`14:16:03
`
`14:16:06
`
`14:16:10
`
`14:16:14
`
`14:16:18
`
`14:16:21
`
`14:16:21
`
`14:16:24
`
`14:16:29
`
`14:16:34
`
`14:16:38
`
`14:16:44
`
`14:16:48
`
`14:16:49
`
`14:16:52
`
`14:16:55
`
`14:16:59
`
`14:17:04
`
`14:17:09
`
`14:17:13
`
`14:17:15
`
`14:17:22
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`13
`
`once I have the information and we can assess it.
`Whatever you've done to prepare for today, I'll be happy
`to take up next week. But I also may have -- you should
`also come prepared, if you want to, to be able to, you
`know, to talk about what's happening in Portland.
`I think -- I do think it's very important to make
`sure that the plaintiff gets essentially -- as one of the
`factors, gets essentially the same track towards trial
`they might get here, but that's just one of the factors.
`And I'll hear about the other factors, as well.
`All that being said, I'll start with Mr.
`Summersgill, if there's anything you just absolutely feel
`compelled that you were prepared to say today that you
`think I couldn't live without hearing and my life would be
`better if I heard it today, I'm happy to hear it from you,
`and then, I'll make -- I'll give the same invitation to
`the plaintiff.
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, I just wanted to
`address something on this particular issue.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: In response to comments, which
`one of my colleagues pointed out to me that Exhibit 35 to
`our papers are the Lex Machina time to trial results and
`that the median time to trial in Oregon since 2000 is 22
`months, which is consistent with my experience. And my
`
`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
`
`14:17:26
`
`14:17:27
`
`14:17:30
`
`14:17:34
`
`14:17:41
`
`14:17:44
`
`14:17:46
`
`14:17:51
`
`14:17:57
`
`14:17:59
`
`14:18:02
`
`14:18:04
`
`14:18:07
`
`14:18:11
`
`14:18:13
`
`14:18:17
`
`14:18:20
`
`14:18:21
`
`14:18:22
`
`14:18:25
`
`14:18:26
`
`14:18:27
`
`14:18:31
`
`14:18:38
`
`14:18:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`14
`
`experience, as I said, are the cases we've been involved
`with have been a little bit more complicated than the
`average case, so it's been more like 24 to 28 months.
`That's point number one.
`Point number two is, you know, Mr. Daignault
`referred to the fact that sometimes you have to wait in
`Delaware six, seven, eight months for a status conference.
`That's been our experience in Delaware, as well, and I
`think the reason for that is just because there are so
`many cases filed there. That's not been our experience in
`Portland. The judges set status conferences quite
`quickly, in my experience, and set out the rules of the
`road very quickly so that the cases move forward
`expeditiously and efficiently.
`THE COURT: Then why don't -- I'll slightly
`modify. Thank you for that information. I don't -- like
`I said, I'm not quite as granular on the exhibits. I've
`read the briefs.
`So with that as a starting point, Mr. Mort, I
`would look at the exhibit number. I think Mr. Summersgill
`said 33 that they've done. If you believe there are any
`-- if you believe there's any additional information you
`need to add to supplement what the defendant has done in
`that regard with respect to information about time to
`trial, time to status conference, whatever, please feel
`
`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
`
`14:18:46
`
`14:18:49
`
`14:18:51
`
`14:18:55
`
`14:18:59
`
`14:19:03
`
`14:19:04
`
`14:19:07
`
`14:19:09
`
`14:19:11
`
`14:19:16
`
`14:19:21
`
`14:19:24
`
`14:19:29
`
`14:19:31
`
`14:19:33
`
`14:19:36
`
`14:19:39
`
`14:19:42
`
`14:19:45
`
`14:19:50
`
`14:19:55
`
`14:19:57
`
`14:20:00
`
`14:20:03
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`15
`
`free to do that by at the end of Friday.
`If Mr. Summersgill and team feel there's
`additional information that the Court would want to have,
`get that to us by the end of the day Tuesday next week,
`and we will set a hearing by the end of next week on this
`motion. And at least for right now, my plan would be to
`-- at least we won't have anything written, but I'll come
`into the hearing ready, pretty armed to get through it,
`and I would anticipate you all will get a decision -- an
`oral decision at the end of the hearing. So we're not
`losing that much time.
`I just -- I really wanted to hear the information
`about what's going on in Portland right now because what's
`in the news, and I had no other source for that.
`So is there anything else -- I'll start with the
`plaintiff -- that you all would like to take up before we
`break today? Anything that would be helpful to put me on
`notice of before I have the hearing or anything like that?
`MR. DAIGNAULT: One more point, your Honor, on
`the court statistics.
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`MR. DAIGNAULT: We pointed out in our brief that
`83 percent of the patent cases in Oregon are stayed when
`an IPR is filed. While that statistic for Western
`District is 30 percent and obviously in Waco, percentage
`
`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
`
`14:20:06
`
`14:20:10
`
`14:20:13
`
`14:20:16
`
`14:20:19
`
`14:20:23
`
`14:20:28
`
`14:20:32
`
`14:20:37
`
`14:20:41
`
`14:20:44
`
`14:20:45
`
`14:20:49
`
`14:20:51
`
`14:20:55
`
`14:20:57
`
`14:21:00
`
`14:21:03
`
`14:21:07
`
`14:21:08
`
`14:21:11
`
`14:21:12
`
`14:21:13
`
`14:21:17
`
`14:21:20
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`16
`
`is even less, if not, you know.
`THE COURT: Zero.
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Zero.
`THE COURT: Zero is less.
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Right.
`And the point they made in their reply brief, I
`believe, is Intel said, well, we're not going to file a
`motion for a stay. You know, that may be their present
`thinking now. But even if that is the case, obviously a
`district court judge has the ability to sua sponte invite
`a motion to stay or even grant a stay.
`So that -- in addition to congestion or speed to
`trial issues we're talking about, we are also concerned
`about the IPR situation and the 83 percent of staying
`cases in Oregon because Intel has informed us that they do
`intend to file IPRs on all of the patents in the case, and
`they've already filed one. So, you know, I just wanted to
`address the point they made in their reply about we're not
`going to file a motion for stay. Again, that may be the
`case, but that doesn't mean that the district court itself
`in Oregon could not do that when he or she --
`THE COURT: Well, let me, then, tell you all
`this. That's a good thing to know not because it sways me
`one way or the other, but it does -- I'm not sure I'll
`still remember we had this conversation by the end of next
`
`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
`
`14:21:23
`
`14:21:25
`
`14:21:26
`
`14:21:27
`
`14:21:28
`
`14:21:29
`
`14:21:34
`
`14:21:37
`
`14:21:40
`
`14:21:43
`
`14:21:47
`
`14:21:49
`
`14:21:53
`
`14:21:56
`
`14:22:02
`
`14:22:06
`
`14:22:10
`
`14:22:13
`
`14:22:16
`
`14:22:18
`
`14:22:20
`
`14:22:23
`
`14:22:25
`
`14:22:33
`
`14:22:36
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`17
`
`week. There will be a lot of hearings.
`But if I don't ask you this, Mr. Wren, I'll put
`it on you. Ordinarily it will be Mr. Ravel, but he's MIA.
`But someone needs to remind me. I certainly understand
`the point that you just made. What I am unaware of is, at
`least as of right now, whether or not the potential, or
`even the likelihood, that the Court to which a case might
`be sent might stay it.
`Does that have -- should that be considered by me
`or not? And so, I certainly understand the impact of the
`statistic that you just gave. I'm not certain I've seen
`any law that tells me I'm supposed to bake that into my
`decision about whether or not to transfer cases. I am
`very aware of what I've done with regard to staying cases
`on IPR.
`
`So y'all don't need to do any additional briefing
`on that. But it would be fascinating to me for you all if
`there is -- if there are any cases out there, if there
`aren't any cases but should be, if philosophically that
`should be an important consideration in terms of whether
`or not the Court transfers a case, I would certainly -- I
`would invite lawyers of this caliber to come next week and
`help me get that right. Because maybe that's a question
`that should be asked. I don't -- I don't know if it
`should be or not, but it certainly, from my perspective,
`
`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
`
`14:22:38
`
`14:22:40
`
`14:22:45
`
`14:22:48
`
`14:22:53
`
`14:22:58
`
`14:23:02
`
`14:23:06
`
`14:23:10
`
`14:23:12
`
`14:23:19
`
`14:23:22
`
`14:23:26
`
`14:23:30
`
`14:23:35
`
`14:23:36
`
`14:23:39
`
`14:23:43
`
`14:23:46
`
`14:23:51
`
`14:23:55
`
`14:23:58
`
`14:24:03
`
`14:24:06
`
`14:24:09
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`18
`
`having practiced patent litigation for 20 years, certainly
`seems like it should be something that's relevant, but
`maybe it's not.
`But I will be -- I will certainly be prepared to
`hear that argument next week. Primarily of whether or not
`I can, slash, or should take that into consideration.
`Anything else from the plaintiff?
`MR. DAIGNAULT: No, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Mr. Summersgill?
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, just to correct one
`thing factually. We have not informed the plaintiffs that
`we intend to file IPRs on all the patents; and in fact, we
`don't. And in my experience, I have yet to have a judge
`sua sponte stay a case that where I wanted it stayed. So
`maybe Mr. Daignault's experience has been a little bit
`different. We'll certainly come prepared next week to
`address that.
`THE COURT: Well, again, Mr. Summersgill, I am
`more on the level of whether or not it should or should
`not happen. But to the extent -- but I'm on his team in
`terms of knowing that it does happen. And so -- because I
`have seen -- you know, I understand that there are certain
`judges who would prefer to stay patent cases. There's
`certain judges who would prefer to transfer patent cases.
`They don't have the affliction other judges do of actually
`
`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
`
`14:24:12
`
`14:24:16
`
`14:24:18
`
`14:24:20
`
`14:24:23
`
`14:24:27
`
`14:24:34
`
`14:24:36
`
`14:24:37
`
`14:24:39
`
`14:24:40
`
`14:24:43
`
`14:24:46
`
`14:24:49
`
`14:24:55
`
`14:24:59
`
`14:25:02
`
`14:25:02
`
`14:25:05
`
`14:25:08
`
`14:25:15
`
`14:25:20
`
`14:25:23
`
`14:25:26
`
`14:25:30
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`19
`
`enjoying patent cases, and so, I know that happens.
`But let me make clear on the record that that
`happens, I don't know is something that would be an
`appropriate consideration for me to make. And that's
`really what I'll care about next week is hearing sort of
`along the lines of even if I were to presume -- let's push
`it to the furthest extent. If I were to presume that the
`Oregon judge were to -- was going to stay whatever patents
`you all filed IPRs on, should I consider that?
`And I don't know. I haven't seen any cases on
`it. There may be no cases on it. And, you know, to the
`extent we are sticking with the Fifth Circuit rules on
`motions to transfer, it's pretty unlikely they've
`addressed it is my guess. I would very definitely be
`interested in hearing you all's thoughts on.
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: And, your Honor, we certainly
`will be prepared to address that next week. I do know
`that, you know, at least the Genentech Federal Circuit
`case said that the schedule alone can't be the dictating
`fact. But we'll certainly be prepared to address that.
`And just so that we're all -- we're very clear with your
`Honor and with the plaintiffs on the record, we only plan
`to file IPRs on two of the patents at issue in this case.
`THE COURT: Okay. And to the extent that I'm
`going to -- I have no -- I'm not -- I'm only saying 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
`
`14:25:33
`
`14:25:37
`
`14:25:42
`
`14:25:45
`
`14:25:49
`
`14:25:53
`
`14:25:59
`
`14:26:03
`
`14:26:10
`
`14:26:16
`
`14:26:21
`
`14:26:26
`
`14:26:29
`
`14:26:33
`
`14:26:38
`
`14:26:41
`
`14:26:42
`
`14:26:46
`
`14:26:51
`
`14:26:54
`
`14:26:56
`
`14:26:58
`
`14:27:00
`
`14:27:06
`
`14:27:10
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2010
`IPR2021-00990
`Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`20
`
`in the event that I do it. I haven't made up my mind.
`Hadn't really thought about it before we had this hearing.
`But I will say that to the extent that the plaintiff would
`argue I shouldn't transfer because of the potential of an
`IPR, I will certainly take into consideration that there
`would not be an IPR on all the patents; and if I do
`consider one, I will let the defendant know right now, I
`would consider the whole universe of the facts, including
`that you would only be doing it on two. But I haven't
`decided at all that it's appropriate to consider it at
`all.
`
`Anything else?
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Not from Intel, your Honor.
`Thank you.
`THE COURT: Anything else from the plaintiff?
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Your Honor, not to air, you know,
`laundry, but we did receive a communication from
`plaintiffs -- from defendant a few months ago, I think it
`was, a few weeks ago, saying that they would file IPRs in
`all of the patents. So that's where this is coming from.
`Mr. Summersgill --
`THE COURT: Look what a great job I've done for
`
`you.
`
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Exactly. Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: In this beating down I've given both
`
`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
`
`14:27:16
`
`14:27:19
`
`14:27:22
`
`14:27:26
`
`14:27:30
`
`14:27:33
`
`14:27:37
`
`14:27:42
`
`14:27:44
`
`14:27:50
`
`14:27:53
`
`14:27:55
`
`14:27:56
`
`14:27:59
`
`14:27:59
`
`14:28:01
`
`14:28:05
`
`14:28:09
`
`14:28:10
`
`14:28:14
`
`14:28:15
`
`14:28:15
`
`14:28:18
`
`14:28:18
`
`14:28:20
`
`LILY I. REZNIK,