Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.
`
`vs.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-108 ADA
`)
`) Waco, Texas
`)
`) September 2, 2020
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOCONFERENCE MOTION HEARING
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`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
`
`Mr. James E. Wren, III
`Baylor University Law School
`One Bear Place #97288
`Waco, Texas 76798
`
`10
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.
`
`vs.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-108 ADA
`)
`) Waco, Texas
`)
`) September 2, 2020
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOCONFERENCE MOTION HEARING
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`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
`
`Mr. James E. Wren, III
`Baylor University Law School
`One Bear Place #97288
`Waco, Texas 76798
`
`10
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`2
`
`(Appearances Continued:)
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`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
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`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)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`14:02:57
`
`14:02:57
`
`14:02:59
`
`14:03:02
`
`14:03:07
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`
`MR. WREN: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Suzanne, would you be so kind --
`
`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
`
`14:03:09
`
`10
`
`record, please, starting with the plaintiff, whoever will
`
`14:03:12
`
`11
`
`be speaking during this hearing.
`
`14:03:14
`
`12
`
`MR. DAIGNAULT: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`
`14:03:15
`
`13
`
`This is Ron Daignault from Goldberg Segalla for
`
`14:03:18
`
`14
`
`the Plaintiff ParkerVision. And with me today are also
`
`14:03:22
`
`15
`
`Jeff Parker, the CEO of ParkerVision, along with Chandran
`
`14:03:28
`
`16
`
`Iyer, Jason Charkow, Ray Mort and Stephanie Mandir.
`
`14:03:31
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Welcome to all of you, especially
`
`14:03:33
`
`18
`
`your client. I appreciate him taking the time to attend.
`
`14:03:38
`
`19
`
`MR. PARKER: Thank you. Good afternoon.
`
`14:03:40
`
`20
`
`MR. WREN: Your Honor, Jim Wren here for Intel.
`
`14:03:43
`
`21
`
`I want to introduce from Wilmer Hale, Michael Summersgill,
`
`14:03:49
`
`22
`
`Jason Choy and Sarah Petty. I also want to introduce from
`
`14:03:54
`
`23
`
`Intel, Kim Schmitt, Brad Waugh and Lien Dang.
`
`14:03:58
`
`24
`
`And, your Honor, conspicuously missing in action
`
`14:04:01
`
`25
`
`today is Steve Ravel, who encountered a hopefully brief
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`4
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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.
`
`14:04:33
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me tell you part of the
`
`14:04:35
`
`11
`
`reason -- the primary reason I set this. We have done a
`
`14:04:41
`
`12
`
`lot of work already on this motion. I think we feel like
`
`14:04:44
`
`13
`
`we're in pretty good shape, generally speaking, on what
`
`14:04:49
`
`14
`
`you all submitted. The briefs as usual are terrific. But
`
`14:04:54
`
`15
`
`what I don't know is -- other than every other citizen in
`
`14:05:01
`
`16
`
`the United States is what the current status is of the
`
`14:05:05
`
`17
`
`courts in Oregon.
`
`14:05:08
`
`18
`
`And I think it is -- I would like to hear first,
`
`14:05:12
`
`19
`
`I guess, from the defendants since it's their motion to
`
`14:05:15
`
`20
`
`transfer. I'd like to hear first whether or not counsel
`
`14:05:20
`
`21
`
`knows what the current situation is regarding the docket
`
`14:05:24
`
`22
`
`of the federal court where you're seeking this to be
`
`14:05:29
`
`23
`
`transferred to and the impact. I don't know -- I feel
`
`14:05:35
`
`24
`
`kind of ignorant other than seeing the news. But it seems
`
`14:05:39
`
`25
`
`to me as a casual observer that with a hundred nights in a
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`5
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`14:06:14
`
`10
`
`docket.
`
`14:06:15
`
`11
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, this is Michael
`
`14:06:17
`
`12
`
`Summersgill.
`
`14:06:19
`
`13
`
`Thank you for holding the hearing. And the way
`
`14:06:21
`
`14
`
`Mr. Wren and I had divided the issues is that I was going
`
`14:06:24
`
`15
`
`to focus more on the private interest factors, and he was
`
`14:06:28
`
`16
`
`going to focus on the public interest factors. But I have
`
`14:06:31
`
`17
`
`spent a fair amount of time in Portland, so I thought I'd
`
`14:06:34
`
`18
`
`like a crack at this. And then, if Mr. Wren has
`
`14:06:36
`
`19
`
`additional thoughts, he could add them.
`
`14:06:39
`
`20
`
`That the court up in Portland is one that we've
`
`14:06:45
`
`21
`
`been before a number of times. There are currently 14
`
`14:06:50
`
`22
`
`patent cases pending up there. So it's a relatively light
`
`14:06:56
`
`23
`
`load. The judges up there are very experienced with
`
`14:06:58
`
`24
`
`patent cases, though, despite the relatively light load.
`
`14:07:04
`
`25
`
`I'm not aware of the protests having any impact
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`6
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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.
`
`14:07:49
`
`10
`
`So it is a jurisdiction that we're very familiar
`
`14:07:50
`
`11
`
`with that we've litigated in, that Intel has litigated in
`
`14:07:56
`
`12
`
`before, and that we're in touch with folks in that
`
`14:08:00
`
`13
`
`jurisdiction and not aware of any disruptions relating to
`
`14:08:05
`
`14
`
`the protests.
`
`14:08:05
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: And can you give me an idea from --
`
`14:08:08
`
`16
`
`with regard to the whatever -- I was going to use the word
`
`14:08:13
`
`17
`
`"handful." Whatever -- I think you said 14, whatever,
`
`14:08:16
`
`18
`
`whatever the number is of patent cases you have any
`
`14:08:22
`
`19
`
`personal experience or general understanding specifically
`
`14:08:26
`
`20
`
`about in terms of how quickly they get things done on
`
`14:08:29
`
`21
`
`patent cases.
`
`14:08:30
`
`22
`
`We always have all these, you know, metrics and
`
`14:08:34
`
`23
`
`we've got Oregon, we've got districts. But I feel much
`
`14:08:37
`
`24
`
`more -- for example, I know when people cite numbers for
`
`14:08:42
`
`25
`
`the Western District of Texas, that doesn't necessarily --
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`7
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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 --
`
`14:09:12
`
`10
`
`for the general metrics aren't quite accurate. I think
`
`14:09:17
`
`11
`
`the general metrics for Portland are quite fast. Now, in
`
`14:09:23
`
`12
`
`our experience, the patent litigations up in Portland have
`
`14:09:28
`
`13
`
`moved very expeditiously. Trial somewhere between, you
`
`14:09:31
`
`14
`
`know, 24 to 30 months out from the complaint.
`
`14:09:38
`
`15
`
`Again, they don't have the same type of load of
`
`14:09:44
`
`16
`
`patent cases, but they have extensive experience with
`
`14:09:47
`
`17
`
`patent cases and move them along quite quickly. And then,
`
`14:09:52
`
`18
`
`I've had two recent cases there in both -- and I don't
`
`14:09:57
`
`19
`
`remember the specific numbers, your Honor, but trial was
`
`14:09:59
`
`20
`
`set roughly 24 to 28 months after the complaint.
`
`14:10:07
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: So at least from your experience,
`
`14:10:10
`
`22
`
`your personal experience, your anecdotal experience, which
`
`14:10:14
`
`23
`
`is important, it's a relatively -- in a normal patent
`
`14:10:18
`
`24
`
`case, it's a -- it's 24 to whatever number of months.
`
`14:10:23
`
`25
`
`Twenty-four to 30 months would probably be a fair average?
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`8
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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.
`
`14:10:52
`
`10
`
`If I could hear from counsel for the plaintiff
`
`14:10:57
`
`11
`
`with respect to initial question about if you have any
`
`14:11:00
`
`12
`
`personal, anecdotal, something you think is inaccurate
`
`14:11:06
`
`13
`
`with respect to what's happening with regard to litigation
`
`14:11:10
`
`14
`
`in federal courts in the Portland area where transfer is
`
`14:11:15
`
`15
`
`sought.
`
`14:11:16
`
`16
`
`It is Portland, right? It's being sought to be
`
`14:11:19
`
`17
`
`transferred to Portland, I think?
`
`14:11:22
`
`18
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: That's correct, your Honor.
`
`14:11:23
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: Okay. If the plaintiff would like to
`
`14:11:26
`
`20
`
`-- if the plaintiff has any relevant knowledge they would
`
`14:11:28
`
`21
`
`like to impart to the Court, I welcome it.
`
`14:11:31
`
`22
`
`MR. DAIGNAULT: No, your Honor. We don't have
`
`14:11:32
`
`23
`
`any specific evidence in how the Portland court is
`
`14:11:35
`
`24
`
`functioning, given, you know, what's going on in Portland
`
`14:11:38
`
`25
`
`these days both with the -- you know, the unrest but,
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`9
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`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.
`
`14:12:09
`
`10
`
`And in this case, your Honor, we already have a claim
`
`14:12:11
`
`11
`
`construction hearing scheduled for January, a trial date
`
`14:12:14
`
`12
`
`February 7, '22, which actually is about 24 months from
`
`14:12:20
`
`13
`
`when we filed the case. So according to our studies, your
`
`14:12:26
`
`14
`
`Honor, and the information we provided in our declaration
`
`14:12:29
`
`15
`
`and in the brief, the median time for trial in Oregon is
`
`14:12:32
`
`16
`
`25 months while the Western District was the 24.6 months.
`
`14:12:35
`
`17
`
`You know, six -- a slight difference.
`
`14:12:39
`
`18
`
`But also, to pick up on your Honor's comment, I
`
`14:12:42
`
`19
`
`don't believe that takes into consideration the Waco
`
`14:12:46
`
`20
`
`Division's operation and the fact that we now have a trial
`
`14:12:48
`
`21
`
`set for February 7, '22. So even if this case were
`
`14:12:52
`
`22
`
`transferred to Oregon, we believe that it's highly
`
`14:12:55
`
`23
`
`unlikely that we will get a trial date any earlier than
`
`14:13:00
`
`24
`
`that February date in '22.
`
`14:13:04
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Understood.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`10
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So all -- I'm sorry. Did someone else want to
`
`comment?
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, this is -- go
`
`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.
`
`14:13:35
`
`10
`
`I think if your Honor would want more information, we
`
`14:13:36
`
`11
`
`could pull the data for these cases and pull the
`
`14:13:39
`
`12
`
`scheduling orders and what's happened in that -- this
`
`14:13:42
`
`13
`
`would be helpful to the Court, we could do that.
`
`14:13:45
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. I think this is, given the
`
`14:13:48
`
`15
`
`representation -- and, Mr. Summersgill, I'll let you speak
`
`14:13:51
`
`16
`
`in just one second.
`
`14:13:55
`
`17
`
`I think given Mr. Summersgill's representation
`
`14:14:00
`
`18
`
`that -- of how quickly he believes cases are getting to
`
`14:14:06
`
`19
`
`trial, getting through Markman, and then, getting through
`
`14:14:09
`
`20
`
`trial, Mr. Mort, if you have any more -- or whoever for
`
`14:14:13
`
`21
`
`plaintiff, if you have any more granular information and
`
`14:14:18
`
`22
`
`you can get it to the Court, we're working on this right
`
`14:14:20
`
`23
`
`now. I don't know if we'll get it out immediately, but I
`
`14:14:22
`
`24
`
`know that we're focused on this motion and that's why I
`
`14:14:25
`
`25
`
`asked for this hearing to be set.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`11
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`14:15:00
`
`10
`
`get the information from Mr. Mort and the plaintiffs, if
`
`14:15:04
`
`11
`
`you feel that it doesn't provide the Court a full picture
`
`14:15:08
`
`12
`
`of what's happening there, I'd certainly invite you -- I
`
`14:15:13
`
`13
`
`certainly want you to have an opportunity to give me the
`
`14:15:16
`
`14
`
`full picture. And so, why don't we do this.
`
`14:15:21
`
`15
`
`Mr. Mort, if you could get to me -- it's
`
`14:15:24
`
`16
`
`Wednesday -- by at the end of the week, by the end of the
`
`14:15:28
`
`17
`
`workday Friday, whatever you're going to submit, obviously
`
`14:15:34
`
`18
`
`provide it to counsel for defendant. I'll wait. I'm not
`
`14:15:38
`
`19
`
`going to formally state anything, but I'll give the
`
`14:15:41
`
`20
`
`defendant through the end of the day Tuesday to supplement
`
`14:15:47
`
`21
`
`you all's record to make sure I have an accurate picture
`
`14:15:50
`
`22
`
`of what's happening procedurally in Portland.
`
`14:15:53
`
`23
`
`Mr. Summersgill, let me start with -- Mr. Mort,
`
`14:15:55
`
`24
`
`does that give you sufficient time?
`
`14:15:57
`
`25
`
`MR. MORT: Absolutely.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`12
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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.
`
`14:16:21
`
`10
`
`I also think that having the additional
`
`14:16:24
`
`11
`
`information, Mr. Mort, addressed -- I think that's going
`
`14:16:29
`
`12
`
`to be an important issue in this particular motion. Maybe
`
`14:16:34
`
`13
`
`more so than -- I think it will be because it is a
`
`14:16:38
`
`14
`
`different can of worms than my ordinary transfer to
`
`14:16:44
`
`15
`
`northern California, which I'm pretty aware of the delta
`
`14:16:48
`
`16
`
`in that situation.
`
`14:16:49
`
`17
`
`So I would feel more comfortable having that
`
`14:16:52
`
`18
`
`additional information because I think it really may make
`
`14:16:55
`
`19
`
`a difference in this case. And so, what I would propose
`
`14:16:59
`
`20
`
`we do and since I get to propose and decide that's what
`
`14:17:04
`
`21
`
`we'll do both, but at least because their client's on
`
`14:17:09
`
`22
`
`board, I don't want them to think I'm too much of a flake.
`
`14:17:13
`
`23
`
`I think having the additional information would
`
`14:17:15
`
`24
`
`be better, and we'll reset this hearing for next -- end of
`
`14:17:22
`
`25
`
`next week, Thursday or -- Wednesday, Thursday or Friday,
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`13
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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.
`
`14:17:59
`
`10
`
`And I'll hear about the other factors, as well.
`
`14:18:02
`
`11
`
`All that being said, I'll start with Mr.
`
`14:18:04
`
`12
`
`Summersgill, if there's anything you just absolutely feel
`
`14:18:07
`
`13
`
`compelled that you were prepared to say today that you
`
`14:18:11
`
`14
`
`think I couldn't live without hearing and my life would be
`
`14:18:13
`
`15
`
`better if I heard it today, I'm happy to hear it from you,
`
`14:18:17
`
`16
`
`and then, I'll make -- I'll give the same invitation to
`
`14:18:20
`
`17
`
`the plaintiff.
`
`14:18:21
`
`18
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, I just wanted to
`
`14:18:22
`
`19
`
`address something on this particular issue.
`
`14:18:25
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`14:18:26
`
`21
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: In response to comments, which
`
`14:18:27
`
`22
`
`one of my colleagues pointed out to me that Exhibit 35 to
`
`14:18:31
`
`23
`
`our papers are the Lex Machina time to trial results and
`
`14:18:38
`
`24
`
`that the median time to trial in Oregon since 2000 is 22
`
`14:18:43
`
`25
`
`months, which is consistent with my experience. And my
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`14
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`14:19:11
`
`10
`
`many cases filed there. That's not been our experience in
`
`14:19:16
`
`11
`
`Portland. The judges set status conferences quite
`
`14:19:21
`
`12
`
`quickly, in my experience, and set out the rules of the
`
`14:19:24
`
`13
`
`road very quickly so that the cases move forward
`
`14:19:29
`
`14
`
`expeditiously and efficiently.
`
`14:19:31
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: Then why don't -- I'll slightly
`
`14:19:33
`
`16
`
`modify. Thank you for that information. I don't -- like
`
`14:19:36
`
`17
`
`I said, I'm not quite as granular on the exhibits. I've
`
`14:19:39
`
`18
`
`read the briefs.
`
`14:19:42
`
`19
`
`So with that as a starting point, Mr. Mort, I
`
`14:19:45
`
`20
`
`would look at the exhibit number. I think Mr. Summersgill
`
`14:19:50
`
`21
`
`said 33 that they've done. If you believe there are any
`
`14:19:55
`
`22
`
`-- if you believe there's any additional information you
`
`14:19:57
`
`23
`
`need to add to supplement what the defendant has done in
`
`14:20:00
`
`24
`
`that regard with respect to information about time to
`
`14:20:03
`
`25
`
`trial, time to status conference, whatever, please feel
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 15 of 23
`
`15
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`14:20:41
`
`10
`
`oral decision at the end of the hearing. So we're not
`
`14:20:44
`
`11
`
`losing that much time.
`
`14:20:45
`
`12
`
`I just -- I really wanted to hear the information
`
`14:20:49
`
`13
`
`about what's going on in Portland right now because what's
`
`14:20:51
`
`14
`
`in the news, and I had no other source for that.
`
`14:20:55
`
`15
`
`So is there anything else -- I'll start with the
`
`14:20:57
`
`16
`
`plaintiff -- that you all would like to take up before we
`
`14:21:00
`
`17
`
`break today? Anything that would be helpful to put me on
`
`14:21:03
`
`18
`
`notice of before I have the hearing or anything like that?
`
`14:21:07
`
`19
`
`MR. DAIGNAULT: One more point, your Honor, on
`
`14:21:08
`
`20
`
`the court statistics.
`
`14:21:11
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`
`14:21:12
`
`22
`
`MR. DAIGNAULT: We pointed out in our brief that
`
`14:21:13
`
`23
`
`83 percent of the patent cases in Oregon are stayed when
`
`14:21:17
`
`24
`
`an IPR is filed. While that statistic for Western
`
`14:21:20
`
`25
`
`District is 30 percent and obviously in Waco, percentage
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 16 of 23
`
`16
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`14:21:43
`
`10
`
`district court judge has the ability to sua sponte invite
`
`14:21:47
`
`11
`
`a motion to stay or even grant a stay.
`
`14:21:49
`
`12
`
`So that -- in addition to congestion or speed to
`
`14:21:53
`
`13
`
`trial issues we're talking about, we are also concerned
`
`14:21:56
`
`14
`
`about the IPR situation and the 83 percent of staying
`
`14:22:02
`
`15
`
`cases in Oregon because Intel has informed us that they do
`
`14:22:06
`
`16
`
`intend to file IPRs on all of the patents in the case, and
`
`14:22:10
`
`17
`
`they've already filed one. So, you know, I just wanted to
`
`14:22:13
`
`18
`
`address the point they made in their reply about we're not
`
`14:22:16
`
`19
`
`going to file a motion for stay. Again, that may be the
`
`14:22:18
`
`20
`
`case, but that doesn't mean that the district court itself
`
`14:22:20
`
`21
`
`in Oregon could not do that when he or she --
`
`14:22:23
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Well, let me, then, tell you all
`
`14:22:25
`
`23
`
`this. That's a good thing to know not because it sways me
`
`14:22:33
`
`24
`
`one way or the other, but it does -- I'm not sure I'll
`
`14:22:36
`
`25
`
`still remember we had this conversation by the end of next
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 17 of 23
`
`17
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`14:23:12
`
`10
`
`or not? And so, I certainly understand the impact of the
`
`14:23:19
`
`11
`
`statistic that you just gave. I'm not certain I've seen
`
`14:23:22
`
`12
`
`any law that tells me I'm supposed to bake that into my
`
`14:23:26
`
`13
`
`decision about whether or not to transfer cases. I am
`
`14:23:30
`
`14
`
`very aware of what I've done with regard to staying cases
`
`14:23:35
`
`15
`
`on IPR.
`
`14:23:36
`
`16
`
`So y'all don't need to do any additional briefing
`
`14:23:39
`
`17
`
`on that. But it would be fascinating to me for you all if
`
`14:23:43
`
`18
`
`there is -- if there are any cases out there, if there
`
`14:23:46
`
`19
`
`aren't any cases but should be, if philosophically that
`
`14:23:51
`
`20
`
`should be an important consideration in terms of whether
`
`14:23:55
`
`21
`
`or not the Court transfers a case, I would certainly -- I
`
`14:23:58
`
`22
`
`would invite lawyers of this caliber to come next week and
`
`14:24:03
`
`23
`
`help me get that right. Because maybe that's a question
`
`14:24:06
`
`24
`
`that should be asked. I don't -- I don't know if it
`
`14:24:09
`
`25
`
`should be or not, but it certainly, from my perspective,
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 18 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?
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`14:24:39
`
`10
`
`MR. SUMMERSGILL: Your Honor, just to correct one
`
`14:24:40
`
`11
`
`thing factually. We have not informed the plaintiffs that
`
`14:24:43
`
`12
`
`we intend to file IPRs on all the patents; and in fact, we
`
`14:24:46
`
`13
`
`don't. And in my experience, I have yet to have a judge
`
`14:24:49
`
`14
`
`sua sponte stay a case that where I wanted it stayed. So
`
`14:24:55
`
`15
`
`maybe Mr. Daignault's experience has been a little bit
`
`14:24:59
`
`16
`
`different. We'll certainly come prepared next week to
`
`14:25:02
`
`17
`
`address that.
`
`14:25:02
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Well, again, Mr. Summersgill, I am
`
`14:25:05
`
`19
`
`more on the level of whether or not it should or should
`
`14:25:08
`
`20
`
`not happen. But to the extent -- but I'm on his team in
`
`14:25:15
`
`21
`
`terms of knowing that it does happen. And so -- because I
`
`14:25:20
`
`22
`
`have seen -- you know, I understand that there are certain
`
`14:25:23
`
`23
`
`judges who would prefer to stay patent cases. There's
`
`14:25:26
`
`24
`
`certain judges who would prefer to transfer patent cases.
`
`14:25:30
`
`25
`
`They don't have the affliction other judges do of actually
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Hyundai v. StratosAudio
`IPR2021-01267
`Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 52 Filed 10/31/20 Page 19 of 23
`
`19
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
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
