Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 940
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #: 940
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #: 940
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 941
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
` )
` PETITIONER, )CASE NO.
` )IPR2024-00002
` VS. )
` )
`SLYDE ANALYTICS, LLC., )
` )
` PATENT OWNER. )
`______________________________________)
`
` REPORTER'S REMOTE
` TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
` FEBRUARY 20, 2024
`
` TECKLA T. CLAY, CSR 13125
` OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`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 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 942
`
`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
`
`multiple cards go by? But in any event you think the
`
`petitioner established that the art does have it.
`
` MR. COOK: That's correct, yes.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. All right. Okay. Let's go
`
`to Patent owner to respond to these two technical
`
`matters petitioner wants to address more.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Your Honor, with respect to
`
`issue two, it sounds like the petitioner is asking the
`
`Board for permission to repeat it's argument in a
`
`reply. So petitioner says that it's already made the
`
`argument that the scroll cards occupy the entire
`
`digital matrix display.
`
` Petitioner says that it's expert has
`
`already addressed that issue as well. But for some
`
`reason it's necessary for the petitioner to point out
`
`where it has already made those arguments to the Board.
`
`Our view is that the Board is perfectly capable of
`
`reading the petition and the accompanying declaration,
`
`identifying the arguments and evaluating them.
`
` And without more there's no need for a
`
`reply in such a situation. It's simply an attempt to
`
`perhaps better explain or change perhaps an argument.
`
`Of course that's not what they're asking for. They're
`
`simply asking to point out what they've already said.
`
` We see no reason for that. We don't know
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 943
`
`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
`
`of any, any rule or precedent of the Board that allows
`
`a reply pre-institution for petitioner to simply repeat
`
`arguments or point out where they're located. So with
`
`respect to item two we don't believe there's, it's been
`
`stated any reason for a reply.
`
` With respect to the third argument it
`
`sounds like the petitioner is trying to cast this as a
`
`matter for claim interpretation. And that a reply is
`
`necessary in order to address claim interpretation.
`
` Now where the Patent owner is suggesting a
`
`claim interpretation which is not the claim in
`
`ordinary, meaning which is not applying simply the
`
`words of the claim in an easily understood way, I would
`
`understand the need for a reply. But here we simply
`
`apply the term in the claim where it says that the
`
`processing circuit is specifically laid out so as to
`
`cause said, several available cards to scroll past.
`
` And we believe that the obvious, the plain
`
`meaning of those words is that scrolling involves
`
`causing several available cards to scroll past. And so
`
`we made the argument that Duarte only discloses
`
`dragging a single card at a time. And that can't be
`
`within the meaning of the claim that requires several
`
`such available cards to scroll past.
`
` Now those words are right there in the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 944
`
`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
`
`claim. And any petitioner should have addressed how
`
`the dragging of a single card at a time meets that
`
`limitation. They failed to do so. Our argument is not
`
`one which the petitioner, which should not have
`
`anticipated and should not have addressed head on in
`
`the petition.
`
` And so given that the alleged claim
`
`interpretation dispute is one which was readily
`
`apparent at the time of the petition we don't believe
`
`that a reply is appropriate. Unless the Court has any
`
`questions those are my arguments on those two points.
`
` THE COURT: Thank you. Can you give me a minute
`
`so I can converse with my colleagues? Thank you.
`
` MR. COOK: Your Honor, would it be possible for
`
`me to respond to this briefly?
`
` THE COURT: Are you petitioner?
`
` MR. COOK: Petitioner, yes.
`
` THE COURT: What, you want another, you want
`
`some more time to respond?
`
` MR. COOK: I want to make one quick point.
`
` THE COURT: Okay go ahead.
`
` MR. COOK: I just wanted to say that our point
`
`is really that the Patent owner misrepresented the
`
`argument. We don't want to change anything. We want
`
`to point out that they misrepresented in that they said
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76-9 Filed 07/12/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 945
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
` )
` PETITIONER, )CASE NO.
` )IPR2024-00002
` VS. )
` )
`SLYDE ANALYTICS, LLC., )
` )
` PATENT OWNER. )
`______________________________________)
` I, TECKLA CLAY, CSR NO. 13125, OFFICIAL
`REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
`CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY
`CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 22
`COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT REMOTE TRANSCRIPT OF
`THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED
`CAUSE ON FEBRUARY 20, 2024 THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY,
`2024.
`
` <%18876,Signature%>
` TECKLA CLAY, CSR NO. 13125
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`Calendar-CA@veritext.com 866-299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`
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
