Page 1
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG DISPLAY
`CO.,
`LTD, and SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________________
` Case IPR2015-00887
` Patent 7,420,550 B2
`_____________________________________
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., and
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________X
` Case IPR2015-00863
` Patent 7,202,843 B2
`Job No: 98433 - TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 1/24
`
`

`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`
`Page 2
`
`TELEPHONIC HEARING FOR THE U.S. PATENT
`AND APPEALS BOARD, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT
` JUDGE BETH SHAW
` on Tuesday, September 29, 2015
` at or about 9:30 a.m.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 2/24
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`APPEARANCES:
`PETITIONER:
`Jay Alexander, Esq.
`Andrea Reister, Esq.
`COVINGTON & BURLING
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street Northwest
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`Walter Hanley, Jr., Esq.
`Michelle Carniaux, Esq.
`KENYON & KENYON
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Wayne Helge, Esq.
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 3/24
`
`

`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`P R O C E E D I N G S:
` MS. CARNIAUX: Michelle Carniaux,
` lead counsel on the '863 petition, and
` backup counsel for the '887 petition.
` And with me is Walter Hanley, backup
` counsel on the '863 petition.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Thank
` you.
` Who do we have for the Patent
` Owner?
` MR. ALEXANDER: This is Jay
` Alexander. I am lead counsel on the
` '887 matter and backup counsel on the
` '863 matter. And also with me is backup
` counsel, Andrea Riester.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Thank
` you.
` For the Patent Owner?
` MR. HELGE: Good morning, your
` Honor, Wayne Helge for the Patent Owner
` Surpass.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: This
` is Judge Shaw. It sounds like we do
` have the court reporter on the line.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 4/24
`
`

`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`I'd ask a copy of the transcript be
`filed with the Board in due course after
`this call.
` Petitioner, you have requested this
`call. What is the problem?
` Mr. HANLEY: This is Walter Hanley.
`We requested the conference because we
`received objections from Patent Owner
`the two exhibits that were submitted
`with our petition in the '863 matter.
`And as to certain objections, we don't
`understand the nature of the objection.
`And we want to be able to understand
`that so we can determine whether or not
`to submit supplemental evidence to
`attempt to cure objection.
` So we reached out to counsel for
`Patent Owner and asked for clarification
`relating to certain objections. And,
`essentially, Patent Owner's counsel
`refused to clarify.
` So we thought, albeit reluctant,
`with the crowded court's schedule,
`evidentiary matters, we felt compelled,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 5/24
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`in view of our deadlines coming up, to
`submit supplemental evidence to bring
`this to the attention of the Board, and
`seek the Board's -- a ruling from the
`Board. And a clarification needs to be
`provided, or absent that, the objection
`should be stricken.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Give
`me an example of what information you
`need to clarify.
` MR. HANLEY: As to the objections,
`first of all, they related to three
`exhibits, and you can put the exhibits
`in the two categories.
` There are Petitioner Exhibits 1004
`and 1005, which are, respectively, the
`original Japanese-language version of
`the Nitta reference, on which the Board
`instituted trial in part. And 1005 is a
`certified English-language translation
`called the Nitta reference.
` If the Board has available the copy
`of the objections that were submitted,
`the very first objection goes to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 6/24
`
`

`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`Exhibits 1004 and 1005, and the grounds
`stated are, quote, "certification does
`not provide basis or statements.
`Translation contains hearsay offered for
`its truth."
` So as to that, what we are seeking
`is to what particular respect is the
`certification deficient in providing a
`foundation for the testimony of the
`translator, first of all.
` And secondly, the objections that
`the translation contains hearsay offered
`for its truth is, frankly, puzzling to
`us because this is the prior art, and we
`are, of course, relying on the prior art
`and what it discloses.
` So what we would like to understand
`is what particular statements within the
`reference does Patent Owner contend we
`are offering for the truth of them as
`opposed to offering them for what they
`say.
` So that is the first objection.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: All
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 7/24
`
`

`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`right. Patent Owner, what is your
`response to this? Did you give them
`this information?
` MR. HELGE: Wayne Helge.
` Your Honor, I think there is a few
`responses to this point. I think
`upfront this issue is simply not ripe
`for adjudication. Objections are
`normally ruled upon in the context of a
`motion to exclude. And what we have
`done is we've timely served objections.
` I know counsel -- I just pulled up
`Mr. Hanley's experience on Kenyon's
`website; he has got appearances in, I
`would say, probably dozens of
`litigations.
` So I certainly think he is capable
`of looking at the objections which we
`have provided based on Federal Rules of
`Evidence, and based upon the Board's
`rules, and look at the evidence and the
`option for Petitioner receiving
`objections is to either serve
`supplemental evidence or not.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 8/24
`
`

`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` If they believe there is no hearsay
`issue here, then their option is to not
`serve supplemental evidence.
` What I think they're really asking
`the Board to do is provide an advisory
`opinion on whether these evidentiary
`objections are appropriate. And,
`frankly, I just don't think that is an
`issue that's ripe for Board adjudication
`at this time.
` In terms of this specific
`objection, we have identified that the
`certification -- the certification that
`was provided with the translation does
`not provide its basis for its
`statements, and I stand by that.
` If you read the certification,
`there is no basis explained for the
`statements made therein. And in terms
`of translation contains hearsay offered
`for its truth. I think, again, I am
`frankly a little surprised counsel can't
`understand that, in fact, a prior art
`reference that is written in a foreign
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 9/24
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`language may be the prior art reference
`and may be offered for what it discloses
`rather than its truth, but the
`translation -- frankly, the
`certification cites the translation is
`true.
` And so, you know, I think if we
`were to go to every one of those things,
`it's simply a matter of Petitioner
`looking for the Board to tell them
`whether they have already done their job
`or not. That is not the Board's job
`right now. That is not really -- that
`is really the Petitioner's job.
` If I can throw out -- if I can
`explain one more issue. In terms of
`what we've provided in terms of the
`disclosure, I think every objection in
`here is pinpointed to either an
`exhibit -- if it is a full exhibit that
`we are objecting to, or in the case of
`the declaration, the declaration of
`their witness, we've identified the
`specific paragraphs.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 10/24
`
`

`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` Again, I think they have the
`ability to go through and determine
`whether they think that their evidence
`is sufficient or whether they need to
`cure it.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Let me
`ask you, why is every translation -- is
`every translation hearsay?
` MR. HELGE: So we have -- your
`Honor, honestly, I am not prepared to
`answer that with a full answer to say
`whether we have identified every
`translation.
` I know that in the '863 case,
`Exhibit 1004 and 1005, one is the
`foreign-language document, and one is
`the translation.
` The '863 case, I believe, didn't
`have any other foreign-language
`translations but the '887 had one, and
`that is one where we objected to
`Exhibits 1006 and 1007. And the
`objection, I will quote here is,
`"certification of translation does not
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 11/24
`
`

`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`comply with Section 42.63b, is not an
`affidavit, and the person making the
`certification does not attach to perform
`the translation or the basis for the
`certification."
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Do you
`believe that you provided sufficient
`particularity to allow correction here?
`I hear what you're saying, and our rules
`do state that although once objections
`are filed, petition for particularity to
`allow correction is required.
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, I
`absolutely believe that all of these are
`sufficiently clear, and that Petitioner,
`with their experience and understanding
`of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and
`understanding of admission requirements,
`would absolutely be able to look through
`these and understand exactly the
`objections being made.
` I would note again that opposing
`counsel, Petitioner has substantial
`litigation experience, and I would say
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 12/24
`
`

`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`that these objections go above and
`beyond what is ordinarily provided in
`context of pretrial disclosures in
`litigation.
` MR. ALEXANDER: This is Jay
`Alexander. If I may, on the '887 case,
`Mr. Helge referred to the objection of
`the translation there. The grounds they
`provided are twofold. One is under
`42.63b, because the translation was not
`in the form of an affidavit. We
`understand that, and we are prepared to
`submit an affidavit.
` However, the second ground just
`simply says FRE 802, which refers to
`hearsay rules, but there is no further
`explanation whatsoever. So we are
`actually left with the same question
`that you asked, your Honor, which is how
`is the translation hearsay? And if it
`is, how is that different from every
`other translation that the Board deals
`with?
` So that is why I think both
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 13/24
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`petitioners are scratching their heads
`here, and looking for any kind of
`statement of what the Patent Owner
`thinks is deficient about the
`translation, and so far we haven't heard
`anything.
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, Wayne Helge
`again. May I discuss one more point
`here?
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Yes.
`Please go ahead.
` MR. HELGE: I think one thing that
`we haven't really established on this
`call is what the relief the petitioners
`are actually seeking.
` Normally a call like this is
`scheduled to request permission to file
`a motion. I haven't heard them explain
`that they are specifically requesting
`permission to file a motion here or
`raise this dispute in any sort of
`written correspondence.
` So just for clarification, I am not
`sure if we are actually looking at
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 14/24
`
`

`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`their -- a rule -- if they are asking
`the Board to rule today on this call
`some -- some substantive evaluation of
`these objections, or whether there is
`some additional filing that they are
`seeking to provide.
` MR. HANLEY: This is Walter Hanley.
`May I respond?
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Yes.
` MR. HANLEY: First of all, going
`back to the earlier comment Mr. Helge
`made. We should not have to guess what
`their issue is. Yes, I thank him for
`commenting on my litigation experience,
`but my litigation experience, typically
`counsel will confer with each other, and
`if there is a lack of clarity, such as
`there is here, that that clarity is
`resolved before so that the issue can be
`presented in a pointed form to the
`judge, if need be.
` They simply have not provided
`clarity. So the relief that we are
`seeking is a ruling order, and may be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 15/24
`
`

`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
`required to clarify these objections.
` So far I have only spoken on one of
`them. There are several others that go
`to another exhibit, which is the
`declaration of our expert, Mr. Credelle.
`But that is what we are seeking.
` And if the Board view's is we need
`to submit a motion to obtain that
`ruling, then of course we will do that.
` One thing I'd point out is that our
`deadline for submitting something is
`next week, is October 6. So the time is
`running short for us to get what we
`think we need in order to make a
`determination as to whether or not the
`supplemental evidence is required.
` With regard to the objection we are
`talking about, look, this translation of
`the Nitta reference, Exhibit 1005, it's
`a 26-page translation. The grounds for
`the objections stated are that it
`contains hearsay somewhere in those 26
`pages, I guess, that's offered for its
`truth.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 16/24
`
`

`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` It seems to me in reviewing the
` exhibit and arriving at this position
` that there is a hearsay problem, they
` should be able to point to specific
` statements that they contend we are
` relying on for the truth of the content
` as opposed to, as I said, what they
` disclosed.
` That is all we are asking for. We
` are asking for that kind of
` particularity. We are asking on the
` certification of what is it that is
` inferred about the certification in
` terms of its foundation for providing a
` basis for the testimony about the
` translation.
` There isn't -- there should not
` have to be any mystery here about what
` the problem so that we can address the
` problem under the rules.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: Thank
` you both. We are going to put you on
` hold for a few minutes while we confer.
`(Off the record)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 17/24
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHAW: This
`is Judge Shaw. We are back.
` We discussed the matter, and our
`understanding is that Petitioner has
`asked the Patent Owner to be more
`specific on the objections, and the
`Patent Owner has not provided more
`information at this time. Therefore,
`the Petitioner needs to proceed with the
`information they have.
` If the Petitioner does not correct
`or provide supplemental evidence, and
`the Patent Owner later files a motion to
`exclude, and that later motion to
`exclude is more specific than these
`objections that were made to begin with,
`then we likely will not grant such a
`motion to exclude.
` And we will follow this up with a
`written order. Thank you for your time,
`and this call is adjourned.
` Thank you.
` MR. ALEXANDER: Thank you.
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 18/24
`
`

`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` (Whereupon, at 9:40 a.m., the
`deposition was concluded.)
`
`Page 19
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 19/24
`
`

`
`Page 20
`
` SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 HEARING
` CERTIFICATE
` DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
` I, the undersigned authority,
`hereby certify that the foregoing transcript,
`page 1 through 18 is a true and correct
`transcription of my stenographic notes taken
`before me at the time and place set forth on
`the title page hereof.
` I further certify that said
`witness was duly sworn by me according to law.
` I further certify that I am not
`of counsel to any of the parties to said cause
`or otherwise interested in the event thereof.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto
`set my hand and affix official seal this 9th
`day of October, 2015.
`
` ____________________________________
` RANDI GARCIA, COURT REPORTER, RPR
` NOTARY PUBLIC
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 20/24
`
`

`
`A
`a.m 2:9 19:2
`ability 11:3
`able 5:14 12:20
`17:5
`absent 6:7
`absolutely 12:15,20
`additional 15:6
`address 17:20
`adjourned 18:22
`adjudication 8:9
`9:10
`ADMINISTRAT...
`2:6 4:8,17,23 6:9
`7:25 11:7 12:7
`14:11 15:10 17:22
`18:2
`admission 12:19
`advisory 9:6
`affidavit 12:3
`13:12,14
`affix 20:17
`ahead 14:12
`albeit 5:23
`Alexander 3:4 4:12
`4:13 13:6,7 18:24
`allow 12:9,13
`Andrea 3:4 4:16
`answer 11:12,12
`APPEAL 1:2,14
`APPEALS 2:6
`appearances 3:2
`8:15
`appropriate 9:8
`arriving 17:3
`art 7:15,16 9:24
`10:2
`asked 5:19 13:20
`18:6
`asking 9:5 15:2
`17:10,11,12
`attach 12:4
`attempt 5:17
`attention 6:4
`authority 20:5
`available 6:23
`B
`
`B2 1:12,24
`back 15:12 18:3
`backup 4:5,6,14,15
`based 8:20,21
`basis 7:4 9:16,19
`12:5 17:16
`believe 9:2 11:19
`12:8,15
`BERQUIST 3:16
`BETH 2:7
`beyond 13:3
`Board 1:2,14 2:6
`5:3 6:4,6,19,23
`9:6,10 10:11
`13:23 15:3 16:8
`Board's 6:5 8:21
`10:13
`bring 6:3
`Broadway 3:11
`BURLING 3:5
`C
`
`C 4:2
`call 5:4,6 14:15,17
`15:3 18:22
`called 6:22
`capable 8:18
`Carniaux 3:10 4:3
`4:3
`case 1:11,23 10:22
`11:15,19 13:7
`categories 6:15
`cause 20:14
`certain 5:12,20
`certainly 8:18
`CERTIFICATE
`20:2
`certification 7:3,9
`9:14,14,18 10:6
`11:25 12:4,6
`17:13,14
`certified 6:21
`certify 20:6,11,13
`cites 10:6
`CityCenter 3:5
`clarification 5:19
`6:6 14:24
`clarify 5:22 6:11
`
`16:2
`clarity 15:18,19,24
`clear 12:16
`COLUMBIA 20:3
`coming 6:2
`comment 15:12
`commenting 15:15
`compelled 5:25
`comply 12:2
`concluded 19:3
`confer 15:17 17:24
`conference 5:8
`contains 7:5,13
`9:21 16:23
`contend 7:20 17:6
`content 17:7
`context 8:10 13:4
`copy 5:2 6:23
`CORPORATION
`1:5,16
`correct 18:12 20:7
`correction 12:9,13
`correspondence
`14:23
`counsel 4:4,5,7,13
`4:14,16 5:18,21
`8:13 9:23 12:24
`15:17 20:14
`course 5:3 7:16
`16:10
`court 4:25 20:22
`court's 5:24
`COVINGTON 3:5
`Credelle 16:6
`crowded 5:24
`cure 5:17 11:6
`D
`
`D 4:2
`DAVIDSON 3:16
`day 20:18
`DC 3:6
`deadline 16:12
`deadlines 6:2
`deals 13:23
`declaration 10:23
`10:23 16:6
`deficient 7:9 14:5
`
`deposition 19:3
`determination
`16:16
`determine 5:15
`11:3
`different 13:22
`disclosed 17:9
`discloses 7:17 10:3
`disclosure 10:19
`disclosures 13:4
`discuss 14:9
`discussed 18:4
`DISPLAY 1:4,17
`dispute 14:22
`DISTRICT 20:3
`document 11:17
`dozens 8:16
`Drive 3:17
`due 5:3
`duly 20:12
`E
`
`E 4:2,2
`earlier 15:12
`either 8:24 10:20
`ELECTRONICS
`1:4,16
`English-language
`6:21
`Esq 3:4,4,10,10,16
`essentially 5:21
`established 14:14
`evaluation 15:4
`event 20:15
`evidence 5:16 6:3
`8:21,22,25 9:4
`11:4 12:18 16:17
`18:13
`evidentiary 5:25
`9:7
`exactly 12:21
`example 6:10
`exclude 8:11 18:15
`18:16,19
`exhibit 10:21,21
`11:16 16:5,20
`17:3
`exhibits 5:10 6:14
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 21
`6:14,16 7:2 11:23
`experience 8:14
`12:17,25 15:15,16
`expert 16:6
`explain 10:17
`14:19
`explained 9:19
`explanation 13:18
`F
`
`fact 9:24
`far 14:6 16:3
`Federal 8:20 12:18
`felt 5:25
`file 14:18,21
`filed 5:3 12:12
`files 18:14
`filing 15:6
`first 6:13,25 7:11
`7:24 15:11
`follow 18:20
`foregoing 20:6
`foreign 9:25
`foreign-language
`11:17,20
`form 13:12 15:21
`forth 20:9
`foundation 7:10
`17:15
`frankly 7:14 9:9,23
`10:5
`FRE 13:16
`full 10:21 11:12
`further 13:17
`20:11,13
`G
`
`G 4:2
`GARCIA 20:22
`give 6:9 8:3
`go 10:9 11:3 13:2
`14:12 16:4
`goes 6:25
`going 15:11 17:23
`Good 4:20
`GOWDEY 3:16
`grant 18:18
`Greensboro 3:17
`ground 13:15
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 21/24
`
`

`
`grounds 7:2 13:9
`16:21
`guess 15:13 16:24
`H
`hand 20:17
`Hanley 3:10 4:6 5:7
`5:7 6:12 15:8,8,11
`Hanley's 8:14
`heads 14:2
`hear 12:10
`heard 14:6,19
`HEARING 1:1,25
`2:1,5 3:1 4:1 5:1
`6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1
`10:1 11:1 12:1
`13:1 14:1 15:1
`16:1 17:1 18:1
`19:1 20:1
`hearsay 7:5,13 9:2
`9:21 11:9 13:17
`13:21 16:23 17:4
`Helge 3:16 4:20,21
`8:5,5 11:10 12:14
`13:8 14:8,8,13
`15:12
`hereof 20:10
`hereunto 20:16
`hold 17:24
`honestly 11:11
`Honor 4:21 8:6
`11:11 12:14 13:20
`14:8
`
`I
`identified 9:13
`10:24 11:13
`inferred 17:14
`information 6:10
`8:4 18:9,11
`INNOVATION 1:8
`1:20
`instituted 6:20
`interested 20:15
`IPR2015-00863
`1:23
`IPR2015-00887
`1:11
`issue 8:8 9:3,10
`
`10:17 15:14,20
`J
`JACKSON 3:16
`Japanese-language
`6:18
`Jay 3:4 4:12 13:6
`job 1:25 10:12,13
`10:15
`Jr 3:10
`judge 2:7 4:8,17,23
`4:24 6:9 7:25
`11:7 12:7 14:11
`15:10,22 17:22
`18:2,3
`
`K
`KENYON 3:11,11
`Kenyon's 8:14
`kind 14:3 17:11
`know 8:13 10:8
`11:15
`
`L
`lack 15:18
`language 10:2
`law 20:12
`lead 4:4,13
`left 13:19
`line 4:25
`litigation 12:25
`13:5 15:15,16
`litigations 8:17
`little 9:23
`LLC 1:8,20
`look 8:22 12:20
`16:19
`looking 8:19 10:11
`14:3,25
`M
`making 12:3
`matter 4:14,15
`5:11 10:10 18:4
`matters 5:25
`McLean 3:17
`Michelle 3:10 4:3
`minutes 17:24
`morning 4:20
`
`motion 8:11 14:19
`14:21 16:9 18:14
`18:15,19
`mystery 17:19
`N
`
`N 4:2
`nature 5:13
`need 6:11 11:5
`15:22 16:8,15
`needs 6:6 18:10
`New 3:12
`Nitta 6:19,22 16:20
`normally 8:10
`14:17
`Northwest 3:6
`NOTARY 20:23
`note 12:23
`notes 20:8
`NY 3:12
`
`O
`
`O 4:2
`objected 11:22
`objecting 10:22
`objection 5:13,17
`6:7,25 7:24 9:13
`10:19 11:24 13:8
`16:18
`objections 5:9,12
`5:20 6:12,24 7:12
`8:9,12,19,24 9:8
`12:11,22 13:2
`15:5 16:2,22 18:7
`18:17
`obtain 16:9
`October 16:13
`20:18
`offered 7:5,13 9:21
`10:3 16:24
`offering 7:21,22
`OFFICE 1:2,14
`official 20:17
`once 12:11
`opinion 9:7
`opposed 7:22 17:8
`opposing 12:23
`option 8:23 9:3
`order 15:25 16:15
`
`18:21
`ordinarily 13:3
`original 6:18
`Owner 1:9,21 3:15
`4:11,19,21 5:9,19
`7:20 8:2 14:4
`18:6,8,14
`Owner's 5:21
`P
`
`P 4:2
`page 20:7,10
`pages 16:24
`paragraphs 10:25
`part 6:20
`particular 7:8,19
`particularity 12:9
`12:12 17:12
`parties 20:14
`Patent 1:2,2,9,12
`1:14,14,21,24 2:5
`2:6 3:15 4:10,19
`4:21 5:9,19,21
`7:20 8:2 14:4
`18:6,8,14
`perform 12:4
`permission 14:18
`14:21
`person 12:3
`petition 4:4,5,7
`5:11 12:12
`Petitioner 1:6,18
`3:3 5:5 6:16 8:23
`10:10 12:16,24
`18:5,10,12
`Petitioner's 10:15
`petitioners 14:2,15
`pinpointed 10:20
`place 20:9
`Please 14:12
`point 8:7 14:9
`16:11 17:5
`pointed 15:21
`position 17:3
`prepared 11:11
`13:13
`presented 15:21
`pretrial 13:4
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 22
`prior 7:15,16 9:24
`10:2
`probably 8:16
`problem 5:6 17:4
`17:20,21
`proceed 18:10
`provide 7:4 9:6,16
`15:7 18:13
`provided 6:7 8:20
`9:15 10:18 12:8
`13:3,10 15:23
`18:8
`providing 7:9
`17:15
`PUBLIC 20:23
`pulled 8:13
`put 6:14 17:23
`puzzling 7:14
`Q
`question 13:19
`quote 7:3 11:24
`R
`
`R 4:2
`raise 14:22
`RANDI 20:22
`reached 5:18
`read 9:18
`really 9:5 10:14,15
`14:14
`received 5:9
`receiving 8:23
`record 17:25
`reference 6:19,22
`7:20 9:25 10:2
`16:20
`referred 13:8
`refers 13:16
`refused 5:22
`regard 16:18
`Reister 3:4
`related 6:13
`relating 5:20
`relief 14:15 15:24
`reluctant 5:23
`relying 7:16 17:7
`reporter 4:25
`20:22
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 22/24
`
`

`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`1 20:7
`10004 3:12
`1004 6:16 7:2 11:16
`1005 6:17,20 7:2
`11:16 16:20
`1006 11:23
`1007 11:23
`18 20:7
`
`2
`20001 3:6
`2015 1:1 2:1,8 3:1
`4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1
`8:1 9:1 10:1 11:1
`12:1 13:1 14:1
`15:1 16:1 17:1
`18:1 19:1 20:1,18
`22102 3:17
`26 16:23
`26-page 16:21
`29 1:1 2:1,8 3:1 4:1
`5:1 6:1 7:1 8:1
`9:1 10:1 11:1
`12:1 13:1 14:1
`15:1 16:1 17:1
`18:1 19:1 20:1
`
`3 4
`
`42.63b 12:2 13:11
`
`5 6
`
`6 16:13
`
`7
`7,202,843 1:24
`7,420,550 1:12
`8
`802 13:16
`8300 3:17
`850 3:6
`863 4:4,7,15 5:11
`11:15,19
`887 4:5,14 11:21
`
`two 5:10 6:15
`twofold 13:10
`typically 15:16
`U
`
`U.S 2:5
`undersigned 20:5
`understand 5:13
`5:14 7:18 9:24
`12:21 13:13
`understanding
`12:17,19 18:5
`UNITED 1:2,14
`upfront 8:8
`V
`
`v 1:7,19
`VA 3:17
`version 6:18
`view 6:2
`view's 16:8
`W
`Walter 3:10 4:6 5:7
`15:8
`want 5:14
`Washington 3:6
`Wayne 3:16 4:21
`8:5 14:8
`we've 8:12 10:18
`10:24
`website 8:15
`week 16:13
`whatsoever 13:18
`WHEREOF 20:16
`witness 10:24
`20:12,16
`written 9:25 14:23
`18:21
`
`X
`
`X 1:22
`
`Y
`York 3:12
`
`Z 0
`
`request 14:18
`requested 5:5,8
`requesting 14:20
`required 12:13
`16:2,17
`requirements
`12:19
`resolved 15:20
`respect 7:8
`respectively 6:17
`respond 15:9
`response 8:3
`responses 8:7
`reviewing 17:2
`Riester 4:16
`right 8:2 10:14
`ripe 8:8 9:10
`RPR 20:22
`rule 15:2,3
`ruled 8:10
`rules 8:20,22 12:10
`12:18 13:17 17:21
`ruling 6:5 15:25
`16:10
`running 16:14
`S
`
`S 4:2
`SAMSUNG 1:4,4
`1:16,17
`saying 12:10
`says 13:16
`schedule 5:24
`scheduled 14:18
`scratching 14:2
`seal 20:17
`second 13:15
`secondly 7:12
`Section 12:2
`seek 6:5
`seeking 7:7 14:16
`15:7,25 16:7
`September 1:1 2:1
`2:8 3:1 4:1 5:1
`6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1
`10:1 11:1 12:1
`13:1 14:1 15:1
`16:1 17:1 18:1
`
`19:1 20:1
`serve 8:24 9:4
`served 8:12
`set 20:9,17
`Shaw 2:7 4:8,17,23
`4:24 6:9 7:25
`11:7 12:7 14:11
`15:10 17:22 18:2
`18:3
`short 16:14
`simply 8:8 10:10
`13:16 15:23
`SONY 1:5,16
`sort 14:22
`sounds 4:24
`specific 9:12 10:25
`17:5 18:7,16
`specifically 14:20
`spoken 16:3
`stand 9:17
`state 12:11
`stated 7:3 16:22
`statement 14:4
`statements 7:4,19
`9:17,20 17:6
`STATES 1:2,14
`stenographic 20:8
`Street 3:6
`stricken 6:8
`submit 5:16 6:3
`13:14 16:9
`submitted 5:10
`6:24
`submitting 16:12
`substantial 12:24
`substantive 15:4
`sufficient 11:5 12:8
`sufficiently 12:16
`supplemental 5:16
`6:3 8:25 9:4
`16:17 18:13
`sure 14:25
`Surpass 1:8,20
`4:22
`surprised 9:23
`sworn 20:12
`T
`
`taken 20:8
`talking 16:19
`TECH 1:8,20
`TELEPHONIC
`1:25 2:5
`tell 10:11
`Tenth 3:6
`terms 9:12,20
`10:17,18 17:15
`testimony 7:10
`17:16
`thank 4:8,17 15:14
`17:22 18:21,23,24
`thereof 20:15
`thing 14:13 16:11
`things 10:9
`think 8:6,7,18 9:5,9
`9:22 10:8,19 11:2
`11:4 13:25 14:13
`16:15
`thinks 14:5
`thought 5:23
`three 6:13
`throw 10:16
`time 9:11 16:13
`18:9,21 20:9
`timely 8:12
`title 20:10
`today 15:3
`TRADEMARK
`1:2,14
`transcript 5:2 20:6
`transcription 20:8
`translation 6:21
`7:5,13 9:15,21
`10:5,6 11:8,9,14
`11:18,25 12:5
`13:9,11,21,23
`14:6 16:19,21
`17:17
`translations 11:21
`translator 7:11
`trial 1:2,14 6:20
`true 10:7 20:7
`truth 7:6,14,21
`9:22 10:4 16:25
`17:7
`Tuesday 2:8
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 23/24
`
`

`
`13:7
`
`9
`
`9:30 2:9
`9:40 19:2
`98433 1:25
`9th 20:17
`
`Page 24
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`SEC v. Surpass Tech, IPR2015-00887
`SAMSUNG EX. 1018 - 24/24