throbber
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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------x
`AMX, LLC and DELL, Inc.
` Petitioner,
` Case Nos.
` vs. IPR2016-00569
` IPR2016-00574
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------x
`AMX, LLC,
` Petitioner,
` Case Nos.
` IPR2016-00572
` vs. IPR2016-00573
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------x
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` Wednesday, April 13, 2016
` 4:00 p.m.
`B E F O R E:
` PANEL:
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK
` JUDGE EASTHOM
` JUDGE ANDERSON
`Reported by:
`Jennifer Ocampo-Guzman, CRR, CLR
`JOB NO. 106249
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-1
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
` April 13, 2016
` 4:00 p.m.
`
` Telephonic proceedings, pursuant
`to notice, before Jennifer
`Ocampo-Guzman, a Certified Real-Time
`Shorthand Reporter and a Notary Public
`of the State of New York.
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-2
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
` Attorneys for the Petitioner AMX
` 227 West Monroe Street
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` BY: AMOL PARIKH, ESQ.
` BRENT HAWKINS, ESQ.
`
` NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
` Attorneys for Petitioner Dell for
` IPR2016-00569 and IPR2016-00574
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
` Austin, Texas 78701
` BY: GILBERT GREENE, ESQ.
`
` ///
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-3
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 4
`
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
` THOMPSON & KNIGHT
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1722 Routh Street
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` BY: JUSTIN COHEN, ESQ.
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-4
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: This is Judge
`Weinschenk. Case numbers IPR2016-00569,
`00572, 00573 and 00574. Who do we have
`on the line for petitioner?
` MR. PARIKH: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. This is Amol Parikh from
`McDermott, Will & Emery on behalf of
`petitioner AMX, and with me is my
`colleague, Brent Hawkins, also with
`McDermott.
` MR. GREENE: And, Your Honor, this
`is Bert Greene, who is a backup counsel
`on the -- for the petitioner on the 569
`and 574 cases.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Do we have
`different groups of petitioners then for
`the different cases?
` MR. PARIKH: That's correct, Your
`Honor. This is again Amol Parikh.
` AMX is a petitioner in each of the
`four cases. Dell is a co-petitioner in
`the 569 case and the 574 case.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And who
`do we have on the line for patent owner?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-5
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` MR. COHEN: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. This is Justin Cohen of Thompson
`& Knight representing the patent owner
`in all petitions.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And it's my
`understanding that the patent owner
`retained the court reporter.
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor. We've reached an agreement with
`petitioners to have a court reporter for
`each board proceeding, and we have hired
`them for this particular proceeding.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Well,
`I'll ask you that when the transcript of
`the call is available, that you will be
`the party responsible for filing this
`transcript as an exhibit.
` MR. COHEN: Yes, Your Honor. We
`can handle that.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right. Before we get started, since we
`do have a court reporter on the line,
`I'll remind all the parties to please
`identify themselves before speaking, so
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-6
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`that the court reporter can keep the
`transcript clear.
` Patent owner requested this call.
`I believe there's two issues that patent
`owner has identified. The first one has
`to do with the recent rule amendment, so
`why don't we start with that and why
`doesn't the patent owner tell us what
`the issue is.
` MR. COHEN: Thank you, Your Honor,
`Justin Cohen, again for the patent
`owner.
` The new rules are going to be
`effective as of May 1st. After May 1st
`the patent owner has preliminary
`responses due, and the question is
`whether or not the new rule amendment
`applies to petitioner, to patent owner's
`preliminary responses, particularly
`regarding the length and the ability to
`provide additional evidence.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So is this just
`a question, or do the parties have
`positions on this?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-7
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` MR. COHEN: I believe it's just a
`question. Patent owner's position is
`that this doesn't seem to be anything
`restrictive in the rules, suggesting
`that they should not apply, I believe
`our position is that they likely should
`apply, but for the most part, it's a
`question.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Does
`petitioner have any view on this issue?
` MR. PARIKH: Your Honor, this is
`the Amol Parikh for the petitioner.
` We do not have a position on this
`issue. It's our understanding from the
`reading of the rules that I believe the
`new rules do apply, but we accept
`whatever the panel is willing to
`provide.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Well, it
`doesn't really sound like there's a
`dispute to resolve that we have before
`us right now, but I will direct you to a
`portion of the Federal Register
`Publication that states that the rule
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-8
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`applies to all AIA petitions filed on or
`after the effective date, and to any
`ongoing AIA preliminary proceeding or
`trial before the office.
` So under that rule, it would seem
`to be that if your preliminary response
`is due after the effective date of the
`rules, then the amendment should apply.
` MR. COHEN: This is Justin Cohen.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. Is
`there anything else with regard to the
`rule amendments?
` MR. COHEN: Nothing from the patent
`owner, Your Honor.
` MR. PARIKH: Nothing from the
`petitioner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right.
` The second issue that I believe the
`patent owner identified is, there is a
`request for a motion, to file a motion
`for additional discovery. So why don't
`we take that issue up now.
` MR. COHEN: Justin Cohen, again for
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-9
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`the patent owner, Your Honor.
` We're prepared to make a showing of
`the Garmin factors that we can make a
`sufficient showing entitling us to
`additional discovery on the real
`parties-in-interest, and particularly
`that the petitioners, AMX and Dell, have
`failed to identify all of the relevant
`real parties-in-interest for these
`proceedings. And if we are correct, and
`if that discovery shows that some of the
`real parties-in-interest have in fact
`filed declaratory judgment actions, that
`these positions should be barred and
`terminated.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Why don't you
`give me sort of a high level view of
`what the issue is here. What real
`parties-in-interest do you believe
`weren't identified and what sort of
`evidence do you have suggesting that
`they are real parties-in-interest?
` MR. COHEN: Yes, now with the
`caveat, Your Honor, that none of this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-10
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`evidence currently stated, this is sort
`of a preview and a high level, and none
`of it standing alone would be sufficient
`under the board's case law to prove our
`case, but to go through at a very high
`level, starting with AMX. AMX is
`represented by McDermott, Will & Emery,
`who is also representing Hewlett
`Packard, HP, in another action in
`California, also involving ChriMar and
`ChriMar's patents, but a different
`patent.
` HP has filed declaratory judgment
`action in Detroit, in Federal court,
`asserting invalidity of all of these
`patents. One of those patents happens
`to be the '019 patent in which AMX is
`not accused of infringing. So AMX has
`actually filed a petition, an IPR
`petition, on a patent that they are not
`yet accused of infringing. The other
`issue with AMX is that --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Wait. Stop.
`Hold on a second. I just want to make
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-11
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`sure I understand here.
` Which patent are you referring to
`that AMX has not been accused of
`infringing?
` MR. COHEN: It's the '019 patent,
`at petition ending 572.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And what
`you're telling me is that HP has filed a
`declaratory judgment action requesting a
`ruling of invalidity on that patent and
`AMX has filed a petition for inter
`partes' review of that same patent?
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And both AMX and
`HP are represented by the McDermott
`firm?
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` In addition are using the same
`expert, Richard Seifert, or have been
`using him in past for issues involving
`ChriMar.
` And further to that point with AMX,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-12
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`there are possibilities that there are
`other real parties-in-interest, we know
`that AMX have in the past been
`indemnified by another party accused of
`infringement in a ChriMar case, which is
`Ruckus Wireless.
` So AMX sells, resells certain
`products provided by Ruckus, and in the
`past, Ruckus has indemnified and may
`still be indemnifying AMX.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And when you say
`that they've in the past indemnified
`AMX, you mean with respect to different
`patents and different cases?
` MR. COHEN: Correct.
` Well, with respect to the ongoing
`litigation involving ChriMar and AMX.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And are those
`same patents at issue in the litigation
`as they are here?
` MR. COHEN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And that was
`Ruckus Wireless?
` MR. COHEN: Correct.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-13
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Can you spell
`that for me?
` MR. COHEN: R-U-C-K-U-S.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right.
` MR. COHEN: There are other
`companies accused of infringement.
` So to Dell, for example, Dell is a
`reseller of a number of products made
`and provided by third parties. Several
`of those third parties are also
`defendants in various ChriMar cases and
`are being accused of infringement
`currently. Aruba Networks is one
`provider of products.
` Aruba was acquired by HP, I want to
`say, roughly a year and a half ago. We
`know that HP has requested
`indemnification from at least one
`supplier, and our assumption is they
`requested indemnification from all of
`their suppliers, which would include
`Aruba Networks now owned by Hewlett
`Packard, by HP.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-14
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: You lost me
`quite a bit there.
` You're telling me that Dell has
`requested indemnification from Aruba
`which is owned by HP?
` MR. COHEN: I don't know that for
`certain yet. What I know for certain is
`that Dell has requested indemnification
`from one of the patent owner's
`licensees, and that was turned over to
`us, basically to confirm the products
`provided by our licensee are not accused
`and are licensed.
` Based on that evidence, we believe
`Dell has requested indemnification from
`each of their suppliers, one of them
`would be HP through Aruba Networks.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And you think
`that the parties that made potential
`indemnitors are the real
`parties-in-interest.
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And that they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-15
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`have filed DJ actions?
` MR. COHEN: HP has. There's
`another round of potential indemnitors
`who are currently litigants and
`defendants in ChriMar litigation,
`Aerohive Networks being one, D-Link Inc.
`being another, and Juniper Networks.
` These are companies currently being
`accused of infringement for these same
`patents. They supply products to Dell,
`and we believe may be real
`parties-in-interest as well.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. COHEN: I should say, Your
`Honor, that there are others, but this
`is, you know, a high level overview of
`several.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And what
`exactly, what kind of discovery would
`you be asking for?
` MR. COHEN: We've sent the other
`side eight interrogatories and six
`document requests, mostly dealing with
`indemnification issues, but in addition,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-16
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`issues of who they have been
`communicating with and preparing and
`filing the IPRs, who has been assisting,
`who has been directing, and possibly who
`is controlling these particular
`petitions, who has the right to control
`these petitions.
` And similar, on the request for
`production, indemnity agreements, any
`tendering or acceptance of indemnity.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So do you have
`anything at this time that would
`indicate to you, other than the fact
`that some of these companies may be
`potential indemnitors, that they are in
`any way involved at all on these
`petitions?
` MR. COHEN: What we have so far is
`the commonality of counsel, commonality
`of the experts, you know, common
`issues --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: That's a
`separate issue, right? I don't think
`you're arguing that HP is an indemnitor,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-17
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`right?
` MR. COHEN: HP may be. And it's
`because they now own Aruba Networks and
`Aruba Networks is supplying products to
`Dell. Okay. So that indemnity
`obligation and possibly the accusation
`of infringement against HP would likely
`apply to Aruba Networks as well.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Outside
`of, sort of, commonality of counsel and
`experts, do we have anything else that
`would suggest that any of these parties
`were participating in the petition?
` MR. COHEN: At this time I don't
`believe I have direct evidence of that.
`I think we have circumstantial evidence.
`This is why we would like to request
`some additional discovery.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And if you were
`to file a motion for additional
`discovery, you would be asking to serve
`three interrogatories and six requests
`for production?
` MR. COHEN: That's correct.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-18
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right.
` Petitioner, would you like to
`respond to patent owner's request?
` MR. PARIKH: Yes, thank you, Your
`Honor. This is Amol Parikh for AMX, and
`I think Your Honor hit the nail on the
`head right there with, you know, this is
`speculation, and the fact that there are
`indemnity agreements, we don't dispute
`that, but that's not the issue.
` In every case there are probably
`indemnity obligations involving these
`products, but what, under the PTAB rules
`and case law is whether there is
`anything beyond speculation that would
`be uncovered regarding the either
`funding, direction, control or ability
`to exercise or direct the IPR
`proceeding; and I think as Mr. Cohen
`said or admitted, that there is
`absolutely no evidence to that effect
`here.
` The simple fact that there is a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-19
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`common expert, which is being used in
`these cases, the fact that there may be
`indemnification obligations, and the
`fact that McDermott may be representing
`with two separate teams, two
`different -- two different defendants,
`does not show that, you know, there is
`any direction, control or participation
`by other companies, or any evidence of
`it.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Let me ask you
`this: If most of patent owner's
`requests for discovery are just trying
`to sort out and see if there is an
`indemnification obligation here, whether
`they're requesting agreements or to see
`if there is any request for
`indemnification being made, would
`petitioner be willing to turn that over
`voluntarily?
` MR. PARIKH: Mr. Cohen referenced
`the interrogatories and the requests for
`production, and the way they've been
`currently drafted it, for example,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-20
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`identify all third parties you
`communicated with regarding
`indemnification, with regard to the
`litigation, any third party you
`communicated with regarding the IPRs,
`all indemnity agreements involving the
`accused products.
` So, you know, at this point, given
`what the requests are, they're
`incredibly broad, and we object to the
`requests as they're currently drafted.
` Because, you know, for example, the
`indemnity agreement involving these
`products, that could be certainly
`thousands, because it could components
`of the products which are completely
`unrelated to anything involving the
`litigation.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Understood. If
`petitioner -- sorry -- if patent owner
`was able to put together a list of, say,
`you know, indemnification agreements
`with the four or five companies that
`they mentioned on this call, would that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-21
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`be something you would be able to turn
`over?
` MR. PARIKH: I think the issue is,
`Your Honor, the indemnification
`agreements are not relevant. What the
`relevant inquiry, at least our
`understanding of it is, is whether any
`third party has the right to control the
`activities in the IPR, and for that, we
`would be willing to say as to those
`documents, that it is our position that
`there are no documents. There are no
`third parties who have the right to
`control these IPR petitions, and there
`are no third parties which are providing
`any funding.
` In terms of, you know, all the
`indemnification agreements, I don't
`think that's relevant here. Because
`whether there is control of the IPR
`proceeding, and none of the
`indemnification agreements, there is no
`third party which has the right to
`control these IPR proceedings.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-22
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Yes, I
`understand your position that you don't
`believe that any of these parties are
`real parties-in-interest. I was just
`curious if, you know, if we were to
`satisfy patent owner's request to look
`into the issue a bit whether you would
`turn over these agreements so they could
`see what the relationship was, and I
`don't think you would be admitting in
`any way that there is control or
`anything like that by turning those
`over. It would just be a way to sort of
`in good faith provide some documents to
`patent owner to see if they can check
`the relationships to see if there is any
`issues there.
` MR. PARIKH: That particular issue
`I think we would have to confer on. I
`would have to talk to my clients about
`that so I'm not prepared to -- so if we
`can limit it to that. At least for AMX
`I don't believe there are any
`indemnification agreements. With HP,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-23
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`for example, which is one of the
`companies that Mr. Cohen referenced,
`sorry, again, you know, we're not in a
`position where the document doesn't
`exist, so I'm happy to -- it could be
`something that it doesn't exist, and my
`understanding is there is no such
`document and there would be nothing to
`turn over there.
` You know, but in terms of
`communications and, you know, all this
`other, I guess I would have to
`understand what the specific request
`would be.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Right, right.
`Okay. I think I understand petitioner's
`position.
` Patent owner, is there anything
`else you would like to add, and
`specifically with something what I just
`discussed with the petitioner work if
`you could identify, say, the five or six
`companies you're concerned about, and
`petitioner would just turn over the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-24
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 25
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`indemnification agreements, and you can
`go from there?
` MR. COHEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Justin Cohen.
` Unfortunately, just the agreements
`alone would not be sufficient evidence,
`and so we would actually need some
`additional discovery beyond those
`agreements, and just with the parties
`that we know about.
` Importantly, you know, in the Intel
`versus U.S. International Trade
`Commission, in the Federal Circuit,
`1991, talks about that indemnification
`in a party who is accepting the tender
`of indemnification may be enough to show
`privy, and therefore, it's real
`party-in-interest in this issue or
`privy.
` Now, while the agreements requiring
`one party to indemnify another may be
`precursor to proving that, we would need
`the additional discovery to show that
`these parties had accepted the tender of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-25
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`indemnification which requires us to
`have more discovery on the issue, the
`communications and the interrogatory
`responses.
` We put together our listing as to
`proposed discovery and sent it to the
`petitioners. We asked if there was any
`subset of that discovery that
`petitioners could agree, to which they
`said no.
` For AMX, if the answer is that is
`there is no document and there are no
`communications on this issue, it doesn't
`seem like there should be a dispute
`about allowing us to serve the discovery
`and receive those answers.
` So I think at this point, Your
`Honor, I'm unable to see narrowing,
`given the refusal to provide any
`discovery from petitioners, and I think
`we just need to move forward and file
`our motion to request the additional
`discovery.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Can you give me
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-26
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`a list again of what which companies you
`think may be the potential indemnitors
`that have either filed a DJ action or
`have been sued more than a year before
`the petition was filed?
` MR. COHEN: Yes, Your Honor. I
`would caveat that some of these parties
`have not been sued more than a year ago.
`But to identify them as a real
`party-in-interest is critical in
`determining the scope of the estoppel in
`litigation.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. COHEN: The listing includes
`Cisco, Hewlett Packard or HP.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Yes.
` MR. COHEN: Aruba Networks,
`Aerohive Networks, D-link -- that's, D
`dash, L-I-N-K -- Juniper Networks,
`Netgear; Trendnet, all one word,
`T-R-E-N-D-N-E-T; and Ruckus Wireless.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And you think
`these are all potential indemnitors of
`AMX or Dell?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-27
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` MR. COHEN: Or Dell.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. I think I
`understand the parties' positions here.
`I'm going to place you all on hold for a
`few minutes while I confer with the
`panel, and I will be back with you
`shortly.
` MR. PARIKH: Thank you, Your Honor.
` (Panel confers off the record.)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. This
`is Judge Weinschenk again.
` I just wanted to clarify one point
`with patent owner, of that list of
`companies that you gave to me before we
`went on hold, are some of those, if they
`were added as RPIs, they would trigger a
`bar now and some of them would not?
` MR. COHEN: This is Justin Cohen.
`That's correct, Your Honor. If Cisco or
`HP were identified as a real
`party-in-interest that would trigger the
`bar now. Many of the others would not
`trigger a bar now. It would be relevant
`to the scope of the estoppel.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-28
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right.
` So I've conferred with the panel
`and what we're going to do here is we're
`going to authorize patent owner to file
`a motion for additional discovery. The
`motion will be limited to ten pages, and
`the motion will be due a week from
`today. So it will be due next
`Wednesday, April 20th.
` We're also going to authorize
`petitioner to file a response to the
`motion. The response will also be
`ten pages and it will be due a week
`after the motion. So it will be due
`April 27th.
` I'm going to remind patent owner
`that simply because we're authorizing
`the motion, it does not mean that we're
`granting the motion. Your motion will
`need to walk through the factors set
`forth in the Garmin v. QOSMOS case that
`I believe you're familiar with, if not,
`I can give you the cite. But two of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-29
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`main factors that I think these motions
`often turn on are that the party
`requesting discovery needs to show some
`evidence tending to show beyond
`speculation that something useful will
`be uncovered; and second that the
`request need to be responsibly tailored
`according to a genuine need.
` I'll also ask that the patent owner
`include as an exhibit with the motion
`the proposed discovery that they plan to
`serve.
` With that said, are there any
`questions from the patent owner?
` MR. COHEN: No, Your Honor. Thank
`you.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Are there any
`questions from the petitioner?
` MR. PARIKH: No, Your Honor. And
`this is Amol Parikh. No, Your Honor.
`Thank you.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right. So we will issue an order
`confirming our authorization of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-30
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`motion and the page limits and the
`deadlines, but in case that doesn't go
`out for a day or two, you guys know when
`these things are due, and you can start
`working on them.
` I'm just going to put you on a
`brief hold again to make sure there is
`nothing else from the panel.
` (Panel confers off the record.)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. This
`is Judge Weinschenk again. There is
`nothing further from the panel, and
`having no question from the parties, we
`can adjourn this call. Thank you all
`for your time and have a nice evening.
` MR. COHEN: Thank you.
` (Time noted: 4:34 p.m.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-31
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838
`
`

`
`Page 32
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`STATE OF NEW YORK )
` : ss.
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
`
` I, Jennifer Ocampo-Guzman, a
` Notary Public within and for the State
` of New York, do hereby certify that the
` within is a true and accurate
` transcript of the proceedings taken on
` April 13, 2016.
` I further certify that I am not
` related to any of the parties to this
` action by blood or marriage and that I
` am in no way interested in the outcome
` of this matter.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
` hereunto set my hand this 14th day of
` April 2016.
`
` ________________________________
` JENNIFER OCAMPO-GUZMAN, CRR, CLR
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-32
`IPR2016-00573 USPN 9,019,838

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket