`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`__________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JUNE 21, 2017 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10142440
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael Fleming
`
`Michael Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`Nima Hefazi (Reg. No. 63,658)
`Jonathan Kagan, Pro Hac Vice
`Talin Gordnia, Pro Hac Vice pending
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`10142440
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case IPR2016-01397
`Patent 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 42.6 that a complete copy of
`
`the TRANSCRIPT OF JUNE 21, 2017 TELEPHONIC HEARING is being
`
`served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, the same day as the filing of
`
`the above-identified documents in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon:
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`CHRMC0111IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`
`
`Richard W. Hoffman (Reg. No. 33,711)
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 1850
`Troy, MI 48084
`Hoffman@reising.com
`
`
`
`
`
` /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case IPR2016-01397
`Patent 9,019,838
`
`
`June 30, 2017
`
`10142440
`
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 2 ____________________________________________
` 3 JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS
` WIRELESS, INC., BROCADE
` 4 COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
` AND NETGEAR, INC.,
` 5 Petitioners,
` v.
`
` 6
`
` CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` 7 Patent Owner.
` 8 U.S. Patent No. 9,019.83
` Case No. IPR2016-03197
`
` 9
`
` 10 U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
` Case No. IPR2016-01389
`
` 11
`
` 12 U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
` Case No. IPR2016-01391
`
` 13
`
` 14 U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
` Case No. IPR2016-01399
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17 EXCERPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` 18
`
` 19 * * * * * * * *
` 20
`
` 21 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` 22 Before Judge Weinschenk
` 23 Wednesday, June 21, 2017
` 24
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 * * * * * * * *
` 2
`
` 3 APPEARANCES
` 4
`
` 5 REPRESENTING JUNIPER NETWORKS:
` 6
`
` 7 Talin Gordnia, Esq.
` lgordnia@irell.com
` 8 IRELL & MANELLA
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
` 9 Los Angeles, California 90067
` (310)277-1010
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12 REPRESENTING NETGEAR AND RUCKUS WIRELESS:
` 13
`
` 14 Matthew S. Yungwirth, Esq.
` msyungwirth@duanemorris.com
` 15 DUANE MORRIS
` 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
` 16 Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` (404)253-6935
`
` 17
`
` 18 Christopher J. Tyson, Esq.
` cjtyson@duanemorris.com
` 19 DUANE MORRIS
` 505 9th Street N.W., Suite 1000
` 20 Washington, D.C. 20004
` (202)776-7851
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 APPEARANCES, CONTINUED
`
` 2
`
` 3 REPRESENTING CHRIMAR SYSTEMS:
`
` 4
`
` 5 Thomas A. Lewry, Esq.
`
` tlewry@brookskushman.com
`
` 6 Mr. Frank Angeliri, Esq.
`
` angeliri@brookskushman.com
`
` 7 BROOKS KUSHMAN
`
` 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`
` 8 Southfield, Michigan 48075
`
` (248)358-4400
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11 ALSO PRESENT:
`
` 12
`
` 13 Mr. Cole Burnett
`
` 14 Mr. Ian Crayford, by telephone
`
` 15
`
` 16 * * * * * * * *
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 THE COURT: Who retained the
`
` 2 court reporter for the deposition
`
` 3 today?
`
` 4 MS. GORDNIA: Petitioners did,
`
` 5 Your Honor.
`
` 6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then,
`
` 7 I will ask that you file a
`
` 8 transcript of this call, since it's
`
` 9 being recorded, once you receive
`
` 10 it. Okay?
`
` 11 MS. GORDNIA: We will do so.
`
` 12 Yes.
`
` 13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`
` 14 All right. It sounds like patent
`
` 15 owner has an issue with the
`
` 16 deposition and requested this call.
`
` 17 So why don't we start there with
`
` 18 Mr. Lewry. I know you're in the
`
` 19 middle of a deposition. So tell us
`
` 20 as briefly as you can the issue.
`
` 21 MR. LEWRY: Thank you. The
`
` 22 situation is that there are four
`
` 23 separate IPRs that were filed and
`
` 24 are pending. The -- they have
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 common subject matter to a large
`
` 2 extent, which we all understand.
`
` 3 And so at the time that the
`
` 4 deposition was scheduled, it was
`
` 5 agreed that rather than the four
`
` 6 days that were normally allotted
`
` 7 under the rules for a deposition --
`
` 8 that the deposition of our expert
`
` 9 would be taken in a matter of three
`
` 10 days.
`
` 11 We then received four separate
`
` 12 deposition notices from the
`
` 13 petitioner, and so then -- and with
`
` 14 the dates and everything that were
`
` 15 scheduled. And so we inquired
`
` 16 yesterday what order the
`
` 17 depositions would be taken in, and
`
` 18 we were informed that they did not
`
` 19 plan to take them in order of -- or
`
` 20 by IPR number. They wanted to take
`
` 21 them, I guess, in a subject
`
` 22 matter -- they didn't really
`
` 23 explain, but -- and so that led to
`
` 24 this request for a hearing on this.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 One of the key issues for us
`
` 2 is, under the rules -- and I'm
`
` 3 referring now to 37 CFR 42.53,
`
` 4 subparagraph (c)(2). Unless the
`
` 5 parties agree or stipulate
`
` 6 otherwise, the time limit for
`
` 7 deposition is seven hours, and then
`
` 8 we have opportunity for redirect
`
` 9 examination on the patent owner
`
` 10 side, and then there would be two
`
` 11 hours for recross. And that was
`
` 12 the understanding we were operating
`
` 13 under, because there was no
`
` 14 agreement or order to the contrary
`
` 15 on that.
`
` 16 So when we raised that with
`
` 17 them, and they said no, they were
`
` 18 going to go for three consecutive
`
` 19 days, essentially, without -- try
`
` 20 to keep the witness under oath and
`
` 21 on cross-examination for all three
`
` 22 days is why we objected to this,
`
` 23 because it's our understanding and
`
` 24 our belief going forward that we're
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 entitled to -- they're entitled to
`
` 2 seven hours on a particular matter,
`
` 3 and then it's over, that matter is
`
` 4 over, and we can confer with our
`
` 5 witness at that point if we need to
`
` 6 or want to, and then they can pick
`
` 7 up with another -- a matter number.
`
` 8 So that's our position.
`
` 9 THE COURT: Mr. Lewry, though,
`
` 10 the section you cited me to says,
`
` 11 "unless stipulated by the parties."
`
` 12 It sounds like you stipulated to
`
` 13 something else, because you agreed
`
` 14 to three days, not four days.
`
` 15 MR. LEWRY: We did agree to
`
` 16 shorten the number of hours total
`
` 17 that would be spent. It was at
`
` 18 their request. And so we, I guess,
`
` 19 ceded to that request. But we
`
` 20 didn't agree and they didn't serve
`
` 21 a consolidated notice. They served
`
` 22 individual notices. We never had a
`
` 23 discussion about consolidating the
`
` 24 deposition in the sense of it would
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 be three days of cross-examination.
`
` 2 It was only how much time would be
`
` 3 allotted as opposed to the normal
`
` 4 28 hours, they had 21 hours, and
`
` 5 then however they chose to allocate
`
` 6 that.
`
` 7 And it made sense in the
`
` 8 context, because there are
`
` 9 commonalities of issues. There
`
` 10 were the four patents that are at
`
` 11 issue with respect to the issues in
`
` 12 this IPR. Many of them are in
`
` 13 common with respect to two of the
`
` 14 patents, in particular. And then
`
` 15 there are some other issues that
`
` 16 are unique to a couple of the other
`
` 17 patents.
`
` 18 So our understanding is they
`
` 19 would spend their first seven hours
`
` 20 on the common issues in one of the
`
` 21 patents, and then -- and then use
`
` 22 the other time to follow up with
`
` 23 other topics or other issues that
`
` 24 they needed to cover with respect
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 to other issues. So that -- there
`
` 2 was no communication or
`
` 3 understanding or agreement beyond
`
` 4 the number of hours.
`
` 5 THE COURT: You guys had no
`
` 6 discussion at the time as to how
`
` 7 the three days or the 21 hours
`
` 8 would be broken up?
`
` 9 MR. LEWRY: That's correct.
`
` 10 THE COURT: Okay. Looking at
`
` 11 their deposition notices, though,
`
` 12 it looks like they served a notice
`
` 13 in each case that says that the
`
` 14 witness will be under oath starting
`
` 15 on day one until the conclusion of
`
` 16 the deposition on day three. Did
`
` 17 you guys receive that notice? Is
`
` 18 there a reason why you waited so
`
` 19 long to try to clarify that?
`
` 20 MR. LEWRY: We did receive the
`
` 21 notice. I've got to say, frankly,
`
` 22 that I didn't notice that until
`
` 23 this issue came up. It -- you
`
` 24 know, I probably didn't read the
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 notices carefully enough. It
`
` 2 wasn't something that we had agreed
`
` 3 to. They put it in unilaterally,
`
` 4 and my understanding of the rules
`
` 5 is even though they said it in the
`
` 6 notice doesn't make it a reality.
`
` 7 But the reason for raising it late,
`
` 8 I suppose, in that sense, is
`
` 9 because I hadn't noticed it, and
`
` 10 nobody on our side had noticed it,
`
` 11 that I'm aware of.
`
` 12 THE COURT: Okay. Because we
`
` 13 do have a rule that if you want to
`
` 14 make a motion to quash a deposition
`
` 15 notice, that should be sought
`
` 16 promptly.
`
` 17 MR. LEWRY: Right. I
`
` 18 understand. But from my
`
` 19 perspective, we're trying to
`
` 20 enforce the existing rule, which
`
` 21 says unless there's a stipulation
`
` 22 otherwise. We view this as them
`
` 23 changing the rules at the last
`
` 24 minute. So that's why, for us,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 this isn't late. But I understand
`
` 2 that it could have been raised
`
` 3 earlier, potentially, had we
`
` 4 understood what that phrase meant
`
` 5 and had noticed it and understood
`
` 6 it to mean that they wanted to do
`
` 7 three straight days of cross-
`
` 8 examination.
`
` 9 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lewry,
`
` 10 how would you like this divided up?
`
` 11 You want each day with its own
`
` 12 deposition, with its own cross, its
`
` 13 own redirect, its own recross?
`
` 14 MR. LEWRY: Yes. Basically,
`
` 15 that's true. At the end of seven
`
` 16 hours, if we have any redirect, I
`
` 17 would like to do our redirect, and
`
` 18 then move on to the next matter
`
` 19 number. And we have -- as I say,
`
` 20 it started because we had proposed
`
` 21 an order to the matters, and that's
`
` 22 what we understood was going on.
`
` 23 We expected them to either agree or
`
` 24 disagree in terms of that order,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 and that's how we ended up in this
`
` 2 conversation.
`
` 3 THE COURT: What's the problem
`
` 4 for you, practically speaking, if
`
` 5 they do all of their 21 hours of
`
` 6 cross and then you do all of your
`
` 7 redirect, and they do all of their
`
` 8 recross, rather than breaking it up
`
` 9 into three separate portions?
`
` 10 What's the problem practically for
`
` 11 you?
`
` 12 MR. LEWRY: Well, as a
`
` 13 practical matter, there should be
`
` 14 an opportunity to discuss with the
`
` 15 witness the issues that were raised
`
` 16 in the cross-examination and to
`
` 17 discuss the preparation for a
`
` 18 redirect. To try to put it all at
`
` 19 the very end of a three-day
`
` 20 deposition when we'd have to do all
`
` 21 of that at the very end of that
`
` 22 process, would be difficult and
`
` 23 time consuming. The witness's
`
` 24 memory may have faded in terms of
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 some of the things that were said.
`
` 2 It becomes a very difficult
`
` 3 practical issue to do when you
`
` 4 can't speak to the witness and
`
` 5 discuss the testimony except at the
`
` 6 end of three consecutive days.
`
` 7 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`
` 8 I think I understand the issue.
`
` 9 Ms. Gordnia, do you wish to
`
` 10 respond?
`
` 11 MS. GORDNIA: I do, Your Honor.
`
` 12 So this issue, as you've noted, was
`
` 13 raised only yesterday when most of
`
` 14 our team was traveling. And the
`
` 15 deposition notice that was served
`
` 16 in each of the four IPRs is
`
` 17 identical, and it clearly specified
`
` 18 that the deposition would be for
`
` 19 all four IPRs, that Dr. Madisetti
`
` 20 would continue to stay under oath.
`
` 21 And, as you mentioned, there was
`
` 22 obviously a reasonable amount of
`
` 23 time for patent owner to object and
`
` 24 try to seek clarification as
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 opposed to waiting until today.
`
` 2 But putting that aside, the bottom
`
` 3 line is that patent owner has
`
` 4 served essentially one declaration
`
` 5 from its expert. One declaration
`
` 6 was filed in exactly the same form
`
` 7 in three different IPRs, and then
`
` 8 the other copy that was filed in
`
` 9 the fourth IPR, we can't see any
`
` 10 difference.
`
` 11 So essentially, their expert
`
` 12 has submitted a single declaration.
`
` 13 And much of the declaration refers
`
` 14 to other parts of the declaration.
`
` 15 So there are opinions that span
`
` 16 dozens of pages that are common to
`
` 17 all four patents. Their internal
`
` 18 citations then references back to
`
` 19 earlier discussions from one patent
`
` 20 to another.
`
` 21 So the exercise of trying to
`
` 22 break this deposition up into
`
` 23 separate modules that would address
`
` 24 each IPR separately is, I think,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 nearly impossible, especially now
`
` 2 that we've already prepared for the
`
` 3 deposition and had been going on
`
` 4 the record for a couple hours this
`
` 5 morning. I think patent owner's
`
` 6 counsel will appreciate that the
`
` 7 questions asked are really applying
`
` 8 to all four IPRs, mainly because of
`
` 9 the way patent owner structured the
`
` 10 expert's declaration.
`
` 11 And so, I mean, given where we
`
` 12 are today, the timing of it and
`
` 13 given that the only motivation for
`
` 14 patent owner's request is to be
`
` 15 able to speak to the witness and
`
` 16 try to clarify or correct
`
` 17 testimony, we think that's an
`
` 18 improper basis to try to change up
`
` 19 what we had essentially agreed to
`
` 20 and they hadn't objected to. So
`
` 21 it's a little concerning for us
`
` 22 that they're trying to carve out a
`
` 23 way to sort of circumvent the rules
`
` 24 against conferring with their
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 expert. And the manner in which
`
` 2 they're trying to do it is,
`
` 3 unfortunately, kind of impossible
`
` 4 for us to make happen at this
`
` 5 point.
`
` 6 And I think -- we just looked
`
` 7 this up very quickly. The
`
` 8 testimony guidelines are in, I
`
` 9 believe, Section 6 of the Practice
`
` 10 Guide.
`
` 11 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Gordnia,
`
` 12 let me ask you this: It sounds
`
` 13 like maybe -- I may be speaking on
`
` 14 behalf of patent owner a little bit
`
` 15 here, but it sounds like maybe
`
` 16 their concern isn't necessarily
`
` 17 exactly how you divide up the
`
` 18 testimony, so maybe we don't need
`
` 19 to break this into each day of a
`
` 20 different IPR, that you can ask
`
` 21 questions as you see fit. But how
`
` 22 would you feel about giving patent
`
` 23 owner the opportunity at the end of
`
` 24 each day to do some form of
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 redirect so that they don't have to
`
` 2 wait 21 hours to do a redirect?
`
` 3 Because I do understand their point
`
` 4 there. It's kind of difficult to
`
` 5 redirect someone at the end of
`
` 6 three days after 21 hours of cross.
`
` 7 Would you be amenable to allowing
`
` 8 them to do some redirect and have a
`
` 9 recross at the end of each day on
`
` 10 what transpired that day?
`
` 11 MS. GORDNIA: So as sort of an
`
` 12 organizational scheme, we would be
`
` 13 amenable to that, but only if
`
` 14 they're not permitted to coach or
`
` 15 speak with the witness in between
`
` 16 the cross and redirect. And
`
` 17 also -- even in between the days.
`
` 18 So, for example, there may be an
`
` 19 issue that we ask about on day one
`
` 20 and it resurfaces on day two. And
`
` 21 because they've gone home on day
`
` 22 one and spoken with the witness and
`
` 23 coached the witness, now that
`
` 24 witness's testimony is no longer
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 proper on day two.
`
` 2 So just because of the way that
`
` 3 this -- basically because of the
`
` 4 way the declaration was written and
`
` 5 the fact that the specification is
`
` 6 the same for all four patents,
`
` 7 there is a lot of opportunity for
`
` 8 the witness to say something that
`
` 9 causes us to go back to an issue.
`
` 10 And, again, if that issue was
`
` 11 addressed on day one and then the
`
` 12 witness was coached that evening,
`
` 13 that's obviously a problem. So to
`
` 14 the extent that they want to have
`
` 15 some time to do redirect and
`
` 16 recross at the end of each day,
`
` 17 that's fine. But we are very much
`
` 18 concerned with their plan to
`
` 19 essentially coach -- coach their
`
` 20 witness, especially given that, you
`
` 21 know, they provided one declaration
`
` 22 and that they didn't raise this
`
` 23 issue until just yesterday, even
`
` 24 though our depo notice was served
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 weeks ago and made pretty clear
`
` 2 what we were intending to do. But,
`
` 3 as counsel mentioned, they may not
`
` 4 have looked at it carefully enough
`
` 5 until yesterday.
`
` 6 THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate
`
` 7 your concerns, Ms. Gordnia. Let me
`
` 8 put a little bit of a finer point
`
` 9 on it here and see if this helps.
`
` 10 We do have some cases from the
`
` 11 Board that indicate that between
`
` 12 cross and redirect, that a counsel
`
` 13 can confer with their witness.
`
` 14 What if we were to do something
`
` 15 like on each day, patent owner's
`
` 16 counsel can do a redirect on the
`
` 17 issues that were raised that day
`
` 18 and can confer with their witness
`
` 19 between cross and redirect. You
`
` 20 would then have an opportunity to
`
` 21 recross that day. But the end of
`
` 22 the deposition for that day, they
`
` 23 wouldn't be able to confer with
`
` 24 their witness about substance
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 overnight for the next day.
`
` 2 Would that ease your concerns?
`
` 3 And I also will note that,
`
` 4 while we do permit conferences
`
` 5 between cross and redirect, you
`
` 6 know, if the record appears to be a
`
` 7 significant amount of coaching, or
`
` 8 any coaching for that matter,
`
` 9 that's an issue that will go to the
`
` 10 credibility of the witness. So
`
` 11 that's not something that we won't
`
` 12 consider. Does that sound like a
`
` 13 reasonable comprise to you,
`
` 14 Ms. Gordnia?
`
` 15 MS. GORDNIA: Well, just for
`
` 16 clarification, what does conferring
`
` 17 between cross and redirect entail?
`
` 18 I mean, to what extent -- what is
`
` 19 the purpose of that? Is it to tell
`
` 20 the witness how to answer the
`
` 21 redirect questions, or is it -- I
`
` 22 mean, I guess I'm not even seeing
`
` 23 why patent owner has a need to
`
` 24 confer with the expert in between.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 I understand that there might be
`
` 2 some cases that touch on this, and
`
` 3 given the timing, we haven't had an
`
` 4 opportunity to do the research, but
`
` 5 I -- nevertheless, I'm concerned
`
` 6 that there may be -- you know,
`
` 7 conferring is -- potentially can be
`
` 8 construed by patent owner counsel
`
` 9 to mean something more than just --
`
` 10 THE COURT: So you wouldn't
`
` 11 have a problem with any sort of
`
` 12 meeting/discussion between counsel
`
` 13 and their witness at any time
`
` 14 during the 21 hours?
`
` 15 MS. GORDNIA: Not any sort of
`
` 16 discussion. But I was looking for
`
` 17 some clarity on what "confer" means
`
` 18 and what the limits are, I think
`
` 19 mostly for the benefit of patent-
`
` 20 owner counsel, so that they
`
` 21 understand what the outer limits
`
` 22 are of what they can discuss with
`
` 23 their witness.
`
` 24 THE COURT: All right.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 Mr. Lewry, I've thrown a few
`
` 2 proposals on the table. How do you
`
` 3 respond to them and what kind of
`
` 4 conferences with your witness do
`
` 5 you entail?
`
` 6 MR. LEWRY: The proposal you
`
` 7 put out where we would, at the end
`
` 8 of each day, be able to do a
`
` 9 redirect and then we could confer
`
` 10 for purposes of that redirect only,
`
` 11 and then overnight not have any
`
` 12 further discussions, and certainly
`
` 13 no coaching, that was -- that
`
` 14 crossed my mind also as you were
`
` 15 discussing this. And so to me,
`
` 16 that seems like the reasonable
`
` 17 conclusion here.
`
` 18 My proposal would be that, as
`
` 19 you suggested, that, you know, at
`
` 20 the end of each day, we break. If
`
` 21 we have redirect issues, we're
`
` 22 allowed to confer with our witness
`
` 23 about the redirect issues and
`
` 24 certainly not coach the answers or
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 anything like that, but at least
`
` 2 alert the witness to the redirect
`
` 3 topics that we want to cover, and
`
` 4 then do that redirect, and then, of
`
` 5 course, if there's recross, they
`
` 6 can do recross that day. And then
`
` 7 overnight, we would have no
`
` 8 substantive communications with the
`
` 9 witness on the testimony or
`
` 10 anything else like that. That
`
` 11 seems reasonable.
`
` 12 THE COURT: Okay. And that's a
`
` 13 proposal you would agree to?
`
` 14 MR. LEWRY: Yes.
`
` 15 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Gordnia,
`
` 16 with his explanation that he could
`
` 17 alert his witness as to the topics
`
` 18 he would like to discuss on
`
` 19 redirect but not provide any
`
` 20 discussion as to what the answers
`
` 21 to those questions would be, is
`
` 22 that acceptable to you?
`
` 23 MS. GORDNIA: That is
`
` 24 acceptable, Your Honor.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 23
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`
` 2 I am going to place you on a brief
`
` 3 hold here to confer with my
`
` 4 colleagues. I'll be back in just a
`
` 5 minute.
`
` 6 (Off-the-record discussion from
`
` 7 12:06 p.m. to 12:07 p.m.)
`
` 8 THE COURT: So let me reiterate
`
` 9 what I think it sounds like we've
`
` 10 reached -- the parties have reached
`
` 11 an agreement on how to handle this
`
` 12 deposition. So you've got three
`
` 13 days of depositions. Each day
`
` 14 petitioner can do cross-examination
`
` 15 for seven hours. It is not limited
`
` 16 to any specific IPR on any specific
`
` 17 day.
`
` 18 At the end of the seven hours,
`
` 19 patent owner may do a redirect, and
`
` 20 then following that, petitioner may
`
` 21 do a recross. In between the end
`
` 22 of cross-examination for the day
`
` 23 and the start of redirect, patent
`
` 24 owner may confer with the witness
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 24
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 to alert them as to the topics that
`
` 2 they wish to discuss during the
`
` 3 redirect but may not provide any
`
` 4 substantive indications about
`
` 5 answers to those questions.
`
` 6 After the end of the deposition
`
` 7 for each day, after there is any
`
` 8 recross, after that deposition
`
` 9 ends, patent owner may not confer
`
` 10 substantively with their witness
`
` 11 about the case.
`
` 12 Does that accurately reflect
`
` 13 what we've discussed and what the
`
` 14 parties agree to, Ms. Gordnia?
`
` 15 MS. GORDNIA: That sounds
`
` 16 correct, Your Honor.
`
` 17 THE COURT: Mr. Lewry, does
`
` 18 that sound right to you?
`
` 19 MR. LEWRY: Yes, it does.
`
` 20 THE COURT: So with that, I
`
` 21 think we have given some guidance,
`
` 22 and the parties have reached an
`
` 23 agreement as to this issue. While
`
` 24 we're on the line, Ms. Gordnia, are
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 25
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 there any other issues you'd like
`
` 2 to discuss?
`
` 3 MS. GORDNIA: None at this
`
` 4 time. Thank you for giving us your
`
` 5 time on such short notice. We
`
` 6 appreciate it.
`
` 7 THE COURT: Sure thing.
`
` 8 Mr. Lewry, anything from you?
`
` 9 MR. LEWRY: Nothing further.
`
` 10 Thank you.
`
` 11 THE COURT: Okay. If issues do
`
` 12 arise about the agreement that
`
` 13 you've all reached, you know,
`
` 14 please reach out to us again. But
`
` 15 it sounds like the deposition can
`
` 16 move smoothly from here. So with
`
` 17 that said, thank you all.
`
` 18 This call is adjourned.
`
` 19
`
` 20 * * * * * * * *
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 26
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
` 2 I, Greta H. Duckett, Certified Court
`
` 3 Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter,
`
` 4 and Certified Realtime Reporter, hereby
`
` 5 certify that on Wednesday, June 21, 2017, I
`
` 6 reported the TELEPHONE CONFERENCE in the
`
` 7 matter of the foregoing cause, and that the
`
` 8 pages herein contain a true and acc
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
