UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` -----------------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` -----------------------------------
` VIZIO, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` NICHIA CORP.,
` Patent Owner.
` -----------------------------------
` Case No. IPR2018-00386, IPR2018-00437
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL BEFORE
` JUDGE NATHAN A. ENGELS, JUDGE SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
` JUDGE WILLIAM V. SAINDON
` Thursday, January 17, 2019
` 3:00 p.m.
`
`Job No.: 225431
`Pages: 1 - 22
`Reported By: Charlotte Lacey, RPR, CSR No. 14224
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00001
`
`
` -----------------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` -----------------------------------
` VIZIO, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` NICHIA CORP.,
` Patent Owner.
` -----------------------------------
` Case No. IPR2018-00386, IPR2018-00437
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL BEFORE
` JUDGE NATHAN A. ENGELS, JUDGE SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
` JUDGE WILLIAM V. SAINDON
` Thursday, January 17, 2019
` 3:00 p.m.
`
`Job No.: 225431
`Pages: 1 - 22
`Reported By: Charlotte Lacey, RPR, CSR No. 14224
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00001
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearances telephonic)
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER VIZIO, INC.:
` GABRIELLE E. HIGGINS, ESQUIRE
` CHRISTOPHER M. BONNY, ESQUIRE
` ROPES & GRAY LLP
` 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
` East Palo Alto, California 94303
` (650) 617-4000
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER NICHIA CORPORATION:
` MICHAEL H. JONES, ESQUIRE
` MARK T. RAWLS, ESQUIRE
` MARTIN M. ZOLTICK, ESQUIRE
` ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC
` 607 14th Street, Northwest, Suite 800
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 7883-6040
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00002
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`3
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE ENGELS: Good afternoon. This is Judge
`Engels. And with me on the line are Judges Medley and
`Judge Saindon. We're here this afternoon to discuss
`IPR2018-00386 and IPR2018-00437.
` Who's on the line for the parties?
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yeah. Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. It's Marty Zoltick on behalf of the patent owner
`Nichia.
` MS. HIGGINS: Hi. Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`This is Gabrielle Higgins and Christopher Bonny on the
`line on behalf of petitioner Vizio, Inc.
` MR. ZOLTICK: And, Your Honor, there should
`also be a court reporter on the line.
` THE REPORTER: Yes. This is Charlotte Lacey
`with Planet Depos.
` MR. JONES: And, Your Honors, you also have
`Michael Jones and Mark Rawls also for patent owner.
`Thank you.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you. At the end of the
`telephone conference today, if -- if the parties could
`submit a transcript of the hearing as an exhibit, we
`would appreciate that.
` MR. ZOLTICK: Yes. That's fine.
` JUDGE ENGELS: I understand we have a number
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00003
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`4
`
`of things to discuss today, as -- as mentioned in your
`e-mails.
` Let's begin with patent owner's request. I
`understand patent owner is requesting leave to file a
`sur-reply to patent owner's response. I understand from
`the e-mail that petitioner opposes the request.
` The practice guidelines generally allow a
`sur-reapply as a matter of course. Is there a
`particular reason that this sur-reply -- this request
`for a sur-reply is opposed?
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, this is Gabrielle
`Higgins for petitioner, and we fully acknowledge what's
`in the August Trial Practice Guide. When we met and
`conferred with patent owner, we asked patent owner if it
`would be agreeable to the petitioner having a three-page
`sur-reply. And our position is petitioner doesn't
`oppose patent owner's request for sur-replies on the
`condition that the board also authorizes
`sur-sur-replies. And just like patent owner argues that
`the sur-reply replaces observations on cross, as -- as
`you know, Your Honor, the scheduling orders here, which
`have been in place for over six months, already provide
`petitioner with a response to observations on cross,
`which we believe, in this transitional period, the board
`has the discretion to replace with a sur-sur-reply.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00004
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`5
`
` Since the scheduling order already provides
`petitioner with a paper, taking away a briefing
`opportunity would be unfair, especially given that
`petitioner has the burden here, and we believe would
`effectively be sanctioning the petitioner.
` And I would like to point the board to
`GN Hearing versus Oticon. The same argument that I just
`made was made in GN Hearing, and the board granted
`petitioner's request for sur-sur-replies, which was also
`in this transitional period. That is IPR2017-01927.
`And the transcript from that teleconference where the
`sur-sur-replies were granted is Exhibit 1018 at pages 8,
`9.
` We also wanted to point out that in another
`proceeding involving the parties, IPR2017-01608,
`paper 47, at page 3, the panel there granted
`petitioner's request for a sur-sur-reply.
` And so our position is not that we oppose. We
`do acknowledge that the August Trial Practice Guide
`does, you know, talk about replacing the sur-reply --
`excuse me -- the observations on cross with the
`sur-reply. But we believe since the scheduling orders
`also have a response to that observation on cross, that
`petitioner should get a sur-sur-reply. And -- and we
`limited that, Your Honor, to three pages in each
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00005
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`6
`
`proceeding, which we think would be sufficient.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you.
` Patent owner, do you have anything to add?
` MR. RAWLS: Yes. This is Mark Rawls for
`patent owner Nichia. So we -- we object to the -- your
`request for a sur-sur-reply for a number of reasons. We
`appreciate the citation to the GN Hearing case on
`September 18th, but our understanding is that the
`majority of the board's cases following the August 2018
`update to the Trial Practice Guide recognize the
`following. First, that the filing of a sur-sur-reply is
`not contemplated by the revisions to the practice guide.
`And that's actually a direct quote from IPR2017-1738,
`paper 50. And that -- to the extent that the
`petitioner's going to request a sur-sur-reply, they
`should have to provide a substantial justification for
`departing from or not conforming to what is, quote, the
`standard board practices, which is from IPR2017-01785,
`paper 67.
` So the board is saying following the -- the
`Trial Practice Guide, it is the former practice that the
`patent owner files the final brief on the merits of the
`case. The petitioner should provide an adequate
`rationale why we should not conform to the standard
`board practices. Again, that's quoting from the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00006
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`7
`
`2017-01785 paper 67 I just mentioned.
` The board has also addressed the argument that
`the petitioner made about the motion for observation and
`their reply to the motion for observation. In another
`proceeding, IPR2017-2194, paper 30, the board said
`"Because patent owner may not file motion for
`observation, it follows that petitioner may not file a
`response. Put differently, motions for observations or
`responses thereto are no longer authorized by" -- it
`refers to the TPG, or the updated Trial Practice Guide.
` The board has also held, in circumstances were
`it was heard but hadn't been filed yet, that it's
`premature to assess whether a sur-sur-reply is
`warranted, and it's held that it is not prejudicial to
`the petitioner to have to provide justification to be
`authorized for a further response. That's from two
`different proceedings; IPR2018-340, paper 54, and
`IPR2017-1886, paper 24.
` And so I think our -- our understanding, from
`the overall practice of the board is that it's
`premature, 'cause they haven't even looked over our
`sur-reply. And they have to be able to see that,
`because they actually have to provide sort of
`justification to counteract what is normal practice,
`following the August update to the Trial Practice Guide.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00007
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`8
`
` So that's our position, Your Honor.
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, may I briefly
`respond?
` JUDGE ENGELS: Yes.
` MS. HIGGINS: Thank you. So we -- we do
`acknowledge that different panels have come out
`differently on this issue. And it is certainly within
`the board's discretion, in this transition period, to
`order sur-sur-replies. As I explained in GN Hearing, as
`well as in the other Vizio/Nichia proceeding,
`IPR2017-01608, that is how the board came out.
` And in GN Hearing -- I didn't hear, from
`patent owner, that the specific argument that the
`current schedule orders have a paper, have a response to
`observations on cross, and that it would be unfair. You
`know, it is -- it is taking away a briefing that the
`PTAB has provided for that has been in place for months.
`And we believe that in this situation, in this
`transition period, a sur-sur-reply should be granted,
`especially when -- when we have the burden. And -- and
`boards have done that.
` As far as patent owner's argument regarding
`premature, while, you know, we -- it would be great if
`we could wait to see what patent owner will say if the
`board were to grant a sur-reply, frankly, Your Honor, it
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00008
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`9
`
`took at least three weeks to schedule this call with the
`board. And -- and the concern here is that if patent
`owner were to be given sur-replies due on January 29th,
`due date 5 is February 12th, and I really have concern
`that we'd be even able to get on the phone with the
`board and express our request in view of those papers.
` And in addition, there has been -- patent
`owner has filed its reply on the opposition to the
`motion to amend. And if the board looks at that paper,
`they will see that the patent owner has already
`previewed its positions on -- on claim construction,
`which are the principal issues here. And we can tell
`from that, that we believe that for a full record,
`petitioner should have a sur-sur-reply here. So we
`respectfully request that the board consider a
`sur-sur-reply. And it is certainly within their
`discretion to do so.
` MR. RAWLS: Your Honor, this is Mark Rawls for
`patent owner. Can I just make one brief comment?
` JUDGE ENGELS: Okay.
` MR. RAWLS: I just want to clarify in terms of
`petitioner's argument about the motion for observation
`and the response to motion for observation being already
`on the scheduling order and it not being fair to conform
`to the new practice guide standards. And I've cited a
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00009
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`10
`
`case before. And I just want to be clear that that
`issue has been addressed by these two panels that have
`found no prejudice and have found it was the correct
`procedure not to allow some exceptional reason for a
`sur-sur-reply. And those two cases are IPR2017-2194,
`paper 30, and IPR2018-340, paper 34. And those are from
`November 9th and December 14th, 2018. That's all.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you. Let's move on to
`the motion to strike. Help us understand what you seek
`to strike and why.
` MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Michael Jones for patent owner Nichia.
` So as you may recall, we had a call in
`November where petitioner asked for an additional
`25 pages of briefing for its opposition to the motion to
`amend. And during that call, petitioner said that they
`had too many arguments; they couldn't fit it in
`25 pages; they would need an extra 25 pages, if not an
`extra 50 pages. And that request was denied. And Your
`Honors told them they had to stick to the 25-page limit.
` In the face of that, petitioner did not limit
`it to arguments. They went ahead and argued, you know,
`broadening 112. And it may introduce 14 new grounds of
`obviousness, including up to five-way combinations of
`obviousness. They tried to cram that all into a 25-page
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00010
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`11
`
`paper. And in doing so, they -- obviously they were not
`able to do that. And so what they had to do was
`incorporate by a reference, by our calculation, more
`than 200 pages of argument. They submitted a 277-page
`declaration to accompany their 25-page opposition. And
`our position is that, you know, that's a circumvention
`not only of the page limitations set forth in the rules
`but also a circumvention of a pretty direct order from
`Your Honors.
` And so in our view, the portions of that paper
`that heavily incorporate the argument from the expert
`are improper and should be stricken from the record.
`And we think that the motion to strike is the
`appropriate vehicle here given your direct order on
`point and the circumvention of the rules. This is an
`improper paper. So we believe our motion to strike is
`warranted, or at least the opportunity to brief a motion
`to strike.
` And I want to be clear. You know, this isn't
`simply incorporation of evidence or support. There are
`instances were the entire argument is -- is in a
`different paper. It's simply incorporated. And I'm
`happy to give some examples.
` At the top of page 12 of their opposition,
`there's -- there's a single sentence that reads
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00011
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`12
`
`"Alternatively, it would have been obvious to combine
`Lin's similar disclosures for similar reasons."
` Now, no -- no similar disclosures are
`identified. No similar reasons are given. Instead,
`they incorporate seven pages of argument from their
`expert dec. And that -- that's just one example.
` In another place, you have, on page 10, a
`single sentence that incorporates 32 pages of argument
`from their expert dec. And there's plenty of cases on
`point in terms of the effect of incorporation by
`reference. And there's an informative decision in
`Cisco, IPR2014-00454, that I think helps -- helps to
`make a point, and that is that citing other documents
`effectively circumvents the page limitations, and it's
`an abuse. And that's why we think a motion to strike is
`appropriate.
` And one final point I'd like to make. The
`opposition does more than just incorporate by reference
`the expert declaration -- and again, there's more than
`200 pages of that -- it also incorporates, by reference,
`from the petition, for instance, at page 23, it just
`says "As in the petition, when Oshio disclosed this
`element." And then it incorporates four pages of
`argument from the petition. And it also incorporates
`from different IPRs. So there's an argument about
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00012
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`13
`
`written description of a new claim. That's at page 8.
`And rather than make the argument, it incorporates three
`pages of discussion from a different IPR.
` Again, you know, we understand that a motion
`to strike is an extreme remedy, but we think, given that
`the board expressly considered their request and then
`was denied and they chose -- instead chose to try to
`circumvent that decision with a 277-page declaration, we
`think this is a pretty clearcut motion to strike
`scenario.
` And you know, in terms of prejudice, I won't
`belabor it. Obviously having hundreds and hundreds of
`pages of argument sitting in the record is prejudicial
`to patent owner. You know, we tried to file a reply,
`and we were -- we were selective and addressed things
`that were actually in the opposition. But having
`something like this out there is unworkable and
`prejudicial, and for instance, I don't know what that
`would mean for our oral argument. I don't know if we're
`going to be expected to address the hundreds of pages of
`new arguments in the declaration or what that would
`mean. So you know, in sum, we'd like to brief it.
` MS. HIGGINS: May I respond, Your Honor?
` JUDGE ENGELS: Yes, please.
` MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00013
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`14
`
` All right. So first of all, we -- we disagree
`with patent owner's arguments that you just heard and
`that the board should authorize -- and disagree that the
`board should authorize a motion to strike.
` First of all, petitioner's arguments and
`evidence are presented in the opposition brief itself.
`And we worked very hard, following the last November 7th
`teleconference, to follow the board's guidance during
`that conference. And -- which was that the brief go
`right to the core of the issues. And that -- that was
`at the -- the last teleconference, the transcript
`Exhibit 1017, page 27, lines 2 to 9 -- Exhibit 1016.
` Regarding Section 103, which is what I think I
`just heard the patent owners objecting to, the
`opposition brief addresses each of the eight substitute
`claims and specifies where each of the 28 claim
`limitations is found in the prior art.
` And here, Your Honor, as we tried to explain
`on the first call, in order to bring 103 obviousness
`grounds, we felt that it was necessary to turn to new
`arts. The brief also addresses the obviousness
`combinations, for example, stating reasons why a person
`of ordinary skill would have been motivated and found it
`straightforward, for example, to use Koung's teachings
`of the resin part in implementing Hsu's device. So for
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00014
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`15
`
`example, in our opposition briefs, paper 32 at 11, we
`have a full page which -- addressing motivation to
`combine.
` We disagree that Dr. Shanfield's declaration
`includes new argument. It contains analysis of the
`arguments and evidence that are in the brief itself.
`And in fact, as I think -- I know, from going to
`countless, you know, presentations where various judges
`have spoken, you know, there is -- there's certainly a
`tension between -- you know, we've heard many times to
`not have a declaration that merely mimics the -- the
`brief or the petition.
` And here, we also want to point out that under
`37 C.F.R. Section 42.65, that expressly requires that
`the declaration disclose the underlying facts or data on
`which the opinion is based. And that's what
`Dr. Shanfield endeavored to do here.
` And with respect to a motion to amend, we are
`entitled -- the petitioner is entitled to raise grounds,
`you know, such as 112 and 103.
` Now, patent owner complains about the length
`of Dr. Shanfield's single declaration. I think it's
`important to point out that we filed a single
`declaration that's actually covering both
`Dr. Shanfield's opinions related -- in rebuttal to the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00015
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`16
`
`patent owner response, and that same declaration also
`covers the motion to amend. And Dr. Shanfield was
`responding to two Dr. Schubert declarations, which
`themselves totaled 275 pages. Those are Schubert
`Declaration Exhibit 2008 and Schubert Declaration 2019.
`And we also have, in connection with this reply brief on
`the motion to amend, patent owner has submitted three --
`a declaration and two declaration excerpts, totaling
`123 pages.
` So -- so yes, there is a record, and we
`believe in the context of a -- of a motion to amend, it
`is there for -- for the board to consider in -- in its
`entirety under the case law.
` A motion to strike, we believe is not
`appropriate in this context. As patent owner said, and
`as it states in the August 23 Trial Practice Guide
`update, striking the entirety or a portion of a party's
`brief is an exceptional remedy that the board expects
`will be granted rarely. We believe the board is capable
`of weighing the arguments and evidence presented in
`brief. Moreover, we point out that patent owner, in its
`reply, has already had an opportunity to address the
`contents of petitioner's opposition brief and has also
`stated it -- its alleged arguments regarding
`deficiencies, which we can address in a sur-reply, which
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00016
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`17
`
`we've requested.
` With respect to the informative decision,
`Cisco Systems, we have reviewed that, and we believe
`that it is distinguishable from the situation here.
`First of all, Cisco addresses a petition, not an
`opposition to a motion to amend. Unlike in Cisco, we
`have our arguments and evidence here in the brief. We
`don't cite to other claim charts. And unlike in Cisco,
`petitioner's arguments and explanations are in -- in the
`opposition brief itself. And that goes specifically to
`what patent owner has called out in its reply brief, the
`motivation to combine. Unlike Cisco, we have a page,
`for instance, with respect to the combination of Hsu --
`Hsu and the combination reference where we lay out in
`detail what the reasons are for motivation to combine.
`And we even point to the express motivation within
`secondary reference Koung.
` Patent owner has also pointed out that we
`somehow improperly cross-referenced the petition. We
`disagree. We do reference the petition because we are
`pointing out that, as discussed in the position, we are
`using the same secondary references such as Oshio and
`Wang in exactly the same way. And then we go on, in
`the -- in the opposition brief, to point out what the
`position was. And it's in the -- in the brief itself.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00017
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`18
`
` Further, with respect to the Lin reference,
`the evidence and the citations are in the brief. And so
`for at least these reasons, we believe that a --
`authorizing a motion to strike here, in this -- this
`context, is warranted [sic].
` MR. JONES: Your Honor, this is Michael Jones.
`If I may just briefly respond?
` JUDGE ENGELS: Very briefly, please.
` MR. JONES: Counsel pointed out that they, in
`one place, provided motivation in the brief itself. She
`mentioned a page. I just want to reiterate, you know,
`they -- they used about ten pages and raised 14 new
`grounds of obviousness, you know, up to one, two, three,
`four, and five-way combinations, across, I believe,
`eight different claims. The fact that in one place they
`may have included their arguments misses the point.
`There are many, many other places where they simply were
`unable to have argument, that they tried to do too much
`and instead incorporated it from their expert dec.
` I think what you've heard is that there's a
`lot here. And we obviously disagree with petitioner on
`what they've done. And I think what this shows is that
`a briefing makes sense. In a brief, you know, we could
`lay out specifically the ways in which they've
`circumvented not only the rules but your order. And --
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00018
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`19
`
`and there's already briefing provided for in the
`schedule. There's a motion to exclude briefing
`schedule. We would propose we simply do a motion to
`strike on that schedule and follow the same page
`limitations. And we think that this is a -- an extreme
`case, again, given that they asked for the page
`extension; they were denied; and instead circumvented
`the order and the rules. So we simply ask that we be
`able to brief this issue, again, using the briefing
`schedule already provided for in the scheduling order.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you. Judges Medley,
`Saindon, and I will confer offline and get back with you
`all in just -- just a few minutes.
` MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor.
` (Pause in proceedings)
` JUDGE ENGELS: This is Judge Engels rejoining
`the line. We will take these matters under advisement
`and issue an order in due course when we receive the
`transcript of today's hearing.
` MS. HIGGINS: Judge Engels, this is Gabrielle
`Higgins for petitioner. There are two items which I
`would appreciate addressing. One is to the extent that
`there is any authorization of a motion to strike, I
`would like to sort of counter-address the schedule.
` And also, there was a third item, Your Honor,
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00019
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`20
`
`in the e-mail, regarding petitioner's request for a
`sur-reply on the motion to amend.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Yes. I understand that's
`unopposed. Do we need to discuss it?
` MS. HIGGINS: Not if -- not if I -- if it's
`unopposed and Your Honors plan to grant it, there's no
`need to do so.
` MR. RAWLS: This is counsel for --
` MS. HIGGINS: May I --
` MR. RAWLS: -- this is counsel for Nichia. We
`agree that sur-replies are proper.
` MS. HIGGINS: May I address the -- the timing
`on any motion to strike, Your Honor?
` JUDGE ENGELS: Briefly, please.
` MS. HIGGINS: Sure. I just wanted to point
`out that there is already a motion to exclude and
`opposition briefs due on -- on the day -- the days that
`counsel is proposing, due dates 4 and 5. We would
`propose that to the extent there is any further
`authorized motion, that the patent owner's motion be due
`on due date 4, which is January 29, and that
`petitioner's opposition be due on February 19, which is
`due date 6.
` In looking at this, I -- it appears that in
`most instances, reply briefs on motions to strike are
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00020
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`21
`
`not authorized. I can point to one decision, I -- IBG
`versus Trading Tech, CBM2016-00054, paper 28, where no
`reply brief was authorized. So bottom line, our request
`would be for each party to have a single brief. We also
`believe that the normal 15 pages is excessive and would
`propose 5 -- 5 pages each.
` MR. RAWLS: Your Honor, this is -- if I may
`respond -- counsel for Nichia. We see that there's what
`are seemingly reasonable schedule for briefing in the
`current schedule with due dates 4, 5, and 6. We see no
`reason to deviate from that. And similarly, we see no
`reason to deviate from the typical page limits provided
`for motions, which I believe is 15 pages.
` And I'm not familiar with the case counsel has
`cited, but again, there seems to be a pretty good
`schedule in place, and we see no reason to deviate from
`that or the rules regarding page limits.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you very much. Any other
`issues to discuss today?
` MS. HIGGINS: No, Your Honor. Thank you very
`much.
` MR. RAWLS: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE ENGELS: Thank you very much. We'll
`take it under advisement.
` (The conference call concluded at 3:35 p.m.)
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00021
`
`
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`
`22
`
` CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER
`
` I, Charlotte Lacey, the officer before whom the
`foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify that
`the foregoing transcript is a true and correct record of
`the proceedings; that said proceedings were taken by me
`stenographically and thereafter reduced to typewriting
`under my direction; and that I am neither counsel for,
`related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this
`case and have no interest, financial or otherwise, in
`its outcome.
`
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my
`hand this 17th day of January, 2019.
`
`
` __________________________________
` Charlotte Lacey, RPR, CSR #14224
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00022
`
`
`
`A
`able
`7:22, 9:5,
`11:2, 19:9
`about
`5:20, 7:3,
`9:22, 12:25,
`15:21, 18:12
`abuse
`12:15
`accompany
`11:5acknowledge
`4:12, 5:19, 8:6
`across
`18:14
`actually
`6:13, 7:23,
`13:16, 15:24
`add
`6:3addition
`9:7additional
`10:14
`address
`13:20, 16:22,
`16:25, 20:12
`addressed
`7:2, 10:2,
`13:15
`addresses
`14:15, 14:21,
`17:5addressing
`15:2, 19:22
`adequate
`6:23advisement
`19:17, 21:24
`afternoon
`3:2, 3:4, 3:7,
`3:10again
`6:25, 12:19,
`13:4, 19:6,
`19:9, 21:15
`
`23
`
`Transcript of Conference Call with Panel of Judges
`Conducted on January 17, 2019
`appeal
`1:3appearances
`2:2appears
`20:24
`appreciate
`3:23, 6:7,
`19:22
`appropriate
`11:14, 12:16,
`16:15
`argued
`10:22
`argues
`4:19argument
`5:7, 7:2, 8:13,
`8:22, 9:22,
`11:4, 11:11,
`11:21, 12:5,
`12:8, 12:24,
`12:25, 13:2,
`13:13, 13:19,
`15:5, 18:18
`arguments
`10:17, 10:22,
`13:21, 14:2,
`14:5, 15:6,
`16:20, 16:24,
`17:7, 17:9,
`18:16
`art
`14:17
`arts
`14:21
`ask
`19:8asked
`4:14, 10:14,
`19:6assess
`7:13august
`4:13, 5:19,
`6:9, 7:25, 16:16
`authorization
`19:23
`
`agree
`20:11
`agreeable
`4:15ahead
`10:22
`all
`2:2, 10:7,
`10:25, 14:1,
`14:5, 17:5,
`19:13
`alleged
`16:24
`allow
`4:7, 10:4
`already
`4:22, 5:1,
`9:10, 9:23,
`16:22, 19:1,
`19:10, 20:16
`also
`3:14, 3:17,
`3:18, 4:18, 5:9,
`5:14, 5:23, 7:2,
`7:11, 11:8,
`12:20, 12:24,
`14:21, 15:13,
`16:1, 16:6,
`16:23, 17:18,
`19:25, 21:4
`alternatively
`12:1alto
`2:8amend
`9:9, 10:16,
`15:18, 16:2,
`16:7, 16:11,
`17:6, 20:2
`analysis
`15:5another
`5:14, 7:4, 12:7
`any
`19:23, 20:13,
`20:19, 21:18,
`22:9anything
`6:3
`
`authorize
`14:3, 14:4
`authorized
`7:9, 7:16,
`20:20, 21:1,
`21:3authorizes
`4:18authorizing
`18:4avenue
`2:7away
`5:2, 8:16
`B
`back
`19:12
`based
`15:16
`because
`7:6, 7:23,
`17:20
`been
`4:22, 7:12,
`8:17, 9:7, 10:2,
`12:1, 14:23
`before
`1:3, 1:13,
`10:1, 22:3
`begin
`4:3behalf
`2:3, 2:11, 3:8,
`3:12being
`9:23, 9:24
`belabor
`13:12
`believe
`4:24, 5:4,
`5:22, 8:18,
`9:13, 11:16,
`16:11, 16:14,
`16:19, 17:3,
`18:3, 18:14,
`21:5, 21:13
`between
`15:10
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Vizio Ex. 1041 Page 00023
`
`
`
`24
`
`bo
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
