throbber
U N I T E D S T A T E S P A T E N T A N D T R A D E M A R K O F F I C E
`B E F O R E T H E P A T E N T T R I A L A N D A P P E A L B O A R D
`
`Page 1
`
` L I Q U I D I A T E C H N O L O G I E S , I N C . ,
`
`P e t i t i o n e r ,
`
`v s .
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
` U N I T E D T H E R A P E U T I C S C O R P O R A T I O N , )
`)
`)
`
`P a t e n t O w n e r .
`
`T E L E P H O N E C O N F E R E N C E
`M A R C H 1 , 2 0 2 2 , 1 0 : 0 0 A . M . C S T
`C A S E I P R 2 0 2 1 - 0 0 4 0 6
`U . S . P A T E N T N O . 1 0 , 7 1 6 , 7 9 3 B 2
`I S S U E D A T E : J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 2 0
`
`B O A R D :
`
`M r . C h r i s t o p h e r K a i s e r
`M s . E r i c a F r a n k l i n
`M r . D a v i d C o t t a
`
`P E T I T I O N E R :
`C o o l e y , L L P
`M s . D e e p a K a n n a p p a n
`M r . J o n a t h a n D a v i e s
`3 1 7 5 H a n o v e r S t r e e t
`P a l o A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 3 9 4 - 1 1 3 0
`6 5 0 - 8 4 3 - 5 6 7 3
`D k a n n a p p a n @ c o o l e y . c o m
`J d a v i e s @ c o o l e y . c o m
`
`P A T E N T O W N E R :
`F o l e y & L a r d n e r , L L P
`M r . M i c h a e l R . H o u s t o n
`M r . S t e p h e n B . M a e b i u s
`3 2 1 N o r t h C l a r k S t r e e t , S u i t e 3 0 0 0
`C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 5 4
`3 1 2 - 8 3 2 - 4 3 7 8
`M h o u s t o n @ f o l e y . c o m
`S m a e b i u s @ f o l e y . c o m
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`89
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`IPR2021-00406
`United Therapeutics EX2104
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`(Whereupon the conference call
`
`commenced at 10:01 a.m. cst.)
`
`JUDGE KAISER: This is a call in
`
`IPR2021-00406. I'm Judge Kaiser. With me on the
`
`line are Judges Franklin and Cotta as well.
`
`Before we get started can we do a
`
`rollcall to see who all is here. Let's start
`
`with anyone here on behalf of Petitioner.
`
`MS. KANNAPPAN: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`This is Deepa Kannappan from Cooley, LLP, on
`
`behalf of the Petitioner and with me is Jonathan
`
`Davies also from Cooley, LLP. I just wanted to
`
`alert your Honor that there is a court reporter
`
`on the line that is transcribing and taking down
`
`our appearances.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Thank you. Before I
`
`go to Patent Owner, let me just state for the
`
`record that whoever provided the court reporter
`
`if you would please file the transcript of the
`
`call as an exhibit whenever you get the
`
`transcript back we would appreciate that.
`
`MS. KANNAPPAN: Yes, your Honor. Petitioner
`
`has the court reporter so we will do that.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Thank you. And then
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`MR. HOUSTON: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`This is Michael Houston on behalf of Patent
`
`Owner, United Therapeutics, and I believe my
`
`colleague, Steve Maebius, should have dialed in
`
`as well. Steve, are you there?
`
`MR. MAEBIUS: Yes. Hi, this is Steve
`
`Maebius.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Thank you. Is there
`
`anyone else on the line who I didn't call on?
`
`Okay. Thank you.
`
`All right. So as I recall this call
`
`was requested by Patent Owner to request
`
`authorization to submit evidence, new evidence,
`
`along with its sur-reply. Assuming I have that
`
`right, I guess I will open the floor up to Patent
`
`Owner first.
`
`MR. HOUSTON: Yes, thank you, your Honor.
`
`And that is correct. We did make this request.
`
`The reason being, your Honor, that as part of
`
`Petitioner's reply filed in this case a few weeks
`
`ago, they submitted a significant amount of new
`
`evidence, some 5 declarations and 44 exhibits.
`
`And while our initial position is that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`much of that new evidence is improper reply
`
`evidence and was the subject of our message to
`
`the Board in our subsequent filing identifying
`
`what we believe to be the new and improper reply
`
`evidence, we are under the impression that that
`
`issue is not likely to be decided, the propriety
`
`of that evidence is not likely to be decided or
`
`ruled upon until the final written decision stage
`
`of the case. And, therefore, to protect the
`
`prejudice against us in case some or all of that
`
`evidence is not struck, we feel the need to be
`
`able to submit our own evidence in response to
`
`Petitioner's submissions.
`
`The evidence topic wise, your Honor,
`
`mostly focuses on this issue of public
`
`accessibility of two abstracts that are at issue
`
`in the proceeding. And your Honor may recall
`
`that we also -- the parties had a call to discuss
`
`this in the context of Petitioner's request to
`
`file supplemental information. So it has to do
`
`with that same topic. We feel like a lot of
`
`these arguments, new arguments and new evidence,
`
`should have been part of the petition and so
`
`that's why we objected to it, but nonetheless
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`this is the first time that we have seen a lot of
`
`this -- these arguments and this evidence. And
`
`so if it's not going to be struck, then we feel
`
`like we should have a chance to respond to it
`
`more fully than simply being able to depose their
`
`witnesses and submit those deposition
`
`transcripts.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. I have a couple of
`
`questions there. One is just a clarification.
`
`So is it the volume of the reply evidence that is
`
`sparking this request or is it something in the
`
`nature of the evidence itself that makes it
`
`different from sort of typical reply evidence?
`
` MR. HOUSTON: So, your Honor, it's very much
`
`the latter. So, you know, you have heard us
`
`mention the volume just to kind of alert the
`
`Board to that. So, no, the request was not based
`
`on the volume. It's based on the content which
`
`is, simply put, they have raised new theories of
`
`public accessibility for these two abstracts, new
`
`legal theories, beyond what was in their petition
`
`and I have them summarized here. I'm happy to go
`
`through those just to highlight for your Honor if
`
`you want to hear what those are; but unless you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`ask me I won't go into that level of detail, but
`
`they have new theories and new evidence
`
`supporting those theories which we have just
`
`simply not had a chance to respond to up until
`
`now.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Sure. I mean, I guess public
`
`accessibility seems to me like without going off
`
`and doing a lot of legal research because
`
`sometimes these are more complicated than they
`
`seem at first glance. It seems to me like an
`
`issue of fact, right. I mean, I'm confused and
`
`maybe you could just tell me at a very high level
`
`what was the initial legal theory for public
`
`accessibility and what's the new one that they've
`
`changed to.
`
` MR. HOUSTON: Sure, your Honor. And also
`
`just to be clear, I don't think they have
`
`abandoned sort of the what they initially put in
`
`the petition. And so I just want to make clear
`
`not that I think they have changed. You used the
`
`word change there and I just want to clarify. So
`
`they are keeping that theory, but adding a bunch
`
`of new ones.
`
` The new ones that they have added is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`now they have said that there should be a
`
`presumption of public accessibility based on the
`
`identity of the publishers. That was not in the
`
`petition. They said that these abstracts should
`
`be considered publicly available based on what
`
`was presented and/or handed out physically at the
`
`conference. That was not in the petition. They
`
`said that now they have put in some evidence of
`
`topic indexes and author indexes. None of that
`
`evidence was in the petition. It wasn't -- in
`
`other words, there was not an argument made in
`
`the petition nor was the evidence in the
`
`petition.
`
` And then two more. Now they are
`
`saying that there should be public accessibility
`
`found based on the theory of there being two,
`
`quote, research aids. So they have now cited two
`
`new articles that cite the abstracts and have
`
`argued that those should count as research aids
`
`to establish public accessibility.
`
` And then they have put in a bunch of
`
`new date-stamp copies of the abstracts from
`
`libraries that was the -- that was what we
`
`pointed out in our Patent Owner response was not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`part of the petition and that's why we felt like
`
`their argument failed in the petition and that
`
`was the subject of the their motion to submit
`
`supplemental information which the Board did not
`
`allow, but now they have put that evidence in as
`
`reply.
`
` So there is roughly five -- I broke it
`
`down into roughly five sort of categories of new
`
`arguments and evidence that they have submitted,
`
`your Honor.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
`
`That helps front the issue a little bit. I have
`
`to confess, you know, the reply isn't something
`
`that I've dug into very much at this point and so
`
`I appreciate you giving me your side of the
`
`rundown there.
`
` I guess my other question then is the
`
`new evidence that you would like to submit with
`
`the sur-reply, what's the nature of that evidence
`
`and what is it that it shows in the way of sort
`
`of rebutting these new arguments if I can use
`
`that phrase.
`
` MR. HOUSTON: Sure. Well, your Honor, I
`
`guess I have a couple responses to that. First
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Page 9
`
`is we are still scrambling. We're still trying
`
`to reach out to people who can provide relevant
`
`information whether that's about the details of
`
`this conference, whether that's about these
`
`research aids that they have now cited to,
`
`whether it's about the author and topic indexes.
`
`You know, we are still very much actively trying
`
`to figure out how to respond to this and it's
`
`very challenging because of the short timeframe
`
`we have.
`
` Number two, I'm not sure quite how to
`
`-- obviously I want this to be with very much all
`
`due to respect to the Board, but I also feel a
`
`little hesitant to go into a lot of detail of
`
`what we're thinking. I feel like that opens the
`
`door to some of our work product which we, you
`
`know, we're still formulating our ideas here.
`
` But at a high level, at a high level,
`
`your Honor, what I think I can say is we're -- we
`
`think we should be able to respond to this in
`
`full. We don't think there should be limits on
`
`how we are able to respond, but I'll tell you at
`
`a high level the types of things we are thinking
`
`of.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
` There could be just new documentary
`
`evidence whether that's new documents or just,
`
`you know, could just be all types. There could
`
`be some documents or testimony from the prior
`
`proceeding that involve this issue. And
`
`certainly we think that would be fair because
`
`Liquidia is well aware of that information. They
`
`cited some of the information from that prior
`
`proceeding in their own papers. So we think we
`
`should be able to put in some of the
`
`counter-argument and evidence from that
`
`proceeding as appropriate.
`
` Also, your Honor, there was some
`
`depositions taken of the witnesses that are
`
`already involved in this case. They were taken
`
`in the context of the litigation that the parties
`
`are currently undergoing. So there's a parallel
`
`litigation there with a trial coming up in late
`
`March. So there were some depositions by
`
`Liquidia of some of these witnesses where the
`
`subject matter was not identical to what was
`
`covered in the corresponding IPR depositions. So
`
`we think there may be instances where we would
`
`like to be able to cite that deposition testimony
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`or submit it and cite to it which again should
`
`not be prejudicial to Liquidia since they were
`
`the ones doing the deposing in the first place.
`
` And then, your Honor, I think it
`
`really should be up to and including fresh new
`
`declarations from witnesses on our end. Whether
`
`it's to talk about what happened at the
`
`conference. Whether it's to talk about these
`
`research aids. The, you know, what the affect or
`
`import is of all these new date-stamped copies of
`
`the articles that they submitted.
`
` You know, so I think, your Honor, our
`
`request is to have sort of unfortunately just as
`
`if this were the Patent Owner response. I think
`
`we should be able to submit whatever we might
`
`have submitted in the Patent Owner response had
`
`all this evidence been in the petition the way we
`
`think it should have been. So I think that
`
`that's our request, your Honor. Was that
`
`responsive to your question?
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Yes, I think I understand
`
`what you're getting at. And I would like, you
`
`know, an opportunity to kind of discuss those
`
`things with the rest of the panel, but let me
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
`hear from Petitioner first. I presume that, Miss
`
`Kannappan, you oppose this request?
`
` MS. KANNAPPAN: Correct, your Honor. And
`
`this is the first time we're receiving the full
`
`basis and what Patent Owner is actually looking
`
`to include with their sur-reply. So some of this
`
`I'm trying to respond to on the spot and I
`
`apologize if it's not the most coherent.
`
` But, for example, the points that they
`
`point to from our reply are not new legal
`
`theories of public accessibility, and in fact are
`
`just factual support for the original positions
`
`and are actually positions taken directly in
`
`response to certain arguments raised in the
`
`Patent Owner response. And as Patent Owner just
`
`alluded to, there is a whole other set of papers
`
`that the parties have filed for the Board to
`
`consider on exactly what arguments in the Patent
`
`Owner response the replies were responding to.
`
` So, for example, the Patent Owner
`
`response specifically argued that because these
`
`abstracts showed up in supplements, they would
`
`not be published within a year of the conference
`
`taking place. And that was just not true based
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`on the numerous date-stamped copies that
`
`Petitioner submitted with its reply. And, in
`
`fact, Patent Owner has known about those exhibits
`
`since at least the motion for supplemental
`
`information and has known about all of these
`
`arguments from the parallel district court
`
`proceedings for months now and they chose to just
`
`ask about this last week.
`
` So we think that the cries for
`
`prejudice are not real quite frankly. And, in
`
`fact, we tried to ask their witnesses, Miss
`
`Weiman, Dr. Waxman and Dr. Merconval (phonetic)
`
`about some of these issues in their IPR
`
`depositions and Patent Owner actively would not
`
`allow us to with the date-stamped copies.
`
` And then for the other issue that we
`
`did ask about, for example, we asked Dr. Waxman
`
`about the conferences that these abstracts were
`
`presented at and if they were well-attended and
`
`he agreed that they were. So it's unclear to us
`
`what new documentary evidence or testimony would
`
`establish the opposite. And as your Honor asked
`
`them to identify what that evidence would be,
`
`Patent Owner has still not really identified what
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`that evidence is going to show that they couldn't
`
`just make an argument in a sur-reply as would
`
`normally be allowed.
`
` So in summary, your Honor, nothing in
`
`the reply evidence makes this case different.
`
`It's in addition to the petition and responsive
`
`to the POR is something that the petition or the
`
`Patent Owner has been on notice for months now.
`
` But we do ask if the Board was
`
`inclined to grant Patent Owner's request, that we
`
`as Petitioners be authorized to depose any
`
`declarants as to those transcripts and if
`
`possible to file a supplemental reply or
`
`cross-examination remarks addressing arguments
`
`related to new exhibits that are not normally
`
`authorized by sur-reply.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. I think I get that. I
`
`guess one question I have for you, Miss
`
`Kannappan, is the precedential decision in Julio
`
`seems to at least contemplate if not outright
`
`authorize, you know, Petitioner to do something
`
`along the lines of what you've done here, right,
`
`which is to in response to some argument that's
`
`raised in the Patent Owner response to submit
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`additional evidence with the reply sort of
`
`expanding on their original theories.
`
` But I guess my question is how far
`
`does that go? What's your understanding of kind
`
`of what are the limits on that? There's, you
`
`know, certainly a sort of -- I can picture a set
`
`of facts that's clearly acceptable, right, where
`
`Petitioner brings in new things that just sort of
`
`help bolster its original theories that everyone
`
`was aware of and that just for whatever reason
`
`weren't in the record to begin with.
`
` And I can picture I think a set of
`
`facts that is beyond the pale where Petitioner
`
`really changes horses in midstream. But what's
`
`the lines between those two extremes and how do
`
`we know that what you're doing -- what you've
`
`done so far is on the side of the line that
`
`shouldn't give rise to some opportunity for
`
`Patent Owner to respond?
`
` MS. KANNAPPAN: Sure, your Honor. I think
`
`what's helpful is to look at what the Board has
`
`even put in the manual itself which is changing,
`
`for example, like combinations of ground. That
`
`falls on the side of change to theory that was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
`essential to the petition being granted and that
`
`would be beyond the pale.
`
` But, for example, what's happening
`
`here is that we have always said that these
`
`abstracts were publicly accessible and in the
`
`petition we pointed to the fact that they were
`
`both presented at conferences. Based on the face
`
`of the abstract it says that. And then also the
`
`dates on the -- or the actual physical documents
`
`that we already submitted with the petition. And
`
`then Patent Owner raised specific reasons why
`
`they thought those weren't enough and we
`
`submitted evidence in response to those
`
`arguments.
`
` And so I guess a second category I
`
`would add, your Honor, is if it's responsive to
`
`Patent Owner's arguments, then it would also fall
`
`on the side of -- allow evidence so long as it's
`
`not a completely new theory that would vitiate
`
`the petitioned grounds. Does that make sense?
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Yes, I think I understand
`
`that argument. Let me -- because I think I
`
`sprang that question on you without posing it to
`
`Mr. Houston. Mr. Houston, let me give you an
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`opportunity to respond at least to that question
`
`which is what is the dividing line, the right
`
`dividing line, in your opinion between, you know,
`
`Petitioner doing something that is an acceptable
`
`expansion which clearly does exist in our rules
`
`and an impermissible change that ought to give
`
`rise to the sort of response that you're
`
`suggesting here?
`
` MR. HOUSTON: Sure, your Honor. So, first
`
`of all, just acknowledge that this is a somewhat
`
`nebulous issue with the Board. We see it arise
`
`in many, many cases and many, many more
`
`decisions. And so, you know, a lot of times
`
`there is not a black and white answer.
`
` But here I do think it's more clear in
`
`that our Patent Owner response essentially took
`
`the position what the petition's evidence of
`
`public accessibility for these two documents. I
`
`mean, keep in mind there is many, many priorate
`
`references at issue in this proceeding; but as to
`
`these two documents, we took the position that
`
`the petition simply failed to show public
`
`accessibility. And in those circumstances that's
`
`where the Board and the Federal Circuit quite
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`frankly has been more reluctant to let a party
`
`come in and reply and fix that deficiency.
`
` In other words, we should be allowed
`
`to just say your petition didn't meet the burden.
`
`And that doesn't -- that doesn't then give rise
`
`to the ability for a redo. And we certainly have
`
`seen that sort of I would say decisionmaking
`
`process especially in the context of citing the
`
`contents of prior art where maybe the petition
`
`focuses on a given embodiment in a reference when
`
`it says the patent at issue is invalid over that
`
`prior art. And when somebody points out a
`
`problem with that embodiment, why it doesn't
`
`invalidate the claims at issue. Then the
`
`Petitioner points to a new embodiment in the same
`
`reference and says, oh, look, this is part of our
`
`same theory. It's the same art. We're still
`
`saying the patents are invalid over it, but now
`
`it's just another embodiment.
`
` I think that is a pretty good analogy
`
`for what's happening here, your Honor. And I
`
`think where the Board can have some guidance in
`
`terms of where to come out on this issue is we
`
`have said that their initial sufficient evidence
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
`wasn't sufficient and now they have put in a lot
`
`of new stuff, a lot of new arguments and new
`
`evidence, and that's basically just fixing a hole
`
`in the petition.
`
` And, you know, while in some ways you
`
`think, okay, it is responsive to our Patent Owner
`
`response, but I think where we just say your
`
`evidence is inadequate, that shouldn't be viewed
`
`and typically hasn't been viewed as an invitation
`
`to now go fix the problem as opposed to an
`
`argument that would be more allowable which is to
`
`argue why the original evidence was sufficient.
`
`If they limited themselves to that, that would be
`
`fair game for a reply. But the new argument, new
`
`evidence, is where we think it's out of bounds.
`
` The only other thing I would add, your
`
`Honor, is that they did try to submit a lot of
`
`this evidence as supplemental information and
`
`they couldn't convince the Board that the
`
`information couldn't have been presented as part
`
`of the petition and so that request was denied.
`
`And we think that that same language really
`
`applies to the reply and we're taking that
`
`position out of what the Trial Practice Guide
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
`indicates.
`
` I think we mentioned it in one of our
`
`e-mails, but I'll just mention it here for
`
`completeness. On page 74 of the Trial Practice
`
`Guide it talks about, you know, reply or
`
`sur-reply that raise a new issue or belatedly
`
`presents evidence, you know, is not -- is not to
`
`be considered. Won't be considered. And so we
`
`think that that's exactly what's happening here
`
`just for the same reasons that the supplemental
`
`information request was denied because it was
`
`just belated evidence and I think that's exactly
`
`what is happening here, your Honor.
`
` So we do think the Trial Practice
`
`Guide helps speak to this point to help the
`
`Board's, you know, analysis of the issue.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. I think I understand
`
`the parties' positions here on both sides. So
`
`what we're going to do is I'm going to ask the
`
`parties and everyone on the call to hold the line
`
`and the panel and I are going to go off and
`
`discuss and we'll be back in a few minutes with
`
`how we're going to go forward here.
`
` (Whereupon a recess was taken.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
` JUDGE KAISER: All right. Everybody we are
`
`back from our deliberations. Let me just make
`
`sure there are still people here representing
`
`Petitioner.
`
` MS. KANNAPPAN: Yes, your Honor. We're
`
`still here.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. And still someone here
`
`from Patent Owner.
`
` MR. HOUSTON: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Thank you. So the way
`
`that these proceedings are set up unfortunately
`
`unlike in district court proceedings doesn't
`
`allow us to keep the record open for as long as
`
`it takes to get the job done. It requires us to
`
`make a decision in a particular time which
`
`requires us to have a hearing at a particular
`
`time which requires us to close the record at
`
`some point.
`
` And the way that all the various
`
`things that go into balancing the decision about
`
`when to close the record have been resolved in
`
`the main is what is set forward in the Trial
`
`Practice Guide which is to -- in the mine-run of
`
`cases place the end of things going into the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`record along with the Petitioner's reply and then
`
`just permit Patent Owner an opportunity to
`
`comment on Petitioner's reply evidence and to
`
`make legal arguments regarding the state of the
`
`record as it exists at that point without
`
`submitting or generating new evidence to go along
`
`with those arguments.
`
` And given that it seems to us that the
`
`way to resolve this is to look at the arguments
`
`that the parties have already submitted about
`
`whether the new evidence and arguments in the
`
`reply -- or let me rephrase that. The allegedly
`
`new arguments and evidence in the reply are
`
`actually new or not and notwithstanding Patent
`
`Owner's point that that won't happen until we sit
`
`down to review the entire record at the time of
`
`the hearing and thereafter, it seems like we've
`
`got a way forward to resolve this which is to,
`
`you know, if we agree with Patent Owner that this
`
`stuff is new, then we're going to ignore it
`
`because it's beyond the scope of things that
`
`ought to be in the record and we'll say in the
`
`final written decision that that's what we're
`
`doing. And in this case there is no need for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
`additional evidence to rebut what came in with
`
`the reply.
`
` And if we agree with Petitioner that
`
`it's not new and it is an appropriate expansion
`
`of the record on the original theories, then the
`
`Trial Practice Guide would apply and there would
`
`be no -- no right to submit additional rebuttal
`
`evidence in that case. And those two scenarios
`
`seem to cover the waterfront pretty well and so
`
`we don't see a need to keep expanding the record
`
`at this point beyond what's allowed in the Trial
`
`Practice Guide which is to say, you know,
`
`deposition testimony of any reply witnesses can
`
`obviously be put in as well as any legal
`
`arguments that are appropriate for the sur-reply.
`
`But there is no -- no need for or no call for
`
`additional evidence beyond what is called out
`
`there.
`
` So I think that makes things clear,
`
`but -- and we will follow up with an order along
`
`those lines. But to the extent that that sparks
`
`any need for clarification, let me ask the
`
`parties -- I'll start with Patent Owner. Is
`
`there any need for me to clarify that any
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
`further?
`
` MR. HOUSTON: I think I understand your
`
`Honor's position. I guess there was one question
`
`I would ask as a part of that. If we are
`
`deposing their witnesses and we are covering
`
`subject matter that's in the relevant declaration
`
`that we are deposing them on and we feel like we
`
`have some documents that are relevant to that
`
`testimony and we want to put those documents in
`
`front of the witness as we ask the witness
`
`questions, I presume those documents by virtue of
`
`being exhibits to the deposition, those would at
`
`least get submitted as part of submitting the
`
`deposition transcript? Is that your Honor's
`
`understanding that that -- in other words --
`
` JUDGE KAISER: In that situation -- I have
`
`seen that situation come up before and I remember
`
`having a fight over it and I honestly don't
`
`remember how we ended up coming out.
`
` Let me ask Petitioner, you know,
`
`assuming we are talking about, you know,
`
`documents that were actually, you know, presented
`
`to a witness and the witness testified about, I
`
`mean, it does seem like it would be hard to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
`understand the testimony without any ability to
`
`look at the document generally speaking. Would
`
`you have any objection to those sorts of exhibits
`
`going in?
`
` MS. KANNAPPAN: Well, your Honor, just a
`
`first question that that actually seems like a
`
`bit of a runaround of what your Honor just
`
`articulated. Because essentially the Patent
`
`Owner could just put in whatever exhibits they
`
`would have put with their sur-reply in front of
`
`the witness and then be able to add it to their
`
`record in that manner. And so if that's what's
`
`happening, we would object both in the deposition
`
`and to the general practice.
`
` So I guess that is my initial
`
`response. We don't want it to just be a
`
`workaround of what your Honor's order just
`
`specifically said they shouldn't do. If it's
`
`exhibits that the -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead,
`
`please.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: That does -- you're right. I
`
`mean, there is definitely some opportunity for
`
`gamesmanship there. I think --
`
` MR. HOUSTON: Your Honor, if I may, I'll
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`just -- could I say -- make one comment on behalf
`
`of Patent Owner is just that we understand what
`
`Petitioner's concern is. There is not an
`
`intention to use the depositions as a workaround.
`
`Any evidence that we submit in that manner will
`
`be relevant to the witness's testimony.
`
` So, in other words, we're not just
`
`going to put some random document in front of the
`
`witness, ask them if they have seen it before and
`
`regardless of what they say, we submit it as
`
`evidence and start relying on it for all sorts of
`
`reasons. That wasn't the nature of my question.
`
`So if that helps, your Honor, that's not our
`
`intention.
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Sure. I mean, so I think
`
`we'll reserve ruling on that. Why don't we wait
`
`and see if it comes up. You know, if there are
`
`things that, you know, that are -- that are
`
`averted to in the deposition that are put before
`
`the witness where we really need it in order to
`
`understand what the witness's testimony is, I
`
`think we will find a way to get those into the
`
`record. But it's sort of difficult to say in the
`
`abstract, you know, as a general principle we're
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11

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