Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`--------------------------------X
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC., Case IRP2013-00639
` Patent 7,197,662
` Petitioner,
`
` VS.
`
`PARALLEL IRON, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`--------------------------------X
`
` Tuesday, January 21, 2014
` 11:00 a.m.
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL
`
`BEFORE:
` JUDGE BURKE
` JUDGE MARR
` JUDGE PATRONIK
`
`Reported by:
`AYLETTE GONZALEZ, RPR, CLR
`JOB NO. 70075
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`--------------------------------X
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC., Case IRP2013-00639
` Patent 7,197,662
` Petitioner,
`
` VS.
`
`PARALLEL IRON, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`--------------------------------X
`
` Tuesday, January 21, 2014
` 11:00 a.m.
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL
`
`BEFORE:
` JUDGE BURKE
` JUDGE MARR
` JUDGE PATRONIK
`
`Reported by:
`AYLETTE GONZALEZ, RPR, CLR
`JOB NO. 70075
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`OBLON SPIVAK McCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
`Counsel for Petitioner
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
`
`FAHMI SELLERS EMBERT & DAVITZ
`Counsel for Patent Owner
` 84 West Santa Clara Street
` San Jose, California 95113
`BY: TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
`
`1 2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
` JUDGE BURKE: Hello. This is
`Judge Burke. On the phone is Judge
`Marr and Judge Patronik with me.
` Can I get a rollcall of who's on
`the phone for Petitioner?
` MR. KIKLIS: Mike Kiklis, Your
`Honor, for Petitioner.
` JUDGE BURKE: And for Patent
`Owner?
` MR. FAHMI: Good morning, Your
`Honor. It's Tarek Fahmi on behalf of
`the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE BURKE: So this is a call
`for IPR2013-00639, and I believe that
`Petitioner requested this call. So,
`Petitioner, can you begin and let us
`know what you'd like to discuss today.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`Mike Kiklis for the Petitioner.
` First, I'd like to apologize, due
`to the inclement weather, I'm taking
`this call from home, so I apologize in
`advance if you hear a dog barking in
`the background.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
` JUDGE BURKE: I have exactly the
`same problem so none of us will know
`whose dog it is.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, Your
`Honor, I appreciate your
`understanding.
` The Petitioner simply request
`permission to respond to the real
`party in interest argued, advancing
`the Patent Owner's preliminary
`response, because we believe that the
`argument is misleading.
` It relies upon information that's
`not only hearsay, but it's also
`misleading and incorrect.
`Specifically, the Petitioner request
`permission to file a short ten-page
`reply solely to that issue and include
`conclusive evidence to prove that the
`Patent Owner's real party in interest
`argument just has no merit.
` This evidence will show that
`NetApp has no control over Unified
`Patents, including no control over the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
`filing of the iCard at issue here and
`that the real party in interest is
`indeed Unified Patents, which is an
`independent company.
` It's important to note,
`Your Honor, that the Patent Owner is
`part of the co-pending District Court
`proceeding, took discovery on this
`issue and is in possession of evidence
`that shows that Unified Patents
`members has no ownership interest
`whatsoever in the hereby patent and
`that Unified Patents retains sole and
`absolute control and discretion over
`which actions it takes, including what
`patents to consider, whether to file,
`purchase, inter-parte reviews or to do
`anything else like purchasing patent.
` Petitioner merely wants to set the
`record straight, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BURKE: Okay.
` Patent Owner, would you like to
`respond?
` MR. FAHMI: Thanks, Your Honor.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
`This is Tarek Fahmi.
` Petitioner has had the same
`complaint in another IPR, just
`recently. It was IPR2013-00586 and
`they made the same request to the
`panel in that case and that request
`was denied. Judge Lee's Order on the
`subject was entered on January 13th of
`this year.
` As to any evidence that may or may
`not exist in the underlying
`litigation, that evidence is under
`protective order and I'm precluded
`from reviewing it and certainly
`precluded from relying upon it in
`connection with the third-party
`review.
` The evidence that we did provide
`in connection with the preliminary
`response comes primarily from
`Petitioner's own website, press
`releases, that Petitioner identified,
`too. So to the extent that it's
`misleading, the Petitioner has made it
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
`such with those press releases.
` There's no rule that would provide
`for Petitioner's response, including
`preliminary response. They need to
`address the issue, should the
`proceedings be instituted, they can do
`so at the appropriate time. In fact,
`that was Judge Lee's conclusion in
`another case.
` So we don't see the need for the
`board to consider this matter at this
`time.
` JUDGE BURKE: Okay. Petitioner,
`do you want to respond to that.
` MR. KIKLIS: Sure, Your Honor.
` Yes, Judge Lee did enter an Order
`in the other case. The parties had a
`discussion and the main concern that
`Petitioner has, Your Honor, is that
`the board would consider the real
`party in interest argument without the
`Petitioner having a chance to respond.
` It's not even a close call. We
`don't even think it's a close call and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
`the board wants to institute, that's
`fine, but if the board is considering
`the argument, then Petitioner would
`like the opportunity to introduce
`evidence that conclusively shows that
`the argument is misleading and just
`flat out wrong. So that's the Order
`by Judge Lee.
` In terms of Mr. Fahmi's argument
`that he's relying upon evidence from
`our website, there is an article that
`he relies upon, Bloomberg, which is
`Exhibit 2001, which clearly is
`hearsay, and relying upon what some
`reporter says, which is just blatantly
`false. So that evidence is
`misleading.
` In terms of Mr. Fahmi's other
`exhibits, I can't say where he got
`them from. Those are his exhibits.
` And lastly, you know, the Patent
`Owner does have possession of
`evidence, which refutes the arguments
`that are made in this petition,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
`regardless of whether Mr. Fahmi
`himself has access to that
`information, I think it is the
`obligation of the Patent Owner as an
`entity to not make misleading
`arguments.
` JUDGE BURKE: Okay. I think I
`understand both sides' positions here.
`The panel has actually discussed this
`beforehand and I don't think we have
`any need for a reply at this time, but
`we will let the parties know if we
`find the need for extra briefing
`before we make a decision on
`institution. We'll put out a short
`Order that says this and it will not
`be today, because the patent office is
`closed, but it will be as soon as we
`can get it out.
` Is there anything else that the
`parties want to bring up?
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, I just
`wanted to let you know, I don't know
`if we mentioned it earlier, this is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
`being transcribed by the Court
`Reporter. As soon as that's
`available, we'll file it as an
`exhibit. If you'd like us to use your
`Exhibit Numbering scheme, that's fine.
`We can file it under one of our
`exhibits, that's fine, too.
` I'd also like to clarify your
`comments, Your Honor. I just want to
`make sure that if indeed as the board
`is entertaining this argument, that we
`would have a chance, Petitioner would
`have a chance to respond.
` JUDGE BURKE: Yes. If the panel
`feels that we need extra briefing on
`this issue, we will let the parties
`know.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BURKE: And as for the
`transcript of the call, you can use
`Exhibit Number 3001.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you,
`Your Honor. It should be available
`within the next 2 or 3 days.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
` JUDGE BURKE: Okay, thank you.
`Any other questions before we adjourn.
` MR. KIKLIS: That's it for the
`Petitioner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BURKE: Patent Owner?
` MR. FAHMI: No. Thank you,
`Your Honor.
` JUDGE BURKE: All right. Thanks
`everyone for your time.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you.
` MR. FAHMI: Thank you.
` (Time noted: 11:07 a.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
` CONFERENCE CALL
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK )
` : SS.:
`COUNTY OF RICHMOND )
`
` I, AYLETTE GONZALEZ, a Notary Public
`for and within the State of New York, do
`hereby certify:
` That the proceedings is a true
`record of the proceedings.
` I further certify that I am not
`related to any of the parties to this action
`by blood or by marriage and that I am in no
`way interested in the outcome of this matter.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
`set my hand this 23rd day of January, 2014.
`
` __________________________
` AYLETTE GONZALEZ
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00639
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron
`EXHIBIT 3001
`
`
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
