throbber
Page 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
` Petitioner,
` v. Case No. IRP2015-00520
` Patent No.: 7,805,749
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
` Petitioner,
` v. Case No. IRP2015-00521
` Patent No.: 7,801,304
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`________________________
`(Caption continued on next page.)
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` Monday, May 11, 2015
` 11:00 a.m.
` B E F O R E:
` JUDGE TRENTON A. WARD
` JUDGE KARL D. EASTHOM
` JUDGE GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN
`
`Reported by:
`LYNN VAN DEN HENDE,
`CRR, RMR, CSR-NY, CSR-IL, RPR, CLR
`JOB NO. 93523
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 1
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 2
`
` Telephonic Conference
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
` Petitioner,
` v. Case No. IRP-201401532
` Patent No.: 7,801,304
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`________________________
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v. Case No. IRP-2014-01533
` Patent No.: 7,805,749
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`________________________
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 2
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
` Telephonic Conference
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`FOR UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.:
` OBLON MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
` BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
`
`FOR AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC:
` KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR
` 2040 Main Street
` Irvine, California 92614
` BY: BRENTON BABCOCK, ESQ.
` BY: COLIN HEIDEMAN, ESQ.
`
`///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 3
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` Telephonic Conference
`A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)
`
`FOR PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC:
` GOODWIN PROCTER
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20001
` BY: STEPHEN SCHREINER, ESQ.
` BY: ELEANOR YOST, 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
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 4
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
` Telephonic Conference
` JUDGE WARD: Good morning.
` This is Judge Ward with the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, joined by my colleagues,
`Judge Easthom and Judge Braden.
` This is a conference call for two inter
`partes review matters, IPR2015-00520 and 521,
`Unified Patents versus Personalized Media
`Communications.
` Do we have counsel for Unified on the
`call?
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor, Mike
`Kiklis from Oblon for Unified.
` JUDGE WARD: Good morning, Mr. Kiklis.
` Anyone else joining from Unified?
` MR. KIKLIS: No, sir.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you.
` Do we have counsel for Amazon on the
`phone?
` MR. BABCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
` This is Brent Babcock for Amazon.
` Also with me on the phone is Colin
`Heideman.
` JUDGE WARD: Excellent.
` Mr. Babcock, Mr. Heideman, good morning
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 5
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
` Telephonic Conference
`to you. Thanks for joining us on relatively
`short notice.
` MR. BABCOCK: No problem.
` JUDGE WARD: Do we have counsel for
`Personalized Media, the patent owner, on the
`phone?
` MR. SCHREINER: Good morning, Your
`Honor. Yes, you have Stephen Schreiner and
`Eleanor Yost.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Schreiner
`and Ms. Yost.
` We scheduled this phone call to discuss
`Unified Patents' motion to join in these two
`proceedings.
` On December 31, 2014 Unified filed a
`motion to join in the 520 case, seeking to
`join that case, which was previously
`instituted IPR2014-01533.
` And the 521 case, we understand Unified
`is seeking to join to 2014-01532.
` We instituted both of those matters on
`March 31 of this year.
` I've got a couple questions with respect
`to that motion to join for each of the parties
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 6
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
` Telephonic Conference
`on the call today.
` I'd like to start with Unified.
` Mr. Kiklis, if you could, give us a
`brief description of why your client decided
`to file these two petitions and the associated
`motion to join.
` MR. KIKLIS: Well, Your Honor, my
`client, as we said in our briefing, is a
`company whose business seeks to reduce NPE
`risk for various technology zones.
` And they considered that these two IPRs
`were consistent with our strategy.
` They considered that these two patents
`were not worthy of maintaining -- being a
`patent, that they were not valid.
` And so they wanted to join these
`proceedings so that in the event that Amazon
`and Personalized Media were to settle, that
`they could continue to resolution of the case.
` So basically, Your Honor, we just want
`to be a fly on the wall.
` And in the event that Amazon were to
`settle, we would then want to pick up the ball
`and run with it.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 7
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
` Telephonic Conference
` That's our whole purpose for being here.
` JUDGE WARD: Okay. Well, a couple
`particular questions for that fly on the wall,
`if I could.
` I'd like to ask you, specifically you
`state in your motion that Unified would agree
`to consolidated filings and discovery.
` What do you mean by consolidated filings
`and discovery?
` MR. KIKLIS: Well, I did have a
`conference with Amazon's counsel.
` And basically they're going to run the
`ball.
` They're going to draft all of the
`consolidated briefing. They're going to
`handle the depositions and run with it.
` So they're in charge.
` JUDGE WARD: Okay. Let me ask you
`specifically then, when you discussed this
`matter with Amazon's counsel, did Unified
`agree for Mr. Babcock to serve as its lead
`counsel on both of these proceedings?
` MR. KIKLIS: Did we agree to -- well, we
`agreed that they would take the take the lead.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 8
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
` Telephonic Conference
` If they choose Mr. Babcock to be their
`lead, fine.
` But their counsel will be in charge of
`drafting all briefing, unless there's an issue
`particular to Unified of course, as well as
`taking all depositions.
` So whoever they designate for their
`side, we're just going to -- we're happy with
`that.
` JUDGE WARD: Okay.
` Let me ask you specifically then about
`your proposed relationship with Amazon.
` You state in your motion that Amazon and
`Unified will file all papers as consolidated
`filings except for motions that do not involve
`the other party.
` Mr. Kiklis, what do you envision that
`those motions will include?
` MR. KIKLIS: The only thing that I can
`anticipate at this point, Your Honor, would be
`if -- first of all, as Media raises this real
`party in interest issue, which I think they
`raised in their opposition brief, to the
`extent they raised that, of course we would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 9
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`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
`
` Telephonic Conference
`want to respond appropriately.
` But that's the only thing that we can
`think of right now that would be any
`additional briefing whatsoever.
` Our goal here, Your Honor, is not to
`cause any complexity to this proceeding
`whatsoever.
` It's merely to serve as a fly on the
`wall.
` You know, we don't anticipate filing
`motions of any kind at this point.
` We just don't see that.
` JUDGE WARD: You also stated that
`Amazon's counsel would question all witnesses.
` Does Unified intend to participate in
`the depositions?
` MR. KIKLIS: We would want to be an
`observer, but that's it.
` So it's up to --
` JUDGE WARD: You would have counsel
`present at the depositions?
` MR. KIKLIS: Potentially, yes, Your
`Honor.
` We would want to be an observer. And
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 10
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`that's about it.
` We don't feel the need to participate.
`It's going to be up to Amazon. It's their
`show. They're going to run with it.
` They designate who they want to take the
`deposition of. And that's fine with us.
` JUDGE WARD: You also stated that Amazon
`may present argument before Unified at any
`oral argument.
` Does that mean that Unified will seek
`for its own counsel to present at the oral
`argument, if there is one.
` MR. KIKLIS: So, Your Honor, basically
`that's the only point of our brief where we've
`asked for something for us.
` And the only way that we would see that
`arising is if we somehow disagreed.
` But we don't foresee that.
` So, you know, we're content with at the
`oral hearing Amazon just running with it.
` And as we've seen in other cases with
`which we've been involved, if there was a
`point of disagreement, we might ask for an
`opportunity to be heard.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 11
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` But at this point we, you know, just
` don't foresee that.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you for that.
` I understand -- it sounds like there's a
` court on the line.
` Which counsel is it that retained the
` court reporter today?
` MR. SCHREINER: This is Steve Schreiner
` for patent owner PMC. We engaged the court
` reporter, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Schreiner.
` Appreciate that.
` If you could, Mr. Schreiner, at the
` conclusion of today's conference ensure that
` you file a copy of that transcript in the
` record for both of these cases, the 520 case
` and the 521 case.
` And also for the benefit of the court
` reporter, when you speak, please make sure to
` announce yourself so that she doesn't have to
` interrupt us.
` One additional question, Mr. Kiklis, for
`you with respect to your motion to join.
` You stated that you will be relying upon
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 12
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`the exact same evidence as in the Amazon IPR.
` Now, will you rely upon Amazon's
`declarants?
` MR. KIKLIS: Absolutely, Your Honor.
` We're not going to introduce our own
` expert. We're not filing any supplemental
` information. Nothing.
` JUDGE WARD: Have you separately
` retained those declarants?
` MR. KIKLIS: We have not.
` JUDGE WARD: And what evidence, in
` addition to that submitted by Amazon, will
` Unified wish to submit?
` MR. KIKLIS: Nothing.
` JUDGE WARD: And when you spoke with
` Amazon about these two cases, what level of
` agreement did you reach with respect to
` Unified's participation, i.e., on what issues
` will you be providing input?
` MR. KIKLIS: Well I represented to
` Amazon's counsel that they'd be running the
` show.
` It would be nice if we had an
` opportunity to consult with them. But it's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 13
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`their show to run.
` So that's what I represented to them.
`And I'm happy to represent that to the board.
` We don't want to get in their way.
` Again, we just want to be able to -- in
`the event that this case settled, we would
`want to be able to pick up the ball and run
`with it.
` So we don't want to slow down Amazon in
`any way.
` If there's an opportunity for them to
`show us a draft of a brief ahead of time, that
`would be great.
` We're not requiring that in any way.
` We're just trying to be as nonintrusive
`as possible, Your Honor.
` And if I may just go back to the whole
`point that you raised about the oral argument,
`if it was a deciding factor for this board or
`important that we not have any time at the
`oral hearing, we're fine with that. We're
`fine with that.
` And we've seen some orders from the
`board come down recently in cases where a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 14
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`petitioner wishing to join literally plays the
`kind of role which I'm talking about, where
`they're observers at depositions, they're not
`involved -- they don't take the lead on
`consolidity of briefing, and they're not
`afforded any time at the oral hearing.
` So, you know, if that's important to
`this board, we're comfortable with that as
`well.
` JUDGE WARD: Do you have any citations
`for us with respect to those cases?
` Are they cited in your motion to join or
`are they more recent?
` MR. KIKLIS: They're more recent.
` I'm lead counsel on a bunch of the
`Westerngeco -- PGS versus Westerngeco cases.
`And Ion was just granted joinder in those
`cases.
` I think I can give the board a cite if
`you just give me a second.
` (Pause in the record.)
` MR. KIKLIS: I've got IPR2015-565, 566,
`and 567.
` And I believe the order in those cases
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 15
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`is pretty much what I've described here.
` I'm going from recollection of course.
`So please forgive me as if it is a little bit
`different.
` JUDGE WARD: Okay. Thank you,
`Mr. Kiklis.
` We'll move now to Mr. Babcock.
` Mr. Babcock, does your client support
`the Unified motion to join?
` MR. BABCOCK: Good morning, Your Honor.
`And this is Brent Babcock. We do not oppose.
` Mr. Kiklis's representations that he
`just made to the board are consistent with
`what he told me some time ago.
` And as he's represented to us and to the
`board just now, his "fly on the wall" approach
`is not objectionable to us.
` We don't -- I don't know if the
`distinction between supporting and not
`opposing is significant.
` But my client's position is we don't
`oppose.
` JUDGE WARD: So you do not support the
`motion, but you do not oppose the motion?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 16
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` MR. BABCOCK: Those are my instructions,
`that's correct.
` We don't necessarily join or want to be
`involved in the motion or advocating for it.
` Mr. Kiklis is capable and competent to
`do that.
` But we simply will stand by and say
`we're not going to oppose or in any way object
`to it.
` JUDGE WARD: So, Mr. Babcock, if we were
`to grant Unified's motion, is it your
`understanding at this point that you would be
`serving as lead counsel for Unified?
` MR. BABCOCK: That's my understanding,
`yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WARD: And do you agree to the
`terms of consolidation laid out in Unified's
`motion to join?
` MR. BABCOCK: Yes.
` JUDGE WARD: So those terms in which you
`will be filing all matters on behalf of both
`parties?
` MR. BABCOCK: Yes, as supplemented by
`his representations to the board on the record
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 17
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`today, which are consistent with what he told
`me.
` I think the details of him wanting to
`preview documents, those kinds of things, were
`discussed.
` And we're not inclined necessarily to
`slow down or provide drafts early or give up
`time at depositions, those kinds of things.
` But to the extent he wants to simply
`look at what we've done, that's fine.
` JUDGE WARD: And what have you indicated
`to Mr. Kiklis with respect to his ability to
`provide input, i.e., to what extent will you
`accept his suggestions or comments?
` MR. BABCOCK: Our discretion 100
`percent.
` But to the extent we have a draft that
`we can float by him prior to filing, we will
`float by a draft.
` And if he has comments, we'll consider
`those.
` But certainly it's our -- we're driving
`the boat. And if we accept his comments,
`great. If we don't, that's fine as well.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 18
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` JUDGE WARD: Okay.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, if I just may,
`this is Mike Kiklis for Unified.
` And that's totally fine with us.
` That was our understanding.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Kiklis and
`Mr. Babcock.
` Let me move on to the patent owner,
`Mr. Schreiner.
` With respect to your preliminary
`responses, I'm going to ask about the
`preliminary responses you filed in each of
`these matters, the 520 case and the 521 case.
` Can you identify for us the differences
`in those preliminary responses with respect to
`the preliminary responses you filed in the two
`related matters, 1532 and 1533?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes, Your Honor.
` The main difference -- and it's a
`significant one -- is the issue of real party
`in interest.
` JUDGE WARD: Right.
` And I've taken a look at your remember
`preliminary response.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 19
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` And in that preliminary response you
`indicated that in accordance with our February
`18 order that PMC will address real party in
`interest issues in a separate paper.
` Is that correct?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes, Your Honor.
` Our recollection from the call we had
`previously on the motion for joinder is that
`we raised this issue of real party in
`interest.
` And the board indicated that it would
`consider the possibility of a separate paper
`being filed by PMC, perhaps after some
`supplemental discovery.
` And the issue is particularly pressing
`in this case because we do have known facts
`that give rise to the real party in interest
`issue for PMC.
` And one of them alluded to in our
`opposition papers is that one of Unified's
`members is a company with whom PMC has been
`engaging in licensing discussions for four to
`five years now.
` And we believe there very well may be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 20
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`other members of Unified's membership that are
`parties that PMC has had licensing discussions
`with.
` Of course the fact that Unified
`concealed its membership makes it impossible
`to say as to the latter at this point.
` JUDGE WARD: Mr. Schreiner, let me just
`interrupt you there quickly.
` You stated that there is a Unified
`member in which your client, PMC, has been
`engaged in discussions for four to five years
`with respect to licensing, that's correct?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE WARD: And that is a license with
`respect to the two patents at issue in these
`proceedings, the '304 patent?
` MR. SCHREINER: The licensing
`discussions would include these two patents,
`yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WARD: And can you identify that
`entity for us?
` MR. SCHREINER: Let me consult, because,
`as you might anticipate, there was an NDA put
`in place.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 21
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` The NDA was put in place after some
`initial communication.
` If you would just give me a moment to
`consult with my colleagues here.
` JUDGE WARD: Sure. Take your time.
` MR. SCHREINER: Thank you.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, this is Mike
`Kiklis for Unified.
` Our membership list is highly
`confidential information. That is information
`that we fought very hard to protect.
` I don't know how he would have found
`this information out, but we would of course
`like to protect that from coming out.
` So if there's some way that, if the
`board really needs to know this information,
`that we can mark in as highly confidential,
`outside counsels' eyes only.
` JUDGE WARD: Before anyone else
`comments, then in view of the sensitivity of
`the matter, I think this would be better
`addressed in briefing.
` Mr. Schreiner, you don't need to respond
`then to my question.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 22
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` And to the extent that this issue is
`pertinent, we can address it in briefing.
` And that's my next question for you,
`Mr. Schreiner.
` As you noted, our February 18 order in
`these cases stated if the panel decides to
`join and institute trial in each case, the
`panel may permit additional briefing regarding
`any under drafts real party in interest
`issues.
` Due to the fact that it doesn't appear
`that you addressed those issues with substance
`in your preliminary response, do you have a
`proposal for this panel with respect to a
`possible briefing schedule should we grant the
`motion to join in these two cases?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes, Your Honor.
` We would ask for supplemental discovery
`under a party in interest issue.
` As I noted, there's already one party
`that we know is a member of Unified with whom
`PMC has had extensive licensing negotiations.
` So we would ask about supplemental
`discovery.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 23
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` I think it could take place within a
`month. And then the July timeframe we would
`be in a position to submit the supplemental
`briefing.
` At present we're shouldering a pretty
`heavy burden of taking seven days of
`deposition between now and June 5 and filing
`seven patent owner responses June 29, which
`will be nine responses if Your Honor decides
`to grant the joinder.
` JUDGE WARD: I'm sorry, if you could,
`restate the -- you said June 29?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes, Your Honor.
` Amazon filed seven IPRs, IPR petitions.
` Those were granted.
` The responses are due June 29, pursuant
`to a stipulated modification to the original
`scheduling order, which we are awaiting a
`decision from the board on.
` So those seven are due -- assuming the
`stipulated amendment to the schedule is
`granted, those are due June 29 -- and that's
`seven -- to be preceded by seven days of
`deposition for four experts.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 24
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` And, as I noted, if Your Honor grants
`Unified's motion to join, then we'll have nine
`patent owner responses due at the end of June,
`ergo my proposal that any supplemental
`briefing are real parties in this interest be
`set forth sometime late in July.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Schreiner.
` I'm taking a look at your stipulation
`filed on April 16.
` So it appears that you have -- at the
`current time due date one is set for June 29.
` And you're representing that that is the
`case for all of Amazon's IPR petitions against
`your client, correct?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes.
` Your Honor, originally when the board
`granted the IPR petitions for Amazon, a
`schedule was issued that provided only two
`months' time for patent owner's response.
` We had a call with the board on that.
` We asked for additional time, something
`along the lines of the normal three months
`granted.
` And at that time Judge Easthom indicated
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 25
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`that he would move the trial date out to
`December 8, and that the order to the parties,
`that being Amazon and PMC, work together to
`stipulate to an amendment of the other days.
` And we did that, Amazon and PMC.
` And we submitted a motion for an amended
`schedule about a month back.
` But we have not heard anything granting
`it yet.
` JUDGE WARD: Okay. And your proposal
`would then be that you would need time -- you
`would seek supplemental discovery and that you
`would need time to take depositions in
`relation to that supplemental discovery,
`presumably in June, and then you would be in a
`position to file supplemental briefing in
`July?
` MR. SCHREINER: Yeah, towards the end of
`July, because, again, you know we're going to
`be taking so many depositions already of
`Amazon's experts in June.
` JUDGE WARD: Okay. Thank you for that,
`Mr. Schreiner.
` That's all the questions that I have.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 26
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` And let me go backwards in order.
` Any additional issues that you'd like to
`raise to the panel today, Mr. Schreiner?
` MR. SCHREINER: Your Honor, let me have
`just confer with Ms. Yost, please.
` (Pause in the record.)
` MR. SCHREINER: Yes, I should add, Your
`Honor, of course despite the proposal that
`we've floated, we of course oppose the motion
`for joinder for all the reasons set forth in
`our opposition, which is that it really will
`prejudice PMC and complicate this case with a
`real substantive new issue.
` I'll add as one that Director Lee is
`recognized with the proposed rule that she's
`discussed.
` JUDGE WARD: Thanks, Mr. Schreiner.
` Mr. Babcock, any additional issues you'd
`like to raise with the panel today?
` MR. BABCOCK: No, Your Honor.
` With regards to the schedule that
`Mr. Schreiner pointed out, I'm not sure the
`board was contemplating actually issuing an
`order.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 27
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
` I think we resolved the date 6/07 on the
`phone. And then the parties stipulated the
`remainder dates.
` So we're proceeding as that schedule has
`been approved.
` But I think it's the same panel. So to
`the extent that there needs to be an order, I
`guess that would be fine.
` But we're assuming that no order is
`forthcoming because no order is necessary.
` But other than that, we don't have any
`issues to raise.
` JUDGE WARD: Thank you, Mr. Babcock.
` Yes, the panel agrees that there is no
`further action required.
` We've accepted that order as stipulated
`in the 1533 cases, paper number 15, notice of
`stipulation to change the dates.
` So that will be the schedule going
`forward for those cases.
` Finally, Mr. Kiklis, any additional
`issues you'd like to raise to the panel today?
` MR. KIKLIS: Well, Your Honor, I would
`just like to respond to what Personalized
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 28
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Telephonic Conference
`Media stated regarding real party in interest.
` I would just like to say, as we said in
`our briefing, Your Honor, that issue is just a
`red herring.
` It's just being raised in an attempt to
`try to oppose our joinder opposition.
` But we have submitted with our petition
`sworn-under-oath interrogatory answers from
`the CEO of Unified itself where he says, under
`oath, that all decisions are based -- that
`Unified makes all of its decisions
`independently, that no member can control or
`even has an opportunity to control.
` So there's simply no there there.
` Also, in the Dragon case there was
`copious discovery, depositions, briefing,
`document production. It was really kind of a
`scorched earth situation.
` And this very board ruled that Unified
`Patents is indeed the real party in interest.
` So what you hear from Personalized Media
`is a lot of smoke and mirrors, but ultimately
`there's simply no there there.
` Unified Patents has filed a bunch of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Unified Patents Inc. Ex. 1019, pg. 29
`Unified Patents v. Personalized Media
`IPR2015-00521
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1

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