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
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION ,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NO. 15-0031-RGA
`
`Wi ~ngtQn , Del awar e
`Wednesday , February 3, 2016
`11 : 00 o'clock , a .m.
`
`BEFORE: HONORABLE RICHARD G . ANDREWS, U . S.D.C . J .
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`PHILLIPS GOLDMAN & SPENCE , P.A.
`BY: DAVID A . BILSON , ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`Valerie J . Gunning
`Official Court Reporter
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`APPEARANCES (Continued) :
`
`2
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`BY: MICHAEL N. ZACHARY, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP.
`BY: CHRIS J . COULSON, ESQ.
`(Palo Alto, California)
`
`-and-
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`BY: MICHAEL SHANRAHAN, ESQ.
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`BY: KELLY E. FARNAN, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`BY: MATTHEW C. BERNSTEIN, ESQ.
`(San Diego, California)
`
`counsel for Defendant
`
`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
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`P R 0 C E E D I N G S
`
`3
`
`(REPORTER'S NOTE: The following conference was
`
`held in chambers, beginning at 11:00 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.
`
`This is Bradium Technologies versus ~crosoft, Civil Action
`
`No. 15-31.
`
`Hono~.
`
`I ' m sorry. Mr. Coulson?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: No.
`
`I'm Michael Zachary, your
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I assume you're a member of the
`
`Delaware bar.
`
`I just have trouble remembering.
`
`MR . ZACHARY: No .
`
`MR. BILSON: David Bilson, your Honor.
`
`Phillips, Goldman & Spence.
`
`THE COURT: Oh, okay. Good morning, Mr. Bilson.
`
`MR . BILSON: Good morning.
`
`THE COURT: Who have you got with you here?
`
`MR . BILSON: With me today are Michael zachary
`
`and Chris Coulson from Kenyon & Kenyon, and this is ~chael
`
`Shanrahan, general counsel for Bradium.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, good morning to
`
`you all.
`
`Mr. Zachary.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Ms . Farnan?
`
`MS . FARNAN: Good morning, your Honor .
`
`I'm here
`
`today with Matthew Bernstein from Perkins Coie on behalf of
`
`5 Microsoft.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: All right. And is that in Seattle
`
`or San Francisco?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: San Diego, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Welcome to Delaware.
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you , your Honor .
`
`THE CO~T: All ~ight. So I got the scheduli ng
`
`order and I appreciate that , notwithstanding the litigation
`
`that has already gone on, that you worked cooperatively to
`
`come up with essentially resolving almost everything.
`
`I would say that in regards to footnote No . 1,
`
`because I'm going to ask Mr. Bilson to resubmit this, just
`
`cross that out. If circumstances change and Microsoft
`
`thinks a stay is at some later point , nothing that has
`
`happened here or by this order has any effect ,on that , so
`
`you do what you need to do whether that point comes, if that
`
`point comes .
`
`Is there anything else in footnote 1 that I need
`
`to concern myself with?
`
`MR . BERNSTEIN:
`
`I don't think so, your Honor.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: No, your Honor.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`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
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`In terms of page 3, there are
`
`two disputes . One is the number of requests for admission .
`
`I'm kind of inclined to go the with plaintiff's proposal
`
`because I think that generally requests for admission can
`
`serve to narrow down what's in dispute . So 15, not 25.
`
`In terms of the depositions , as I got from
`
`looking at this , there seem to be two issues, ·one relating
`
`to how much of the 70 hours is party, 30(b) (6)
`
`how much
`
`of it is the party and how much of it is 30(b) (6) . And then
`
`there seems to be a second issue perhaps of how long the
`
`i nven tor s can be deposed f o r .
`
`So I will start with the second one first. How
`
`many inventors are there?
`
`MR . ZACHARY: There are two inventors, your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Are they in the U.S. ?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: No , they are not. They are both
`
`overseas in Israel, and there are two issues. One is that
`
`it's a number of hours and the discussions and we're fine
`
`with it. Ten hours per inventor would be fine with the
`
`plaintiff. But as far as the 30(b) (1) aspect of the
`
`proposal, that's also an issue for us.
`
`THE COURT: Explain to me why.
`
`MR . ZACHARY: Primarily because we don't control
`
`the inventors, your Honor . One of them we don't have any
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`6
`
`current representation of and don't have any relationship
`
`with him currently, so we cannot guarantee that he would
`
`appear pursuant to a 30(b) (1) notice.
`
`The other one --
`
`THE COURT: Well, so you're not complaining that
`
`they want to do it by 30(b) (1). You are just saying you're
`
`not guaranteeing that the person will respond to such a
`
`thing?
`
`won't.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Correct, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: We don't ~ow if he will or he
`
`THE COURT: All right. So that does not -- so
`
`it does not seem like that's an issue, really .
`
`I don't know
`
`what that is, but that 's -- I don't understand
`
`I guess I
`
`wouldn't understand.
`
`And Mr. Bernstein, tell me if you would be
`
`thinking differently here.
`
`I don't understand this to be a
`
`guarantee that the plaintiff can get the inventor to show
`
`up.
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Right.
`
`I mean, if they can ' t
`
`get him to show up, they can't use him in the case, they
`
`can't use him at trial. That's the way this plays out.
`
`I
`
`understand that's the case.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`7
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: That's for one of the inventors .
`
`THE COURT: And these inventors have names.
`
`Which inventor is that?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Yoni Lavi is the one that is not
`
`affiliated with Bradium, the plaintiff, in any way, your
`
`Honor.
`
`agent.
`
`one?
`
`THE COURT: Right. We'll just call him a free
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: And what's the name of the other
`
`MR. ZACHARY:
`
`Isaac Levanon.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I take it this gentleman has some
`
`affiliation with Bradium?
`
`MR. ZACHARY:
`
`Some affiliation.
`
`I'm trying to
`
`narrow down what the affiliation is ·' but there's some
`
`affiliation.
`
`The intent is to bring him here for deposition,
`
`but I'm not in a position where I can guarantee that he
`
`would appear for deposition.
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: So, your Honor, an.d I don't know
`
`if this is accurate or not, but he was represented to us
`
`previous1y as the co-owner and director of R&D of Bradium.
`
`That's what we were told previously.
`
`THE COURT: Well, so that's not going to be
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`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
`
`resolved by me right now either. Right? And, of course, as
`
`I'm reca1ling -- okay. So, all right.
`
`So the second issue that counsel has identified,
`
`Mr. Zachary, that does not seem like an issue because I
`
`don't understand this to be promising anything really on
`
`behalf of either inventor at this point.
`
`And I am -- and so you say -- so actually,
`
`Mr. Bernstein, so it seems like your opponent said he is
`
`okay with ten hours. Why do you think I need to say 14?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Well, so there's three
`
`patents-~n-suit, and I think ~. Zachary is going to say
`
`that they'd like to add a fourth patent. We are talking
`
`about 40 claims.
`
`There's also, your Honor, these -- the
`
`prosecution was a little bit unusual in that the inventors
`
`provided at least four declarations to one of the
`
`patents-in-suit, to one of the related patents, and these
`
`are -- I mean, they are pretty thick. There's a lot of
`
`exhibits. There's source code. There's talk about an
`
`embodying product and there's a lot to --prior art
`
`invention.
`
`It ' s just a lot of topics, an unusually large
`
`number of topics, especially at least for three patents,
`
`and subsequently, there were four patents . There's a lot to
`
`do.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`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
`
`THE COURT: Do you have any response to that,
`
`Mr. Zachary?
`
`MR . ZACHARY: Yes, your Honor.
`
`I think ten
`
`hours should be enough for any individual testifying in
`
`their individual capacity to cover any number of topics.
`
`THE COURT: And do you then add a fourth
`
`patent?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Yes.
`
`I was going to raise that
`
`at, when we got to the appropriate point. But a new
`
`patent was just issued yesterday to Bradium.
`
`It's in the
`
`same cha~n of patents, the same, o~ ve~y simila~
`
`specification.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR . ZACHARY: Similar claims also.
`
`THE COURT: Are you going to oppose their
`
`amendment?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN:
`
`I got a letter last night as I
`
`was going to sleep.
`
`I don't know what our position is on
`
`that at this time, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Well, on the whole, I would
`
`suggest you don ' t oppose it because I'm likely to grant
`
`it.
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: But I understand you have not had
`
`time to think about it, and there may be details .
`
`I ' m just
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`saying as a general matter, this seems like a perfectly
`
`appropriate thing to do, but I am not actually ruling on
`
`1 0
`
`anything .
`
`your Honor.
`
`MR . BERNSTEIN: Right. That ' s very helpful,
`
`THE COURT: All right. And the inventor on this
`
`new patent, the same two inventors?
`
`MR. ZACHARY:
`
`Same, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well , I'm not normally
`
`inclined to give actually more than seven hours of inventor
`
`cteposi t i on , but what I 'm goi ng to say he~e i s that I wi l l
`
`give 14 hours for the gentleman who is affiliated with
`
`Bradium. The one who ~s not affiliated , unless he becomes
`
`affiliated , that's going to be limited to seven hours .
`
`And so partly I ' m thinking that in regards to
`
`the inventor who i s affiliated with Bradium, because I, in
`
`the normal course o£ events, the defendant wouldn't oppose
`
`them both, and so I think that kind of , since it seems like
`
`there may be a lot of difficulty in having the second
`
`inventor actually participate, that seems to be the reason
`
`that one might consider giving more time, and then the other
`
`thing is there are £our patents.
`
`So I'm going to say 14 . You know, if later
`
`developments, because I presume inventor depos itions are
`
`probably a long ways off, but if later developments, for one
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`reason or another, make that too burdensome to the inventor,
`
`I would be willing to reconsider it in a more, with more of
`
`a factua1 basis than right here. But right now, 14 seems to
`
`me reasonable. Okay?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Yes, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So if we could modify
`
`the scheduling order to say which inventor is 14 and which
`
`inventor is seven, that would be good.
`
`In terms of the overall 30(b) (6) and overall
`
`hours of a party, let me think about this for a second.
`
`Pl~intiff says 30 hours of 30(b) (6) is enough .
`
`Defendant
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: We can live with 30. We
`
`mentioned that to them before, 30 hours .
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So you're telling me this
`
`issue is resolved?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So
`
`that resolves all the issues.
`
`MR . ZACHARY:
`
`one more on that, on the
`
`deposition.
`
`THE COURT: Oh.
`
`MR. ZACHARY:
`
`I don't know that it's still
`
`24 Microsoft's proposal that we be limited to 40 hours of a
`
`25
`
`party or 42 hours.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`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
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: No.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I think they are agreeing with
`
`exactly what you have written here.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So is the only other
`
`thing we need is dates? Actually, just let me ask, before I
`
`start doing dates, do I gather Microsoft either has or is
`
`planning, and I guess it's within the time limits to do so,
`
`to seek more IPRs on the patents in which IPRs were not
`
`instituted?
`
`MR. 6ERNSTEIN: We did. We filed two new IPRs
`
`January 7th or 8th, your Honor, so institution on those
`
`would be early July.
`
`THE COURT: All right. And you don't have to
`
`answer this if you tell me it's not appropriate to answer
`
`this, but why do you do these seriatim?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: The -- why did we
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I mean, you filed one set of IPRs.
`
`You got one instituted and the other two not. Why don't you
`
`put all of your arguments in the first go-round?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Well, I mean, I think the
`
`thinking that was that we did, but the PTAB gave us
`
`instructions, or in their order not instituting the two IPRs
`
`they gave us, or we believe they gave us instructions as to
`
`how we could do something differently, and so that's what we
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`13
`
`did.
`
`THE COURT: And so that is in some ways a reward
`
`for making the first IPR request very timely, is -- because
`
`isn't it the case that if a year passed from something,
`
`which I think maybe is the institution of the suit, then
`
`there's a time limit. Right?
`
`MR . BERNSTEIN: It's a year from service of the
`
`complaint, summons, your Honor. But, yes, I don't know if I
`
`would use the word "reward."
`
`I mean, I think just
`
`generally, at least my feeling on this issue has been the
`
`sooner yo~ get the I~R done, the better.
`
`THE COURT: But if you had done this after seven
`
`months, their suggestions are not something you would be
`
`able to take up . Right?
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Correct.
`
`THE COURT: All right. And I take it the --
`
`when did you say this new patent was issued?
`
`MR . ZACHARY:
`
`Just yesterday. We provided
`
`notice of it yesterday.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`I thought you said you
`
`provided notice to the amended suit.
`
`In any event, that's
`
`fine.
`
`Honor?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: May I suggest something, your
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sure.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`1 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`MR. ZACHARY: With respect to the new patent and
`
`with respect to the Court's ruling of yesterday, here is our
`
`proposal .
`
`I think it will dovetail with the schedule that
`
`has already been proposed by the parties.
`
`We have sent notice, or Bradium sent notice to
`
`6 Microsoft concerning the new patent . It ' s kind of a
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`s tandard notice without going into the details of it.
`
`If Microsoft does not respond the way the
`
`company has asked them to, then we would seek to add the
`
`patent to the case.
`
`I think we ' 11 know that w.i thin 30 days.
`
`So my su.ggesti on is that we file leave , perhaps consented
`
`to , to add the new patent within 30 days.
`
`In addition , with respect to the Court's ruling
`
`of yesterday on the motion to dismiss , there were a couple
`
`of items that I would like to address. One of them is that
`
`the Court did not mention leave to amend, and we would
`
`request l eave to amend , and I would like to go into that in
`
`a little bit more detail.
`
`But our suggestion is if we're going to amend in
`
`30 days to add the new patent, that leave to amend with
`
`respect to the compl aint on the other issues should also be
`
`on the same time frame , 30 days from now.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`I take it, is
`
`Mr . Berns tein hearing this for the first time as I am?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: He is, your Honor. We just -- of
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`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
`
`course, we just saw the Court's ruling yesterday .
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`I understand we're all doing
`
`things at the last minute here.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Yes.
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN:
`
`I mean if I could just quickly
`
`briefly respond.
`
`I mean,
`
`I
`
`think the adding of the patent is one
`
`issue. Your Honor has already provided some guidance as to
`
`whether we should oppose that.
`
`I think our, Microsoft's issue with amending to
`
`address other issues that came up in your order would be
`
`I mean, we already briefed that issue. It has already been
`
`ruled on. What we don't want to have to do is spend the
`
`time and money re-briefing issues that we just, you know,
`
`briefed, and were ruled on.
`
`THE COURT: Well, so I presume that when someone
`
`says they seek leave to replead, they have additional
`
`factual allegations to put in, my impression -- you know, my
`
`impression is that for the most part, I thought plaintiff
`
`had probably used up all the factual allegations they had,
`
`but you never know.
`
`So what I ' d say is, I don't think I have to
`
`decide anything right now on this and it gives you all an
`
`opportunity to discuss it. But if there are new -- but I
`
`won't say you can't seek leave to amend on that. You know,
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:28)
`
`

`
`1 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`it's worthwhile trying to make sure that in the end, I've
`
`gotten it right. And so I'm not really sure that if that is
`
`an issue and this being more briefing on it, and I don't
`
`express any opinion what the outcome might be, I don't
`
`think that I want to say you can't do that.
`
`And so to the extent -- and I ' m certainly not
`
`suggesting like on the first thing you raised, suggesting
`
`that Microsoft not oppose -- you know, I think it's best for
`
`the parties to discuss this , but I'm not foreclosing
`
`anything. Okay?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Thank you , your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And in terms of 30 days , that seems
`
`fine to me.
`
`MR . BERNSTEIN: That's fine, your Honor, with
`
`15 Microsoft .
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Yes . The Court' s ru.ling focused
`
`in on the issue of notice of the patents and specific
`
`intent, and though there were other issues addressed in
`
`19 Microsoft's motion, the Court's ruling appeared to be based
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`upon that issue of intent and notice. And that is the issue
`
`we would focus on for purposes of any amendment.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: With respect to the issue of
`
`willfulness, you know, we are familiar with your Honor ' s
`
`prior ru1ings in that area . There seems to be some emerging
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`17
`
`case law that strikes a middle ground between allowing
`
`willfulness allegations based solely upon post-complaint
`
`conduct versus not allowing that at all.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Is there new case law emerging from
`
`the Federal Circuit?
`
`MR. ZACHARY: No.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Not so far as I'm aware. But
`
`district courts, yes.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I wouldn't relitigate that
`
`unless you really have nothing Petter to do, because unless
`
`the Federal Circuit says differently, I'm not going to
`
`change my mind on that. Okay?
`
`MR . ZACHARY:
`
`I understand.
`
`THE COURT: So, you know, that's something that
`
`at the time when I first decided that, I gave that a lot of
`
`thought. So I'm not saying you can't do it, but I'm just
`
`saying I don't think that is likely to be very productive.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Well, I will think about
`
`that.
`
`I have your Honor's comments in mind.
`
`I appreciate
`
`those.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. ZACHARY:
`
`I'm not sure if the Court has
`
`previously addressed the case law that tries to strike a
`
`middle ground.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:3)
`(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid: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
`
`1 8
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: On that issue.
`
`THE COURT: Well, you make your best
`
`professional judgment, and, you know, if you think of
`
`something you should bring up, I will consider it.
`
`MR. ZACHARY: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So let's get the dates
`
`here.
`
`So the date I had in mind for the trial was
`
`January 8th of 2018.
`
`The d~te that I had in ~nd for the pretrial
`
`conference, December 22nd of 2017, at 9:00a.m.
`
`And the date for the hearing on claim
`
`construction is January
`
`maybe you got this from my
`
`office.
`
`I don't know. It says January 16th on the
`
`submitted version, but I'd like to do it on January 20, 2017
`
`instead, at 9:00 a.m.
`
`MR . BERNSTEIN: The 20th?
`
`THE COURT: Yes. So hold on a minute.
`
`(Pause.)
`
`MS. FARNAN: The 16th was something we put in
`
`there, your Honor. We did not get it from your office.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Is that a Monda.y?
`
`MS. FARNAN: That, I'm not sure.
`
`THE