`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 30, 2018
`___________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM QUINN, JENNIFER BISK, and
`CHALRES BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`PHILLIP W. CITROEN, ESQUIRE
`
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQUIRE
`
`MICHAEL A. WOLFE, ESQUIRE
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`
`P.O. Box 20969
`
`Charleston, North Carolina 29413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on October 30, 2018,
`commencing at 11:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Dallas
`Terminal Annex Federal Building, 207 South Houston Street, Suite 159,
`Dallas, Texas, 75202.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` (Proceedings begin at 11:00 a.m.)
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So we're here for the oral argument in
`
`a series of cases filed by Samsung Electronics America Inc.
`
`against patents owned by Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
` And I'm not going to read all the patent numbers,
`
`but I'll read for the record the IPRs. As IPR2017-1797, 2017
`
`-- I just realized that this is an audio transcript, so let
`
`me redo that.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
` IPR2017-1797, IPR2017-1798, IPR2017-1799,
`
`11
`
` IPR2017-1800, IPR2017-1801, IPR2017-1802.
`
`12
`
` Okay. We have allotted for each side to take one
`
`13
`
` hour total of argument time. Both Petitioner and Patent
`
`14
`
` Owner may reserve time for their respective rebuttals.
`
`15
`
` And before we start with allowing any exchange,
`
`16
`
` let's talk about -- there are four instructions that I want
`
`17
`
` to give to you all today.
`
`18
`
` First, there will be no speaking objections allowed.
`
`19
`
` If you have an objection to subject matter raised by your
`
`20
`
` opponent during argument, that objection can only be made
`
`21
`
` during your own argument time, and also, objections will be
`
`22
`
` held under advisement.
`
`23
`
` While on the topic of objections, the second
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
` instruction for you all today has to do with the filed
`
` objections -- the joint filing of objections to
`
` demonstratives. As we state in our hearing order,
`
` demonstratives --
`
` Can you mute in Virginia? There. Thank you.
`
` As we stated in our hearing order, demonstratives
`
` are not evidence but merely visual aids for use during your
`
` argument. We have reviewed the objections and have
`
` determined that we do not need to resolve any of those at
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
` this time. All objections will be held under advisement and
`
`11
`
` will be resolved only to the extent necessary to decide the
`
`12
`
` matter.
`
`13
`
` To the extent that either side deems that its filed
`
`14
`
` objections are worthy of additional discussion, you may
`
`15
`
` address those, but only during your argument time, we will
`
`16
`
` not have additional argument time for objections.
`
`17
`
` Third instruction. Our hearing order at page 3
`
`18
`
` specifically instructs the filing of demonstratives as a
`
`19
`
` separate exhibit. We have noticed that petitioner filed all
`
`20
`
` the demonstratives as a paper, not as an exhibit. After the
`
`21
`
` hearing, we will be expunging all of Petitioner's
`
`22
`
` demonstratives for failure to comply with our hearing order,
`
`23
`
` but with authorization to refile the demonstratives as an
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` exhibit.
`
` Fourth and last instruction. The panel issued an
`
` order yesterday as a Conduct of the Proceedings Order under
`
`Rule 42.5, giving notice of the expectation that we want to hear
`
` from the parties regarding claim construction of the term
`
` "instant voice message" consistent with previous proceedings
`
` regarding the related patents.
`
` So my question to everyone today is, did you receive
`
` that order and are you aware of our expectation?
`
`10
`
` MR. MODI: Yes, Your Honor, we are, on behalf of
`
`11
`
`Petitioner.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Petitioner.
`
`13
`
` Patent Owner?
`
`14
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Patent Owner has received the
`
`15
`
`communication and is ready to proceed, Your Honor.
`
`16
`
` JUDGE QUINN: All right. Any questions on those
`
`17
`
`instructions?
`
`18
`
` MR. MODI: No, Your Honor.
`
`19
`
` MR. MANGRUM: None from Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. All right. Let's start with
`
`21
`
`Petitioner. How much time would you like for rebuttal?
`
`22
`
` MR. MODI: 20 minutes, Your Honor.
`
`23
`
` JUDGE QUINN: And do you know, Patent Owner, how
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`much time you want, or do you want to tell me that after you
`
`hear their argument?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: We would prefer to delay based off the
`
`case in chief.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Perfect. All right. Have the
`
`demonstratives been provided to the court reporter?
`
` MR. MODI: May I approach?
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Yes, please.
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Patent Owner previously provided paper
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`copies to the court reporter.
`
`11
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. All right. I'm going to
`
`12
`
`be keeping -- I'll be keeping time using my phone. 40
`
`13
`
`minutes for your main argument. You may start when you're
`
`14
`
`ready.
`
`15
`
` MR. MODI: In fact, I was just going to introduce
`
`16
`
`ourselves, Your Honor. Naveen Modi on behalf of Petitioner
`
`17
`
`Samsung. With me is Phillip Citroen and Michael Wolfe.
`
`18
`
`Mr. Citroen will actually be presenting the argument for
`
`19
`
`Samsung today.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
`
`21
`
` MR. MODI: And I -- we do have a copy of the
`
`22
`
`demonstratives. Would Your Honor like a copy for your
`
`23
`
`convenience?
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
` JUDGE QUINN: You -- you can give me a present, if
`
`you want.
`
` MR. MODI: Okay. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
`
` MR. MODI: With that, I'll turn it over to
`
`Mr. Citroen.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: All right.
`
` MR. CITROEN: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Good morning.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
` MR. CITROEN: Good morning, Your Honors.
`
`11
`
` Can you hear me okay? Little bit of feedback. I
`
`12
`
` apologize.
`
`13
`
` Good morning. May it please the Board. My name is
`
`14
`
` Phillip Citroen, and I will be presenting today on behalf of
`
`15
`
` Petitioner.
`
`16
`
` I will be referring to Petitioner's demonstratives
`
`17
`
` as I go forward, and I understand everyone has a copy of
`
`18
`
` those demonstratives.
`
`19
`
` Now, I understand we will not have any additional
`
`20
`
` time to address objections to demonstratives. There are
`
`21
`
` just a few points I'd like to mention regarding those
`
`22
`
` demonstratives before I get to the merits.
`
`23
`
` First, I just want to make sure it's cleared for the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` record that Petitioner did attempt to meet and confer with
`
` Patent Owner regarding objections to demonstratives multiple
`
` times. I believe in the last communication, in fact, we
`
` even quoted the Board's hearing order that the parties are
`
` obligated to meet and confer to try and resolve these
`
` disputes.
`
` The truth of the matter is that the Patent Owner did
`
` not respond to any of our attempts to do so, and we think,
`
` if this is something the Board is interesting in seeing,
`
`10
`
` we're happy to provide the emails between the parties
`
`11
`
` indicating that we tried to make a good faith attempt to
`
`12
`
` resolve these disputes so that we were not dealing with
`
`13
`
` those here today.
`
`14
`
` Now, given the amount of time that we have, I don't
`
`15
`
` plan to walk through all the objections today that
`
`16
`
` Petitioner has to Patent Owner's demonstratives, but I would
`
`17
`
` like to just indicate that we believe the objections, which
`
`18
`
` are based on the fact that they've raised new arguments in
`
`19
`
` their demonstratives for the first time, and they've also
`
`20
`
` relied on some evidence for the first time in their
`
`21
`
` demonstratives, are self-evident if you look at the
`
`22
`
` demonstratives and compare them to the responses filed in
`
`23
`
` these proceedings.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` And one final point on demonstratives before I move
`
` forward --
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Do you have any particular example
`
`that's worth discussing, or is this just reiterating what's
`
`already in the paper?
`
` MR. CITROEN: We do have some examples. I'm happy
`
`to talk about a few of them maybe that are the most
`
`egregious, in our mind, but I know that we have a lot of
`
`issues to discuss on the merits, and I want to make sure we
`
`10
`
`get to those. But if you think it would be helpful, I'm
`
`11
`
`happy to do that.
`
`12
`
` I don't have a copy of the slides to pull up. We
`
`13
`
`could do that really quickly. Let me maybe just pinpoint a
`
`14
`
`few, if that's helpful.
`
`15
`
` JUDGE QUINN: If that's what you want to do. I
`
`16
`
`mean, you raised the issue.
`
`17
`
` MR. CITROEN: Maybe I'll mention just one or two of
`
`18
`
`those.
`
`19
`
` So if we could --
`
`20
`
` (Pause in the proceedings)
`
`21
`
` MR. CITROEN: So if we could go to Slide 17 of
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner's demonstratives.
`
`23
`
` One of our objections is to basically all the red
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` bulleted portions of the presentation, if you can see those
`
` here.
`
` Now, the objection is that this is a brand new
`
` argument. In the papers --
`
` I'm sorry. Can you see that? I know it's small and
`
` it's a little blurry.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: What page -- what slide is that?
`
` MR. CITROEN: This is Slide 17 of Patent Owner's
`
`demonstratives.
`
`10
`
` So this -- the bottom half in particular, which is
`
`11
`
`in red, if you look at the responses and what they actually
`
`12
`
`argued with respect to this limitation, they only made
`
`13
`
`arguments with respect to Clark.
`
`14
`
` Here, they have presented a new argument based on
`
`15
`
`Griffin. Griffin is not even mentioned in that entire
`
`16
`
`section with respect to this limitation. That alone shows
`
`17
`
`you why this is a new argument. This is brand new. This has
`
`18
`
`never been mentioned before in their paper. The reference
`
`19
`
`isn't even mentioned with respect to this limitation.
`
`20
`
` If we can go to Slide 57.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So how does that prejudice you? I
`
`22
`
`mean, they've mentioned that you've relied on a combination
`
`23
`
`of Griffin and Clark for the message database. So how does
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`this prejudice you in any way?
`
` MR. CITROEN: Well, they're arguing -- it's a brand
`
`new argument. It's essentially additional briefing. They're
`
`now arguing that Griffin -- it's a new argument. They're
`
`arguing that Griffin doesn't have a message database as part
`
`of its application that we pointed to in our papers.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: But --
`
` MR. CITROEN: This is was never argued.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: -- do you dispute that? Do you --
`
`10
`
` MR. CITROEN: Absolutely. And we haven't had an
`
`11
`
`opportunity to brief that in any of our papers because this
`
`12
`
`has never been presented before.
`
`13
`
` JUDGE QUINN: But you're saying you're not relying
`
`14
`
`on Griffin to disclose the database.
`
`15
`
` MR. CITROEN: We've always relied on Griffin. This
`
`16
`
`has been our position in the petitions. They could have
`
`17
`
`raised this argument in their preliminary response, the
`
`18
`
`response. At any point before their demonstratives they
`
`19
`
`could have raised this argument and they never did.
`
`20
`
` It was when they filed their demonstratives that
`
`21
`
`they first indicated that this was one of their positions,
`
`22
`
`and it was a brand new argument at that time.
`
`23
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. CITROEN: If we can go to Slide 57 of Patent
`
`Owner's demonstratives. And the Slide 58, also. It's
`
`essentially the same issue.
`
` With respect to the limitations in the '890 patent,
`
`and this is proceeding 1802, we relied on a reference from an
`
`inventor named Malik.
`
` Now, in the Patent Owner's responses, when they
`
`argued that we didn't -- that the Malik reference doesn't
`
`disclose particular limitations, they actually referred to
`
`10
`
`the wrong Malik. It's a different reference by the same
`
`11
`
`inventor.
`
`12
`
` They didn't even address the reference that we
`
`13
`
`relied on in our petitions with respect to these limitations,
`
`14
`
`but they're now trying do that in their demonstratives today.
`
`15
`
`They have this slide, which is Slide 57, and also Slide 58 in
`
`16
`
`their demonstratives. They cite several portions of the
`
`17
`
`reference that we actually relied on in our papers. These
`
`18
`
`are arguments they never presented because they didn't even
`
`19
`
`discuss whether that reference met the limitations of the
`
`20
`
`claims.
`
`21
`
` So again, these are -- these demonstratives present
`
`22
`
` new arguments with respect to this reference that was not in
`
`23
`
` the papers.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` So I think, in the interest of time, Your Honor,
`
` I'll stop there. Those are kind of the -- some of the more
`
` egregious examples where they've raised brand new arguments
`
` for the first time. I'd like to move on to the merits.
`
` But, of course, if there are any questions, I'm happy to
`
` answer those before moving forward.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: No questions from me.
`
` MR. CITROEN: Okay. One last point I do want to
`
`make, actually, with respect to demonstratives. Again, there
`
`10
`
`were a series of objections to some of Petitioner's
`
`11
`
`demonstratives. We did attempt to meet and confer on these,
`
`12
`
`as well. We sent a series of emails trying to understand
`
`13
`
`what the objections were to Petitioner's demonstratives.
`
`14
`
` What we learned was some of the objections to the
`
`15
`
`demonstratives were really an objection to Petitioner's
`
`16
`
`replies. The argument is essentially that we were raising
`
`17
`
`arguments in our replies that were new arguments that are
`
`18
`
`improper reply arguments. So just two quick points on this
`
`19
`
`before moving to the merits is that this is an argument that
`
`20
`
`should have been raised earlier, weeks ago. Our replies were
`
`21
`
`filed a long time ago. This is now being raised indirectly
`
`22
`
`through objections to demonstratives. The -- based on your
`
`23
`
`experience, Boards typically -- or the Board typically has a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`procedure in place where the parties can file a paper
`
`identifying what they believe is the new arguments in the
`
`replies. That opportunity hasn't been presented to us
`
`because it wasn't raised as an objection until a few day --
`
` JUDGE QUINN: We didn't -- we didn't -- we didn't
`
`instruct the parties not to raise this issue --
`
` MR. CITROEN: That's true, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: -- on oral argument. And my practice
`
`has been -- and some of my colleagues' practice has been --
`
`10
`
`that they can be raised during oral arguments. So if this is
`
`11
`
`your only objection, we can now move on to the substance of
`
`12
`
`the case.
`
`13
`
` MR. CITROEN: Sure, Your Honor. So if we can go to
`
`14
`
`Slide 2 of Petitioner's demonstratives.
`
`15
`
` So slides 2 through 7 actually just present all the
`
`16
`
`grounds that have been instituted, including the claims that
`
`17
`
`are now part of the proceedings following the Supreme Court's
`
`18
`
`decision in SAS. I'm not going to go through all of those, I
`
`19
`
`just want to indicate that those are there for the Board's
`
`20
`
`convenience.
`
`21
`
` I do want to just state that we believe all the
`
`22
`
`claims that are now involved in these proceedings, including
`
`23
`
`the ones that were added after the initial Institution
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`decisions, should be found unpatentable and canceled based on
`
`the record that the Board had before it in Institution, but
`
`that has been more further developed in these proceedings.
`
`And I plan to get into some of the issues that have come up
`
`during the proceedings that further support our positions.
`
` If we can going to Slide 8.
`
` At this point, there are really just a few primary
`
` disputes between the parties. So I understand there's a lot
`
` of issues that are shown here; I'm going to focus on the
`
`10
`
` first three: Construction of instant message, the attaching
`
`11
`
` limitations -- and I misspoke -- construction of instant
`
`12
`
` voice message, the attaching limitations, and then the
`
`13
`
` controlling a method of generating limitations.
`
`14
`
` I don't plan to get to too many of the other issues
`
`15
`
` unless there's any questions or if we have some additional
`
`16
`
` time. I will focus on those in particular.
`
`17
`
` So if we can go to --
`
`18
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Are these listed here in order of
`
`19
`
`importance to you? Because if we don't get to the bottom
`
`20
`
`three and those happen to be the most important --
`
`21
`
` MR. CITROEN: That's a good question, Your Honor. I
`
`22
`
`think the attaching limitations and controlling a method of
`
`23
`
`generating limitations are more important in our mind.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
` The construction of instant voice message kind of
`
`leads to the attaching limitation, though, because there is a
`
`relationship between the arguments with respect to those --
`
`those two.
`
` So I would like to hopefully limit our discussion of
`
`the construction of instant voice message to about 10 to 15
`
`minutes, if that's possible, and then move on to the other
`
`issues that I would like to discuss.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
` MR. CITROEN: So if we can go to Slide 9, the first
`
`11
`
`issue is the construction of instant voice message, or IVM,
`
`12
`
`if I may.
`
`13
`
` And if we go to Slide 10. Here, we just present
`
`14
`
`some exemplary claim language that indicates where this term
`
`15
`
`appears in at least one of the claims, and I'll come back to
`
`16
`
`the claim language.
`
`17
`
` In the Board's Institution decisions, as you're
`
`18
`
`aware, Your Honors indicated that the construction of the IVM
`
`19
`
`term was underdeveloped and invited the parties to brief the
`
`20
`
`construction of this term in its papers.
`
`21
`
` In response to that instruction, Petitioner
`
`22
`
`presented a detailed analysis of what it believed the proper
`
`23
`
`construction of IVM should be.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` In contrast, the Patent Owner in these particular
`
`proceedings didn't really brief this issue at all except for
`
`very briefly in the 1801 proceeding.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: I think the problem with your claim
`
`construction, if I may just short circuit that --
`
` MR. CITROEN: Yes, ma'am.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: -- just FYI -- we've had already two
`
`hearings on a lot of these patents so we're very familiar
`
`with the claims and the patents.
`
`10
`
` Your claim construction is, "A message containing
`
`11
`
`digitized speech that is capable of being transmitted in
`
`12
`
`realtime to a recipient device." And in the other
`
`13
`
`proceedings, the issue was not so much the timing of the
`
`14
`
`message but what was the message.
`
`15
`
` MR. CITROEN: Right.
`
`16
`
` JUDGE QUINN: And our problem still permeates here
`
`17
`
`because you are using Zydney, which has the same voice
`
`18
`
`container from the other related cases.
`
`19
`
` So in view of that and needing to be consistent, we
`
`20
`
`want to reach a claim construction that applies across cases,
`
`21
`
`not just for your particular argument. So I'm concerned that
`
`22
`
`you used "message" to define what is the message, and that
`
`23
`
`precisely is the problem.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. CITROEN: Okay.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So in light of the two claim
`
`construction proposals that we have from the other case, what
`
`are your views?
`
` MR. CITROEN: Sure, Your Honor. And if I can make
`
`just one point of clarification you brought up, Zydney, that
`
`we rely on Zydney, I just want to point out that, unlike the
`
`other proceedings where Zydney was relied on as the --
`
`disclosing the message, we don't rely on Zydney for the
`
`10
`
`message. We have Griffin, which is a reference that was not
`
`11
`
`at issue in any of those proceedings. That is the message
`
`12
`
`that we point to as the instant voice message for these
`
`13
`
`proceedings. So I just want to make that one clarification.
`
`14
`
` JUDGE QUINN: But correct me if I'm wrong. You are
`
`15
`
`relying on Zydney for teaching of the attaching files, right?
`
`16
`
` MR. CITROEN: We -- I'm sorry. Excuse me?
`
`17
`
` JUDGE QUINN: I said right?
`
`18
`
` MR. CITROEN: We rely on Griffin for attaching, and
`
`19
`
`we have a -- a backup obviousness position that relies on
`
`20
`
`Zydney as a secondary reference. So we have both positions.
`
`21
`
` And, in fact, that raises an issue in these
`
`22
`
`proceedings, as well. The position, based on Griffin, was
`
`23
`
`not addressed by the Patent Owner in their papers, they went
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`directly to Zydney, which was our backup obviousness
`
`position, but we present both in our papers.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So from your perspective then,
`
`the arguments about the voice container attaching files to
`
`that instead of an audio file, those are irrelevant
`
`arguments?
`
` MR. CITROEN: I -- to a certain extent, I think
`
`that's true because we rely on Griffin. We believe Griffin
`
`itself discloses these limitations. But I will say, with
`
`10
`
`respect to Zydney, with our obviousness position, it also
`
`11
`
`discloses these limitations under the proper construction of
`
`12
`
`the IVM term.
`
`13
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So you're not -- so you're maintaining
`
`14
`
`that your backup position was Zydney, right?
`
`15
`
` MR. CITROEN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`16
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So we still have to reach the issue.
`
`17
`
` MR. CITROEN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`18
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
`
`19
`
` MR. CITROEN: Yes.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So what is your view on the claim
`
`21
`
`construction?
`
`22
`
` MR. CITROEN: Sure. So we understand -- and we
`
`23
`
`noticed in the order yesterday -- that there were two
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`separate constructions proposed in those different
`
`proceedings. I believe one was presented by the Patent
`
`Owner, which was, "Data content, including a representation
`
`of an audio message, not precluding the inclusion of fields,"
`
`and the other presented by the petitioners in those
`
`proceedings is, "A data structure, including a representation
`
`of an audible message."
`
` In our view, our construction more closely aligns
`
`with the construction offered by the petitioners in those
`
`10
`
`proceedings, which is, "A data structure, including a
`
`11
`
`representation of an audible message." We believe that,
`
`12
`
`between those constructions, lines up with the construction
`
`13
`
`we believe is appropriate and that we propose in these
`
`14
`
`proceedings.
`
`15
`
` And there's various reasons why, and I'm happy to go
`
`16
`
`into our explanation of why we believe that construction is
`
`17
`
`more appropriate.
`
`18
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Could you summarize why?
`
`19
`
` MR. CITROEN: Sure. There's a few reasons. And I
`
`20
`
`can -- we can go to Slide 14.
`
`21
`
` To give one example, in the '622 patent, Claim 3, it
`
`22
`
`recites an instant voice message, but it also indicates that,
`
`23
`
`"The instant voice message includes an object field that
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`includes a digitized audio file."
`
` Based on claims like this -- and we can look
`
`actually at Claim -- I'm sorry -- Slide 15, as well -- these
`
`are dependent claims. They indicate that, "The instant voice
`
`message also includes a source field and a destination
`
`field."
`
` Based on these claims, it's clear that what is meant
`
`by "instant voice message" is not that it represents the data
`
`content alone, it is actually a container or a data structure
`
`10
`
`or a message that includes a digitized audio, or the
`
`11
`
`digitized speech, and it may also include some additional
`
`12
`
`information.
`
`13
`
` If we go to Slide 16. I do want to highlight one of
`
`14
`
` the claims -- or two of the claims in another patent, the
`
`15
`
` '747 patent.
`
`16
`
` And the first claim here, Claim 1, recites,
`
`17
`
` "Generating the instant voice message includes recording the
`
`18
`
` instant voice message in an audio file." And I think this
`
`19
`
` is important because -- I skipped a slide -- but Mr. Easttom,
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner's expert, uses the same language
`
`21
`
` when he quotes this language from the specification to argue
`
`22
`
` in favor of the Patent Owner's construction.
`
`23
`
` But if you look at Claim 13 here for the '747
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` patent, you'll see what is actually meant by this language
`
` "recording the instant voice message in an audio file".
`
` Claim 13 recites, "Separating the instant voice
`
` message into an audio file and one or more files." So
`
` again, in other words, in these claims, the IVM includes
`
` both an audio file and one or more attached files. So this
`
` means the IVM is a message or data structure that contains
`
` digitized speech and may also include some additional
`
` information.
`
`10
`
` And there's a portion of the specification that
`
`11
`
` corresponds to this, and just in the interest of time I'm
`
`12
`
` not going to pull it up.
`
`13
`
` But in the '622 patent, Column 13, line 33 to 38, it
`
`14
`
` recites that, "The instant voice message also has the
`
`15
`
` attached one or more files." That's consistent with what's
`
`16
`
` actually claimed here in the '747 patent where it's
`
`17
`
` indicating that, "The instant voice message is composed of
`
`18
`
` various different components; one is the digitized speech,
`
`19
`
` the other is the attachment."
`
`20
`
` Now, if we go to Slide 17. I'll just quickly note
`
`21
`
` that this understanding is consistent with what the
`
`22
`
` specification refers to as "a message object". And if you
`
`23
`
` compare what's here and what's in Claims -- the claims of
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` the '622 patent that we just discussed previously, you'll
`
` see that the same fields that were actually recited in the
`
` claims are here, as well. So there is an indication that
`
` the IVM -- what that term means must at least encompass the
`
` message object that's also described in the specification.
`
` If we go to Slide 18, and I think this is something
`
` I'd really like to emphasize for the Board. We asked
`
` Mr. Easttom -- this is Patent Owner's expert -- what this term
`
` actually means. And this is in context of the specification
`
`10
`
` of these patents, not any particular claim, and I think
`
`11
`
` that's an important point.
`
`12
`
` So here you can see -- and I realize there's a lot
`
`13
`
` on the screen, and I apologize -- this is, just for the
`
`14
`
` record, it's Exhibit 1040 at page 109, line 5 to 22.
`
`15
`
` At the top half of this portion of the excerpt,
`
`16
`
` Mr. Easttom admitted that, "The IVM term includes both an
`
`17
`
` identifier for the sender and an identifier for the
`
`18
`
` recipient." But he didn't stop there. When we -- he went
`
`19
`
` on actually to explain that the IVM, "would have to" include
`
`20
`
` an identifier for the recipient, and again quoting him, he
`
`21
`
` said, "or else it couldn't get to the recipient."
`
`22
`
` And one last point. When -- and excuse me. This is
`
`23
`
` the bottom portion here. To support his understanding that
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01797, IPR2017-01798, IPR2017-01799,
`IPR2017-01800, IPR2017-01801, IPR2017-01802
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` the IVM must include fields like this, he actually took me
`
` to the specification where it describes the message object.
`
` I didn't ask him if those two things correspond, he,
`
` himself, took me there and said, "Actually, if you look at
`
` the specification, it describes the message object and shows
`
` that the IVM would include these fields."
`
` So we have testimony from Mr. Easttom that came in
`
` during these proceedings that indicate, even in his opinion,
`
` the IVM must be some sort of data structure that includes
`
`10
`
` digitized audio, as well as other fields.
`
`11
`
` Now, looking back at the constructions that were
`
`12
`
` proposed in the other proceedings. We believe that for
`
`13
`
` these reasons, our interpretation is consistent with what
`
`14
`
` the specifications disclose, what various claims disclose,
`
`15
`
` what even Mr. Easttom explained during his deposition. And
`
`16
`
` this is consistent with what's described in the
`
`17
`
` specification.
`
`18
`
` Now, looking at Patent Owner's construction in those
`
`19
`
` other proceedings, they rely heavily on the idea of data
`
`20
`
` content. And the issue with that is that it introduces
`
`21
`
` confusion.
`
`22
`
` If you look at their construction, what we do know
`
`23
`
` is that the data content includes at least a represen