UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
