Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` -----------------------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` -----------------------------
`
` TELESIGN CORPORATION
`
` Petitioner,
`
` V.
`
` TWILIO, INC.
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` --------------------------------
`
` Case IPR2017-01976
`
` (Patent No. 8,837,465)
`
` Case IPR2017-01977
`
` (Patent No. 8,755,376 B2)
`
` --------------------------------
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
`
` September 25, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`
`Tiffany Valentine
`
`Job No. 148543
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 1
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` -----------------------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` -----------------------------
`
` TELESIGN CORPORATION
`
` Petitioner,
`
` V.
`
` TWILIO, INC.
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` --------------------------------
`
` Case IPR2017-01976
`
` (Patent No. 8,837,465)
`
` Case IPR2017-01977
`
` (Patent No. 8,755,376 B2)
`
` --------------------------------
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
`
` September 25, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`
`Tiffany Valentine
`
`Job No. 148543
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 1
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` September 25, 2018
`
` 1:33 p.m.
`
` Telephonic Conference held before
`
`the Honorable PTAB Administrative Judges
`
`Weinshank, McGraw and Moore. Held also
`
`before Tiffany Valentine, a Notary Public
`
`for the State of New York.
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 2
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
` 2555 Grand Boulevard
`
` Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
`BY: JESSE CAMACHO, ESQ.
`
` CHRISSY GUASTELLO, ESQ.
`
`BAKER BOTTS
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
` 101 California Street
`
` San Francisco, California 94111
`
`BY: SARAH GUSKE, ESQ.
`
` MICHELLE EBER, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 3
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`Page 4
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`This is Judge Weinshank. With me on the
`
`line are Judge McGraw and Judge Moore.
`
` This is a conference call for
`
`IPR2017-01976 and 01977. Who do we have on
`
`the line for Petitioner?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Your Honor, this is
`
`Jesse Camacho. And in my office is Chrissy
`
`Guastello.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Mr. Camacho, will you be doing the speaking
`
`for Petitioner today?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes, your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`And are we waiting for anyone else on your
`
`end or are we good to go?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Good to go.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Who do we have on for Patent Owner?
`
` MS. GUSKE: You have Sara Guske and
`
`Michelle Eber. This is Sara Guske and I
`
`will be doing the talking for Patent Owner.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 4
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`Are we waiting for anyone else, Ms. Guske?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Nope.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK: Did
`
`you all retain a court reporter for this
`
`call?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Yes, we did. And she is
`
`on the line.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK: As
`
`usual, I will ask Ms. Guske for you to file
`
`a transcript in the record.
`
` MS. GUSKE: Noted. Thank you.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Ms. Guske, Patent Owner, you requested this
`
`call to request authorization to file a
`
`motion to strike certain portions of
`
`Petitioner's reply in these cases.
`
` Why don't you give us overview on
`
`why you think you need that and maybe keep
`
`it to higher level. I know you outlined
`
`some specifics in e-mail and I don't know
`
`we need to dive into every instance of what
`
`you think to improper but maybe give us
`
`high level explanation. And if it's
`
`useful, one specific example.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 5
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
` MS. GUSKE: Sure. So the basis for
`
`the planned motion would be that Petitioner
`
`did not include and identify evidence in
`
`its petition that it now includes in its
`
`reply to make prima facie case. And this
`
`is a violation of 35 USC 312, little A,
`
`little 3. And also this Court Practice
`
`Guide. In the types of evidence we are
`
`talking about, are things like wholesale
`
`new arguments relating to a new reference.
`
` So to give you an example, for your
`
`direction, we have an instance for one of
`
`these claim limitations, and let's take out
`
`case 1977, that's for the '376 patent, for
`
`element 1-B, and it's a responding
`
`limitation. For the first time in its
`
`reply it points to disclosure in the Ransom
`
`reference as allegedly disclosing elements
`
`and limitations within that element when
`
`previously it only relied on the Maes
`
`reference. It's not fairly rebuttal
`
`evidence when it's a completely new theory
`
`and new evidence that's being presented on
`
`reply.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 6
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
` In the other evidence that we would
`
`seek to strike, falls within that same
`
`category. Sometimes it's not quite as
`
`egregious as pointing to a completely new
`
`reference for limitation, but it's pointing
`
`to disclosure within the limitation for the
`
`very first time in the reply in a manner
`
`that we couldn't predict how the theory and
`
`evidence was going to shift and had no fair
`
`notice or opportunity to rebut and put in
`
`rebuttal evidence. And it's not just
`
`simply an additional explanation of a
`
`theory, these are completely new theories
`
`that we would seek to strike.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Ms. Guske, you said disclosure within a
`
`limitation. Did you mean disclosure within
`
`the prior art?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Sorry. If I said that I
`
`misspoke. I meant some of these instances
`
`are completely new disclosure in the
`
`references themselves that they have been
`
`previously relied upon for the particular
`
`claim element. And some cases like more
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 7
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`specific example I gave, they pointed to a
`
`different reference entirely for
`
`limitation.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. Is it fair to summarize, and I know
`
`you have more specific arguments, but the
`
`general complaint here is, one, for some
`
`limitations they relied on new reference
`
`that they didn't rely on for that
`
`limitation, and for others they relied on
`
`new disclosure with maybe the same
`
`reference that they relied on originally?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Correct. And on certain
`
`cases on that second category, it's telling
`
`where they will cite back in the reply to
`
`petition pages that have nothing to do with
`
`the particular claim limitation that
`
`they're addressing in that reply, but
`
`they're trying to find other instances
`
`where they may have cited something for a
`
`different claim limitation to try to tie it
`
`back.
`
` There is one additional category
`
`that applies to the '376 patent only. And
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 8
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`that is a new construction argument and new
`
`evidence relating to that construction for
`
`the rest limitation.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay.
`
` MS. GUSKE: Including the new expert
`
`declaration on that term.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. Ms. Guske, are you familiar with our
`
`updated Trial Practice Guide that went out
`
`in August 2018?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Yes, your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK: So
`
`the question I have about that is, would
`
`this be a case where a sur-reply would be
`
`appropriate?
`
` MS. GUSKE: The answer to that, your
`
`Honor, is no because what we have here on
`
`reply is an attempt after the fact to make
`
`out a prima facie case. That's not
`
`necessarily the right territory for a
`
`sur-reply.
`
` I think if that's the practice that
`
`allows Petitioner's to shift evidence and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 9
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`shift theories without really any recourse
`
`in these proceedings. I think a motion to
`
`strike is the more appropriate remedy.
`
` Also on top of that, at least from
`
`what I have been seeing in the record post
`
`new procedures is that sur-reply is a
`
`relative in limited in scope. And these
`
`cases we are talking about new theories,
`
`new evidence that would also involve a
`
`significant amount of work and additional
`
`expert discovery on our side of things.
`
` So it also from a procedural
`
`perspective, doesn't appear to fall within
`
`that category.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. If we were to authorize you to file
`
`a motion to strike, how many pages would
`
`you need for that motion and how much time
`
`would you need?
`
` MS. GUSKE: I think five pages per
`
`case ought to be sufficient. And then we
`
`would request two to three weeks would be
`
`sufficient.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 10
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`One other thing: I want to know -- I know
`
`there is some indication in our updated
`
`Trial Practice Guide that we would endeavor
`
`to decide motions to strike to the extent
`
`we authorize them as quickly as possible
`
`and possibly before the oral hearing.
`
` Would you all be okay if this were
`
`referred until after the oral hearing with
`
`the understanding that obviously if
`
`arguments were made at the oral hearing
`
`that relate to argument that were
`
`ultimately stricken, we wouldn't consider
`
`the oral arguments either?
`
` MS. GUSKE: That's fine with Patent
`
`Owner, your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Does that change your thinking at all
`
`versus motion to strike versus a sur-reply
`
`if the motion to strike weren't to be
`
`decided until after the oral hearing?
`
` MS. GUSKE: No, I think that the
`
`rationale I outlined before still stands,
`
`that this is more appropriate for motion to
`
`strike territory versus something like a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 11
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`sur-reply that we can't put in full new
`
`analysis.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Thank you, Ms. Guske.
`
` Mr. Camacho, would you like to
`
`respond?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Sure, your Honor.
`
` Generally, our argument that we
`
`provided in our reply are proper responsive
`
`arguments. They're responsive to the
`
`arguments that were set forth in the Patent
`
`Owner response. The striking is an
`
`exceptional remedy that would involve
`
`depriving the Board of the information.
`
` Generally the Board addresses these
`
`at hearing at final written decision. It
`
`can weigh the evidence versus its striking
`
`for expungement. And really, ultimately,
`
`if this were stricken, it would amount to a
`
`denial or our opportunity to respond.
`
` And I can put this in context of one
`
`of the examples that Ms. Guske brought out
`
`and that's the concept of a rest claim
`
`construction. The thing there, we were not
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 12
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`the ones that injected that.
`
` In the preliminarily response, in
`
`the Patent Owner preliminarily response,
`
`there is no claim construction. Patent
`
`Owner did not include claim construction
`
`for the term "rest." First time we see the
`
`claim construction for the term "rest" that
`
`is at issue was in the Patent Owner
`
`response.
`
` And then the Patent Owner response,
`
`specifically, it alleges Ransom doesn't
`
`teach specific aspects of their proposed
`
`construction. And we responded to that and
`
`showed where Ransom does indeed teach that.
`
`And that's proper reply argument.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. How do you respond -- I think
`
`Ms. Guske gave a specific example of you
`
`using Ransom for the first time for
`
`limitation that you only relied on, I
`
`believe, in Maes.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: I tried to look that
`
`one up -- I didn't see it as one of the
`
`bulleted ones in the e-mails, unless it's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 13
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`one of the ones that I am not seeing. I do
`
`not remember doing that. I don't think we
`
`actually relied on a different reference
`
`the way she's describing. But if it's one
`
`of those bulleted lists, I can look it up
`
`right now.
`
` I don't remember -- I do not think
`
`we ever relied on a new reference for the
`
`first time in the reply.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. Mr. Camacho, if we were to authorize
`
`a motion to strike, how long would you need
`
`to respond to the motion?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: We should be able to
`
`reply in two weeks.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: I believe it would
`
`also be fine if that were deferred until
`
`after argument.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK: I
`
`assume you're fine with if we gave you the
`
`same amount of pages that we gave to Patent
`
`Owner in the motion?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 14
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Oh, oh -- do you mean
`
`five and five? If they get five and we get
`
`five for opposition? Yes.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Camacho.
`
` Ms. Guske, is there anything else
`
`you would like to add?
`
` MS. GUSKE: No, your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`I'm going to place you all on a brief hold
`
`here and confer with my panel members.
`
`Just please hold the line and I will be
`
`back on in a moment.
`
` (Whereupon, a brief pause in
`
`proceedings took place.)
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Hi, this is Judge Weinshank again.
`
` Mr. Camacho, are you still on the
`
`line?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes, sir.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Ms. Guske, are you still on the line?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Yes.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK: We
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 15
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`just have one more question for Patent
`
`Owner: Other panels in the past have
`
`handled this issue by authorizing a Patent
`
`Owner to file a list of the portions of the
`
`reply in evidence that they find
`
`objectionable and having Petitioner file a
`
`response identifying where in the Patent
`
`Owner's response are the arguments they're
`
`responding to.
`
` Ms. Guske, do you have any issue to
`
`that approach?
`
` MS. GUSKE: No -- is that separate
`
`from the motion itself or are you asking
`
`that to be the format of the motion?
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`That would be in lieu of formal motion. It
`
`would be a sort of condensed version. It
`
`would just be a list of what you find
`
`objectionable.
`
` MS. GUSKE: We would certainly list
`
`what we find objectionable, including the
`
`specific portions of the reply too. But I
`
`think that a small, brief explanation is
`
`what we had intended in that five pages to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 16
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
`highlight why we think that it is new,
`
`versus responsive, would be helpful to the
`
`Board. I think some amount of explanation
`
`would be useful.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay.
`
` MS. GUSKE: So I think that some
`
`amount of explanation I think would be
`
`useful.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. I understand.
`
` Mr. Camacho, would you have any
`
`objection to that approach that I just
`
`outlined.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: No. I think that
`
`dual-list approach makes sense.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. Are there any other questions from
`
`the parties here?
`
` Mr. Camacho, anything from your end?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Nothing, your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Anything else from Patent Owner, Ms. Guske?
`
` MS. GUSKE: No, your Honor.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 17
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Okay. We're going to take this issue under
`
`advisement and then we will issue an order
`
`shortly indicating whether you're
`
`authorized to file anything further, okay?
`
` MS. GUSKE: Thank you.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Thank you.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WEINSHANK:
`
`Thank you all. We are adjourned.
`
` (Time noted 1:51 p.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 18
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
` TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK )
`
` : SS.:
`
`COUNTY OF NASSAU )
`
` I, TIFFANY VALENTINE, a Notary
`
`Public for and within the State of New York, do
`
`hereby certify:
`
` That the witness whose examination
`
`is hereinbefore set forth was duly sworn and
`
`that such examination is a true record of the
`
`testimony given by that witness.
`
` I further certify that I am not
`
`related to any of the parties to this action by
`
`blood or by marriage and that I am in no way
`
`interested in the outcome of this matter.
`
`Dated: September 26, 2018
`
` ___________________________
`
` TIFFANY VALENTINE
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TWILIO INC., Ex 2071, Page 19
`TELESIGN CORPORATION v. TWILIO INC.
`IPR2017-01977
`
`
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
