UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`VS. No. IPR2018-00082
`
` No. IPR2018-00084
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` TELECONFERENCE HEARING BEFORE
`
` THE HONORABLE DAN FISHMAN
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
` AND
`
` THE HONORABLE LYNN PETTIGREW
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Taken on Thursday, February 8, 2018
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Western Digital Ex. 1021
`Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Tech., Inc.
`IPR2018-00082
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 2
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`VS. No. IPR2018-00082
`
` No. IPR2018-00084
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` Teleconference Hearing, taken on behalf of the
`
`Western Digital Corporation, Petitioner, and SPEX
`
`Technologies, Inc., Patent Owner, from the home office
`
`of Melinda A. Fuchs, 1731 Antire Rd., in the City of
`
`High Ridge, State of Missouri, on the 8th day of
`
`February, 2018, before Melinda A. Fuchs, RPR and MO
`
`CCR #737.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L :
`
` F O R T H E P E T I T I O N E R :
`
` B r i a n B u r o k e r
`
` B l a i r A . S i l v e r
`
` R u s t i n M a n g u m
`
` G i b s o n , D u n n & C r u t c h e r , L L P
`
` 1 0 5 0 C o n n e c t i c u t A v e . , N . W .
`
` W a s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 3 6 - 5 3 0 6
`
` ( 2 0 2 ) 9 5 5 - 8 5 4 1
`
` F O R T H E P A T E N T O W N E R :
`
` P e t e r L a m b r i a n a k o s
`
` V i n c e n t R u b i n o
`
` B r o w n , R u d n i c k
`
` 7 T i m e s S q u a r e
`
` N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 3 6
`
` ( 2 1 2 ) 2 0 9 - 4 8 1 3
`
` T H E A P P E A L B O A R D :
`
` T h e H o n o r a b l e D a n F i s h m a n
`
` T h e H o n o r a b l e L y n n P e t t i g r e w
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

` I N D E X
`
` P A G E
`
`P r o c e e d i n g s 5
`
`Page 4
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 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
`
`Page 5
`
` (The proceedings began at 1:01 p.m. CST.)
`
` MR. BUROKER: Blair Silver is also with me
`
`on the call. And Rustin Mangum as well.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: What was the last name?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Mangum, M-A-N-G-U-M.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Russ as in Russell?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Rustin, R-U-S-T-I-N.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: This is Judge Fishman. I'll
`
`be speaking for the judges. So we've got petitioner.
`
`Let's move on to patent owner. Who do we have on line
`
`for patent owner?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Good afternoon. This is
`
`Peter Lambrianakos from Brown, Rudnick for patent
`
`owner. I'll be doing the speaking today. And with me
`
`is Vincent Rubino.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. This is the call, a
`
`conference call -- first of all, let me comment
`
`because I had the opposite experience yesterday. I
`
`appreciate that the email was concise in simply
`
`identifying the issue, identifying that the patent
`
`owner has some opposition to aspects, and not trying
`
`to brief the entire issue in an email. Yesterday I
`
`was dealing with some parties that essentially had an
`
`email war trying to brief their arguments in emails.
`
`So I appreciate the concise email.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 6
`
` The purpose of this call is to discuss
`
`petitioner's request for filing a reply brief in
`
`response to the patent owner's preliminary response.
`
`The petitioner is raising two questions. We'll let
`
`petitioner address the first question followed by
`
`patent owner's response. And then we'll move on to
`
`the second question.
`
` So the first question, if petitioner would
`
`please address the General Plastics issue. Go ahead.
`
` MR. BUROKER: Yes, your Honor. And again,
`
`this is Brian Buroker. And we --
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Let me -- let me add one
`
`more comment. Apologies. Please again just be
`
`concise. We're not trying to brief the issues here,
`
`but simply state why you feel there's good cause in
`
`both of these cases for allowing for such a reply.
`
`Apologies. Go ahead.
`
` MR. BUROKER: Yes, your Honor. And that's
`
`what I'll try to do. So when we filed the petition in
`
`mid October, the General Plastics case had been issued
`
`by a panel of the board but was not deemed to be --
`
`had just been deemed to be precedential, but that
`
`decision as we understood it was applicable to
`
`requiring the analysis under Seven-Factor Test for
`
`petitions involving serial petitions by the same
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`petitioner.
`
` And in our case, this is the first series of
`
`petitions that our client Western Digital had filed
`
`against these two. And so we did not believe that the
`
`General Plastics Seven-Part Test applied. And
`
`subsequent to that case -- to that -- for our petition
`
`being filed in November, a decision issued by a panel
`
`in the NetApp case issued in which it -- it applied
`
`this Seven-Factor Test in a situation where it was a
`
`different petitioner in the second petition as
`
`compared to the first.
`
` And the patent owner here has addressed the
`
`NetApp case in its patent -- preliminary patent
`
`owner's response. And we would like to respond and
`
`argue why we think that's improper and also
`
`alternatively lay out why we think even under the
`
`NetApp Seven-Part Test the petition should be
`
`instituted. And it's -- my understanding is that the
`
`patent owner did not oppose our request to submit a
`
`reply on that issue.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Thank you. And,
`
`Patent Owner, the email did indicate that there was no
`
`opposition to briefing on this issue. Did you have
`
`any comment you wanted to add to this?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: No, your Honor. We
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`continue to not oppose the request with respect to
`
`this issue.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. With respect to this
`
`issue assuming we were to grant the petitioner a
`
`reply, Petitioner, would three pages be sufficient?
`
` MR. BUROKER: We were thinking about five,
`
`but if that would be acceptable given the font -- but
`
`it shouldn't -- it was just a little bit more analysis
`
`given that there's seven factors that we wanted to,
`
`you know, have some discussion of each.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Five would be
`
`acceptable. Patent Owner, would it be important to
`
`you to have a sur-reply to their reply on this issue
`
`on the General Plastics issue?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes, we would like a
`
`sur-reply. If we could have three pages for a sur-
`
`reply, we would appreciate that.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. So five pages for the
`
`reply on this issue, three pages for a sur-reply on
`
`this issue. We will issue a brief order after this.
`
`We are willing to grant that. I will wait for the
`
`transcript of the call before issuing an order, but
`
`just to give you a heads up, we will grant that issue.
`
`And we'll issue a report after the transcript.
`
` Could I ask petitioner or the court reporter
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 9
`
`when might we see the transcript file?
`
` MR. BUROKER: We didn't -- let me ask
`
`backwards, your Honor, how quickly would you like it
`
`filed? because, you know, as with transcripts, it
`
`depends on how quickly -- you know, if we pay for
`
`expedited, we can probably get it in in a shorter
`
`period of time. The normal turnaround is a -- it's
`
`probably 2 weeks to get a transcript on a regular
`
`basis, which would mean we would file it probably in
`
`17 days. If that's not sufficiently quick, we can ask
`
`for an expedited transcript.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Yeah, that would be too
`
`long. Can it be done -- I need to look at my calendar
`
`here. Could we get it, say, in a week from today, the
`
`15th?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Madam, court reporter?
`
` THE REPORTER: Yes, that would be fine.
`
` MR. BUROKER: Okay. Yes, your Honor, then.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Thank you. All
`
`right. Let's move on to the second issue.
`
`Petitioner, you were asking for a reply addressing the
`
`preliminary response questions about claim
`
`construction. Please tell us why you feel there's
`
`good cause there.
`
` MR. BUROKER: Yes, your Honor. We believe
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 10
`
`that the patent owner in its preliminary patent
`
`owner's response -- or patent owner's preliminary
`
`response -- excuse me -- has raised sort of a new
`
`issue that the patent -- that the petitioner -- excuse
`
`me -- has to set forth and take ownership of a claim
`
`construction. And it cited a couple of panel
`
`decisions on that issue that we think are just not a
`
`correct reading of the rules.
`
` The rules set forth only that the petitioner
`
`needs to set forth how the claims are to be construed.
`
`We've done that. We've indicated throughout the
`
`petition that we are using the claim constructions
`
`from the patent owner and the district court
`
`proceedings. And we have applied those in each of the
`
`cases for means plus function claims. We have set
`
`forth the corresponding structure and function. And
`
`we believe therefore that that's all that's required
`
`to comply with the regulations.
`
` Their argument essentially is that a
`
`petitioner cannot move forward with an IPR petition
`
`unless they, quote, take ownership, which is sort of a
`
`subjective test. So we don't believe it's in the
`
`rules. And we had no idea they were going to make
`
`that argument. So we would like an opportunity to
`
`respond, particularly if the -- if the board were
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 11
`
`inclined to use that kind of an analysis in making an
`
`institution decision.
`
` We think that the rules merely require that
`
`there be a claim construction set forth and that that
`
`complies with the rules. And then from then on, any
`
`argument about what the proper claim construction
`
`should be would be dealt with in the actual trial
`
`that's instituted in the proceedings.
`
` So we think that this is sort of a new
`
`argument, a new twist on some of the cases and the
`
`regulations. And we wanted an opportunity to respond
`
`to it. It's dealt with in three or four pages of
`
`their patent owner's preliminary response.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Patent Owner?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Your Honor, we don't
`
`believe that a disagreement over the applicable law or
`
`case law is sufficient to raise good case. The case
`
`law that we cited is existing case law. It was
`
`available to petitioner at the time. The petitioner
`
`has a burden under the regulations to proffer claim
`
`constructions that it believes should be applied in
`
`the petition. They obviously know that they disagree
`
`with the positions of patent owner in the district
`
`court and are now presenting those as the positions
`
`that they believe should be applied here, including
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 12
`
`for claim terms which they have asserted are
`
`indefinite in the district court.
`
` So obviously claim construction was -- was
`
`one of the major issues that needed to be dealt with
`
`in the petition. Petitioner knew that or should have
`
`known that and could have presented any arguments as
`
`to why it was appropriate for petitioner to proffer
`
`patent owner's claim constructions in the petition.
`
` So our view is that this is an issue that
`
`could have been dealt with, that this is not new law,
`
`and that -- that the mere disagreement between the
`
`parties regarding the applicable law is something
`
`which is typical. It happens many times when a patent
`
`owner files a preliminary response. And, you know,
`
`the board is -- is more than capable of -- of
`
`evaluating our arguments and applying whatever the
`
`relevant case law is in this issue.
`
` And so that normally is not sufficient to
`
`raise good cause. And most of the decisions we've
`
`seen indicate that the mere disagreement over a legal
`
`issue is not enough to warrant an additional paper by
`
`petitioner, especially where here it's an issue which
`
`should have been on the petitioner's radar screen from
`
`the beginning. So we don't believe just cause has
`
`been shown.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 13
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. I may violate my own
`
`rule in one sense in that I don't want to -- I don't
`
`want to get into a briefing here, but let me ask
`
`petitioner a question.
`
` In interpreting -- in construing some of the
`
`means plus function elements, I note in your petition
`
`in some cases you've made a point -- made a -- offered
`
`a construction by saying "The parties agreed to" some
`
`construction, whereas in other cases you simply say
`
`"The patent owner proposes or the district court has
`
`proposed." When you say the former, "the parties
`
`agree," are we to understand that as you are adopting
`
`that interpretation; and conversely, when you do not
`
`say the parties agree, are we to interpret that as
`
`you're taking no position?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Well, we -- when we took --
`
`when we said that the "agreed to construction," that's
`
`from the district court. And so we believe that's the
`
`interpretation that should be applied by the board.
`
`When we said that the patent owner took the position
`
`or that the -- yeah, the patent owner's interpretation
`
`was X, we are again arguing that's the interpretation
`
`that is to be used in the IPR, which is what the rules
`
`say.
`
` There's no rule required that we say that we
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 14
`
`believe that to be the correct interpretation. And
`
`that's -- the two cases that they cited in their
`
`preliminary patent owner's statement, they're a
`
`nonbinding panel decision that we believe try to
`
`create a procedural hurdle that we do not believe is
`
`in the rules.
`
` In other words, they're sort of saying the
`
`petition can be outright rejected just on the fact
`
`that we didn't say we believe these interpretations
`
`are correct. And we believe that's what's new and we
`
`want a chance to respond to because that's not what
`
`the rules say in these other two cases to say -- again
`
`nonprecedential individual panel decisions.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Let me get off the
`
`phone for a moment and confer with Judge Pettigrew.
`
` (Clarifications were given to the court
`
`reporter off the record.)
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Again, we will issue
`
`a written order after -- after the transcript is
`
`filed. But just a heads up, we do think it's an
`
`interesting issue to be briefed. So we will allow for
`
`an additional three pages on the reply brief and three
`
`pages in the sur-reply on this issue. So a total of
`
`eight pages for the petitioner on the two subjects
`
`combined. I believe, Patent Owner, you said three
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 15
`
`would work. So three and three, six pages for the
`
`patent owner's sur-reply if that -- if that's
`
`acceptable.
`
` Let me make clear though, the issue is
`
`limited. We're not asking petitioner to enhance or
`
`embellish the petition in terms of any additional
`
`claim construction, but simply brief the issue as to
`
`whether or not you have -- the petition has satisfied
`
`the requirements of our rules as submitted. Is that
`
`understood?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Yes, your Honor. This is
`
`Brian Buroker. Yes, your Honor, we understand.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Given that we want to
`
`keep this process rolling, our brief order will await
`
`the -- will await the filing of the transcript in a
`
`week. I'd like to -- if it's workable for you folks,
`
`I'd like to suggest the timing for petitioner's reply
`
`to the POPR. Let me bring my calendar up again here.
`
` Well, let me first ask you. Let me throw
`
`out a suggestion of the 12th? Is it possible to have
`
`your reply brief by the 12th?
`
` MR. BUROKER: The 12th of?
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Oh, excuse me. Wait a
`
`minute. I'm on the wrong month there. Never mind.
`
`Let's see. Is it possible to have it next week, the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 16
`
`16th?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Yes, your Honor, that should
`
`be fine. Yes, your Honor, that's fine.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Patent Owner?
`
`Perhaps a week after that? The 23rd?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes, your Honor, one week
`
`is sufficient.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Let me just confer
`
`one more moment. Give me one moment. We're
`
`conferring on one other point here.
`
` (A moment was taken off the record.)
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Judge Pettigrew has reminded
`
`me that this timing may be a bit tight. Let's -- I
`
`will -- we will hasten to get an order out right after
`
`the transcript, but we may need a day or two to get
`
`that done. So, Petitioner, let's change the due date
`
`for your reply to the 20th.
`
` MR. BUROKER: Your Honor, this is Brian
`
`Buroker. That would be fine.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. And let me bring the
`
`calendar up again. And then, Patent Owner, is a week
`
`still sufficient or can it be quicker than that?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: We should get it done by
`
`Monday, the 26th.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. That's fine. All
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
`right. Let's move along those lines. Petitioner, you
`
`have an 8-page reply, 5 pages regarding the General
`
`Plastics issues and 3 pages -- up to 3 pages regarding
`
`the claim construction issue as to whether or not it
`
`complies to our rules. You'll have til the 20th.
`
` And, Patent Owner, a 6-page reply, up to
`
`6-page reply, 3 pages for General Plastics' response
`
`to their reply -- for your sur-reply and 3 pages
`
`regarding the claim construction issue due on the
`
`26th.
`
` We will strive to have the -- just so the
`
`papers are in order, we will strive to have the order
`
`in Friday, the 16th, right after the transcript is in
`
`on the 15th.
`
` MR. BUROKER: And, your Honor, this is Brian
`
`Buroker. If we can get you the transcript before the
`
`15th, we will endeavor to do that.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: All right. That would be
`
`great. Anything else from the parties?
`
` MR. BUROKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Nothing from patent
`
`owner. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`Bye-bye.
`
` (The proceedings ended at 1:22 p.m. CST.)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 18
`
`STATE OF MISSOURI
`
` SS.
`
`COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
`
` I, Melinda A. Fuchs, RPR and CCR No. 737 in the
`
`State of Missouri, duly certified, qualified, and
`
`authorized to administer oaths and to certify to
`
`depositions, do hereby certify that pursuant to Notice
`
`in the cause now pending and undetermined in the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Before the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board, to be used in the trial
`
`of said cause in said court, I was attended for the
`
`teleconference at the home offices of Melinda A.
`
`Fuchs, 1731 Antire Rd., in the City of High Ridge,
`
`State of Missouri, by the aforesaid parties; on the
`
`8th day of February, 2018.
`
` That the said proceedings were by me reported in
`
`shorthand and caused to be transcribed into
`
`typewriting, and that the foregoing pages correctly
`
`set forth the proceedings thereto, and is in all
`
`respects a full, true, correct, and complete
`
`transcript.
`
` I further certify that I am not of counsel or
`
`attorney for either of the parties to said suit, not
`
`related to, nor interested in any of the parties or
`
`their attorneys.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

` Witness my hand at St. Louis, Missouri, this 13th
`
`day of February, 2018. My Certification expires
`
`December 31, 2018.
`
`Page 19
`
` - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
` RPR and CCR No. 737 in the
`
` State of Missouri
`
` <%Signature%>
`
` Melinda A. Fuchs, RPR, CCR
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`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
`
`

`

`[& - clarifications]
`
`&
`
`& 3:7
`
`1
`10036 3:17
`1050 3:8
`12th 15:20,21,22
`13th 19:1
`15th 9:15 17:14,17
`16th 16:1 17:13
`17 9:10
`1731 2:17 18:13
`1:01 5:1
`1:22 17:25
`2
`
`2 9:8
`20036-5306 3:9
`2018 1:21 2:19
`18:15 19:2,3
`202 3:10
`209-4813 3:18
`20th 16:17 17:5
`212 3:18
`23rd 16:5
`26th 16:24 17:10
`3
`3 17:3,3,7,8
`31 19:3
`
`5
`5 4:3 17:2
`6
`
`6 17:6,7
`
`7
`
`7 3:16
`737 2:20 18:4 19:6
`8
`8 1:21 17:2
`8th 2:18 18:15
`
`9
`955-8541 3:10
`a
`acceptable 8:7,12
`15:3
`actual 11:7
`add 6:12 7:24
`additional 12:21
`14:22 15:6
`address 6:5,9
`addressed 7:12
`addressing 9:21
`administer 18:6
`adopting 13:12
`aforesaid 18:14
`afternoon 5:12
`agree 13:12,14
`agreed 13:8,17
`ahead 6:9,17
`allow 14:21
`allowing 6:16
`alternatively 7:16
`analysis 6:24 8:8
`11:1
`antire 2:17 18:13
`apologies 6:13,17
`appeal 1:1 2:1
`3:20 18:10
`appearances 3:1
`applicable 6:23
`11:16 12:12
`applied 7:5,8
`10:14 11:21,25
`13:19
`applying 12:16
`appreciate 5:19,25
`8:17
`appropriate 12:7
`argue 7:15
`
`arguing 13:22
`argument 10:19
`10:24 11:6,10
`arguments 5:24
`12:6,16
`asking 9:21 15:5
`aspects 5:21
`asserted 12:1
`assuming 8:4
`attended 18:11
`attorney 18:23
`attorneys 18:25
`authorized 18:6
`available 11:19
`ave 3:8
`await 15:14,15
`b
`backwards 9:3
`basis 9:9
`began 5:1
`beginning 12:24
`behalf 2:14
`believe 7:4 9:25
`10:17,22 11:16,25
`12:24 13:18 14:1
`14:4,5,9,10,25
`believes 11:21
`bit 8:8 16:13
`blair 3:5 5:2
`board 1:1 2:1 3:20
`6:21 10:25 12:15
`13:19 18:10
`brian 3:4 6:11
`15:12 16:18 17:15
`brief 5:22,24 6:2
`6:14 8:20 14:22
`15:7,14,21
`briefed 14:21
`briefing 7:23 13:3
`bring 15:18 16:20
`
`Page 1
`
`brown 3:15 5:13
`burden 11:20
`buroker 3:4 5:2,5
`5:7 6:10,11,18 8:6
`9:2,16,18,25 13:16
`15:11,12,22 16:2
`16:18,19 17:15,16
`17:20
`bye 17:24,24
`c
`calendar 9:13
`15:18 16:21
`call 5:3,16,17 6:1
`8:22
`capable 12:15
`case 6:20 7:2,6,8
`7:13 11:17,17,17
`11:18 12:17
`cases 6:16 10:15
`11:10 13:7,9 14:2
`14:12
`cause 6:15 9:24
`12:19,24 18:8,11
`caused 18:17
`ccr 2:20 18:4 19:6
`19:13
`certification 19:2
`certified 18:5
`certify 18:6,7,22
`chance 14:11
`change 16:16
`cited 10:6 11:18
`14:2
`city 2:17 18:13
`claim 9:22 10:5,12
`11:4,6,20 12:1,3,8
`15:7 17:4,9
`claims 10:10,15
`clarifications
`14:16
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`[clear - home]
`
`clear 15:4
`client 7:3
`combined 14:25
`comment 5:17
`6:13 7:24
`compared 7:11
`complete 18:20
`complies 11:5 17:5
`comply 10:18
`concise 5:19,25
`6:14
`confer 14:15 16:8
`conference 5:17
`conferring 16:10
`connecticut 3:8
`construction 9:23
`10:6 11:4,6 12:3
`13:8,9,17 15:7
`17:4,9
`constructions
`10:12 11:21 12:8
`construed 10:10
`construing 13:5
`continue 8:1
`conversely 13:13
`corporation 1:3
`2:3,15
`correct 10:8 14:1
`14:10 18:20
`correctly 18:18
`corresponding
`10:16
`counsel 3:1 18:22
`county 18:3
`couple 10:6
`court 8:25 9:16
`10:13 11:24 12:2
`13:10,18 14:16
`18:11
`create 14:5
`
`crutcher 3:7
`cst 5:1 17:25
`d
`dan 1:17 3:21
`date 16:16
`day 2:18 16:15
`18:15 19:2
`days 9:10
`dc 3:9
`dealing 5:23
`dealt 11:7,12 12:4
`12:10
`december 19:3
`decision 6:23 7:7
`11:2 14:4
`decisions 10:7
`12:19 14:13
`deemed 6:21,22
`depends 9:5
`depositions 18:7
`different 7:10
`digital 1:3 2:3,15
`7:3
`disagree 11:22
`disagreement
`11:16 12:11,20
`discuss 6:1
`discussion 8:10
`district 10:13
`11:23 12:2 13:10
`13:18
`doing 5:14
`due 16:16 17:9
`duly 18:5
`dunn 3:7
`e
`eight 14:24
`either 18:23
`elements 13:6
`
`Page 2
`
`five 8:6,11,18
`folks 15:16
`followed 6:5
`font 8:7
`foregoing 18:18
`former 13:11
`forth 10:5,9,10,16
`11:4 18:19
`forward 10:20
`four 11:12
`friday 17:13
`fuchs 2:17,19 18:4
`18:13 19:13
`full 18:20
`function 10:15,16
`13:6
`further 18:22
`g
`
`g 5:5
`general 6:9,20 7:5
`8:14 17:2,7
`gibson 3:7
`give 8:23 16:9
`given 8:7,9 14:16
`15:13
`go 6:9,17
`going 10:23
`good 5:12 6:15
`9:24 11:17 12:19
`grant 8:4,21,23
`great 17:19
`h
`hand 19:1
`happens 12:13
`hasten 16:14
`heads 8:23 14:20
`hearing 1:17 2:14
`high 2:18 18:13
`home 2:16 18:12
`
`email 5:19,22,24
`5:25 7:22
`emails 5:24
`embellish 15:6
`endeavor 17:17
`ended 17:25
`enhance 15:5
`entire 5:22
`especially 12:22
`essentially 5:23
`10:19
`evaluating 12:16
`excuse 10:3,4
`15:23
`existing 11:18
`expedited 9:6,11
`experience 5:18
`expires 19:2
`f
`fact 14:8
`factor 6:24 7:9
`factors 8:9
`february 1:21
`2:19 18:15 19:2
`feel 6:15 9:23
`file 9:1,9
`filed 6:19 7:3,7 9:4
`14:20
`files 12:14
`filing 6:2 15:15
`fine 9:17 16:3,3,19
`16:25
`first 5:17 6:5,8 7:2
`7:11 15:19
`fishman 1:17 3:21
`5:4,6,8,8,16 6:12
`7:21 8:3,11,18
`9:12,19 11:14
`13:1 14:14,18
`15:13,23 16:4,8,12
`16:20,25 17:18,23
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`[honor - owner]
`
`honor 6:10,18
`7:25 9:3,18,25
`11:15 15:11,12
`16:2,3,6,18 17:15
`17:20
`honorable 1:17,18
`3:21,22
`hurdle 14:5
`i
`idea 10:23
`identifying 5:20
`5:20
`important 8:12
`improper 7:15
`inclined 11:1
`including 11:25
`indefinite 12:2
`index 4:1
`indicate 7:22
`12:20
`indicated 10:11
`individual 14:13
`instituted 7:18
`11:8
`institution 11:2
`interested 18:24
`interesting 14:21
`interpret 13:14
`interpretation
`13:13,19,21,22
`14:1
`interpretations
`14:9
`interpreting 13:5
`involving 6:25
`ipr 10:20 13:23
`ipr2018-00082 1:7
`2:7
`ipr2018-00084 1:8
`2:8
`
`issue 5:20,22 6:9
`7:20,23 8:2,4,13
`8:14,19,20,20,23
`8:24 9:20 10:4,7
`12:9,17,21,22
`14:18,21,23 15:4,7
`17:4,9
`issued 6:20 7:7,8
`issues 6:14 12:4
`17:3
`issuing 8:22
`j
`jefferson 18:3
`judge 5:4,6,8,8,16
`6:12 7:21 8:3,11
`8:18 9:12,19
`11:14 13:1 14:14
`14:15,18 15:13,23
`16:4,8,12,12,20,25
`17:18,23
`judges 5:9
`k
`keep 15:14
`kind 11:1
`knew 12:5
`know 8:10 9:4,5
`11:22 12:14
`known 12:6
`l
`lambrianakos
`3:13 5:12,13 7:25
`8:15 11:15 16:6
`16:23 17:21
`law 11:16,17,18,18
`12:10,12,17
`lay 7:16
`legal 12:20
`limited 15:5
`line 5:10
`
`lines 17:1
`little 8:8
`llp 3:7
`long 9:13
`look 9:13
`louis 19:1
`lynn 1:18 3:22
`m
`
`m 5:5,5
`madam 9:16
`major 12:4
`making 11:1
`mangum 3:6 5:3,5
`mean 9:9
`means 10:15 13:6
`melinda 2:17,19
`18:4,12 19:13
`mere 12:11,20
`merely 11:3
`mid 6:20
`mind 15:24
`minute 15:24
`missouri 2:18 18:1
`18:5,14 19:1,7
`mo 2:19
`moment 14:15
`16:9,9,11
`monday 16:24
`month 15:24
`move 5:10 6:6
`9:20 10:20 17:1
`n
`
`n 5:5,7
`n.w. 3:8
`name 5:4
`need 9:13 16:15
`needed 12:4
`needs 10:10
`netapp 7:8,13,17
`
`Page 3
`
`never 15:24
`new 3:17 10:3
`11:9,10 12:10
`14:10
`nonbinding 14:4
`nonprecedential
`14:13
`normal 9:7
`normally 12:18
`note 13:6
`notice 18:7
`november 7:7
`ny 3:17
`
`o
`oaths 18:6
`obviously 11:22
`12:3
`october 6:20
`offered 13:7
`office 1:1 2:1,16
`18:9
`offices 18:12
`oh 15:23
`okay 5:16 7:21 8:3
`8:11,18 9:18,19
`11:14 13:1 14:14
`14:18 15:13 16:4
`16:8,20,25 17:23
`opportunity 10:24
`11:11
`oppose 7:19 8:1
`opposite 5:18
`opposition 5:21
`7:23
`order 8:20,22
`14:19 15:14 16:14
`17:12,12
`outright 14:8
`owner 1:11 2:11
`2:16 3:12 5:10,11
`5:14,21 7:12,19,22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`[owner - seen]
`
`8:12 10:1,13
`11:14,23 12:14
`13:10,20 14:25
`16:4,21 17:6,22
`owner's 6:3,6 7:14
`10:2,2 11:13 12:8
`13:21 14:3 15:2
`ownership 10:5,21
`p
`p.m. 5:1 17:25
`page 4:2 17:2,6,7
`pages 8:5,16,18,19
`11:12 14:22,23,24
`15:1 17:2,3,3,7,8
`18:18
`panel 6:21 7:7
`10:6 14:4,13
`paper 12:21
`papers 17:12
`part 7:5,17
`particularly 10:25
`parties 5:23 12:12
`13:8,11,14 17:19
`18:14,23,24
`patent 1:1,1,11 2:1
`2:1,11,16 3:12
`5:10,11,13,20 6:3
`6:6 7:12,13,13,19
`7:22 8:12 10:1,1,2
`10:4,13 11:13,14
`11:23 12:8,13
`13:10,20,21 14:3
`14:25 15:2 16:4
`16:21 17:6,21
`18:9,10
`pay 9:5
`pending 18:8
`period 9:7
`peter 3:13 5:13
`petition 6:19 7:6
`7:10,17 10:12,20
`
`11:22 12:5,8 13:6
`14:8 15:6,8
`petitioner 1:5 2:5
`2:15 3:3 5:9 6:4,5
`6:8 7:1,10 8:4,5
`8:25 9:21 10:4,9
`10:20 11:19,19
`12:5,7,22 13:4
`14:24 15:5 16:16
`17:1
`petitioner's 6:2
`12:23 15:17
`petitions 6:25,25
`7:3
`pettigrew 1:18
`3:22 14:15 16:12
`phone 14:15
`plastics 6:9,20 7:5
`8:14 17:3,7
`please 6:9,13 9:23
`plus 10:15 13:6
`point 13:7 16:10
`popr 15:18
`position 13:15,20
`positions 11:23,24
`possible 15:20,25
`precedential 6:22
`preliminary 6:3
`7:13 9:22 10:1,2
`11:13 12:14 14:3
`presented 12:6
`presenting 11:24
`probably 9:6,8,9
`procedural 14:5
`proceedings 4:3
`5:1 10:14 11:8
`17:25 18:16,19
`process 15:14
`proffer 11:20 12:7
`proper 11:6
`
`proposed 13:11
`proposes 13:10
`purpose 6:1
`pursuant 18:7
`q
`qualified 18:5
`question 6:5,7,8
`13:4
`questions 6:4 9:22
`quick 9:10
`quicker 16:22
`quickly 9:3,5
`quote 10:21
`r
`
`r 5:7
`radar 12:23
`raise 11:17 12:19
`raised 10:3
`raising 6:4
`rd 2:17 18:13
`reading 10:8
`record 14:17
`16:11
`regarding 12:12
`17:2,3,9
`regular 9:8
`regulations 10:18
`11:11,20
`rejected 14:8
`related 18:24
`relevant 12:17
`reminded 16:12
`reply 6:2,16 7:20
`8:5,13,13,16,17,19
`8:19 9:21 14:22
`14:23 15:2,17,21
`16:17 17:2,6,7,8,8
`report 8:24
`reported 18:16
`
`Page 4
`
`reporter 8:25 9:16
`9:17 14:17
`request 6:2 7:19
`8:1
`require 11:3
`required 10:17
`13:25
`requirements 15:9
`requiring 6:24
`respect 8:1,3
`respects 18:20
`respond 7:14
`10:25 11:11 14:11
`response 6:3,3,6
`7:14 9:22 10:2,3
`11:13 12:14 17:7
`ridge 2:18 18:13
`right 9:20 16:14
`17:1,13,18
`rolling 15:14
`rpr 2:19 18:4 19:6
`19:13
`rubino 3:14 5:15
`rudnick 3:15 5:13
`rule 13:2,25
`rules 10:8,9,23
`11:3,5 13:23 14:6
`14:12 15:9 17:5
`russ 5:6
`russell 5:6
`rustin 3:6 5:3,7
`s
`
`s 5:7
`satisfied 15:8
`saying 13:8 14:7
`screen 12:23
`second 6:7 7:10
`9:20
`see 9:1 15:25
`seen 12:20
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`we've 5:9 10:11,11
`12:19
`week 9:14 15:16
`15:25 16:5,6,21
`weeks 9:8
`western 1:3 2:3,15
`7:3
`willing 8:21
`witness 19:1
`words 14:7
`work 15:1
`workable 15:16
`written 14:19
`wrong 15:24
`x
`
`x 13:22
`
`y
`yeah 9:12 13:21
`yesterday 5:18,22
`york 3:17
`
`[sense - york]
`
`sense 13:2
`serial 6:25
`series 7:2
`set 10:5,9,10,15
`11:4 18:19
`seven 6:24 7:5,9
`7:17 8:9
`shorter 9:6
`shorthand 18:17
`shown 12:25
`signature 19:11
`silver 3:5 5:2
`simply 5:19 6:15
`13:9 15:7
`situation 7:9
`six 15:1
`sort 10:3,21 11:9
`14:7
`speaking 5:9,14
`spex 1:9 2:9,15
`square 3:16
`ss 18:2
`st 19:1
`state 2:18 6:15
`18:1,5,14 19:7
`statement 14:3
`states 1:1 2:1 18:9
`strive 17:11,12
`structure 10:16
`subjective 10:22
`subjects 14:24
`submit 7:19
`submitted 15:9
`subsequent 7:6
`sufficient 8:5
`11:17 12:18 16:7
`16:22
`sufficiently 9:10
`suggest 15:17
`suggestion 15:20
`
`suit 18:23
`sur 8:13,16,16,19
`14:23 15:2 17:8
`t
`
`t 5:7
`take 10:5,21
`taken 1:21 2:14
`16:11
`technologies 1:9
`2:9,16
`teleconference