Telephonic hearing
`
` Trials@uspto.gov
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: April 25, 2018
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
` WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00082
`
`Patent 6,088,802
`
`____________
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
`
`MAY 9, 2018
`
`12:00 P.M. (C.S.T.)
`
` Job Number: 141987
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`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
`
`SPEX Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2018-00082 Ex. 2006
`Western Digital Corp. v SPEX Technologies, Inc.
`1
`
`
`
` Trials@uspto.gov
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: April 25, 2018
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
` WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00082
`
`Patent 6,088,802
`
`____________
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
`
`MAY 9, 2018
`
`12:00 P.M. (C.S.T.)
`
` Job Number: 141987
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`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
`
`SPEX Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2018-00082 Ex. 2006
`Western Digital Corp. v SPEX Technologies, Inc.
`1
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
` TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES:
`
` FOR PETITIONER:
`
` Brian Buroker, Esquire
`
` Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
`
` 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20036
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
` Alfred Fabricant, Esquire
`
` Peter Lambrianakos, Esquire
`
` Vincent Rubino, III, Esquire
`
` Enrique Iturralde, Esquire
`
` Brown Rudnick
`
` Seven Times Square
`
` New York, NY 10036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`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 hearing
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Conference call
`
` regarding two cases: IPR 201800082, IPR
`
` 201800084.
`
` Patent Owner, you've requested this
`
` call to discuss SAS issues. Please
`
` proceed.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Thank you, Your
`
` Honor. This is Peter Lambrianakos for the
`
` patent owner. We asked to address these
`
` issues because as the Board is aware,
`
` these are two of the first cases where the
`
` Board has instituted on the entirety of a
`
` petition, even though the petitioner only
`
` met its burden as to a subset of the
`
` challenged claims.
`
` 82 IPR, petitioner met its burden
`
` only with respect to two of the challenged
`
` claims, which are claims 38 and 39 of the
`
` patent, and in the 84 IPR, the petitioner
`
` met its burden with respect to three
`
` claims but not claim 56.
`
` And so we're seeking the Board's
`
` guidance on how to proceed, specifically
`
` first with respect to the 82 IPR. Our
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`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 hearing
`
` question there is: If the patent owner
`
` elects to waive its patent owner response,
`
` would the petitioner be permitted to file
`
` any paper in response to the institution
`
` decision?
`
` And specifically, our question is
`
` whether it would be permitted to present
`
` arguments or evidence addressing the
`
` claims as to which the petitioner did not
`
` meet its burden on institution in its
`
` original petition.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Petitioner,
`
` would you like to chime in?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
` is Brian Buroker on behalf of the
`
` petitioner. First, I'd like to say that
`
` we haven't had an opportunity to really
`
` consider that issue. We were asked to
`
` join a conference call, status conference
`
` with the Board. We asked what they wanted
`
` to address, and they just said generally
`
` they wanted to address the post-stat
`
` issues and how the Board might react. And
`
` there wasn't a specific proposal made to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`4
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` us before this call, except two hours ago
`
` in an email, that they might be waiving
`
` their patent owner response.
`
` And so we really haven't had a
`
` chance, Your Honor, to consult with the
`
` client and see what we would do, what we
`
` believe an accurate position to be. So I
`
` think that's my initial reaction is that
`
` this call may be a bit premature and that
`
` we may need to have a further
`
` meet-and-confer in either a follow up
`
` commission or a status conference. But in
`
` general, we believe we should be entitled
`
` to supplement the record in some form or
`
` fashion with respect to the claims that
`
` the Board found, at least in the
`
` institution decision, where there had not
`
` been a reasonable likelihood of showing
`
` unpassability. And that either through
`
` supplemental information or additional
`
` briefing and expert declaration testimony,
`
` if necessary, that that should be what
`
` happens in these post-stat cases in which
`
` the Board institutes on more claims than
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` they would have previously or where they
`
` were doing partial institutions.
`
` Otherwise, the institution decision
`
` becomes a final decision, and that does
`
` not seem to be consistent with the
`
` statutory framework laid out. Again, this
`
` is our preliminary view point. We haven't
`
` had a chance to really consult with the
`
` client on this. And I just wanted to put
`
` that on the record because, you know, of
`
` the timing here, we got the proposal from
`
` them about two hours ago, and really want
`
` more time to consider it.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Okay. This is
`
` Judge Fishman. Let me make clear first
`
` and foremost, that our guidance for, in
`
` the trial practice guide as well as the
`
` recent guidance that was issued regarding
`
` the SAS decision makes clear that the
`
` parties should confer. It's a bit of a
`
` waste of our time when the parties have
`
` not discussed the issue and tried to work
`
` it out before bringing the Board in.
`
` So first and foremost, let me
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`6
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` instruct the parties, please don't
`
` initiate another conference call where the
`
` parties have not conferred and tried to
`
` narrow the focus of the issues.
`
` Responding to the question of, in
`
` general, I would direct both parties to
`
` the trial practice guide and the online
`
` guidance regarding the SAS decision.
`
` Given that our institution decision is
`
` very recent, just a little over a week
`
` ago, I can't perceive of any need for
`
` additional time or additional pages of
`
` briefing.
`
` As to strategy for patent owners or
`
` petitioner, we would offer no guidance to
`
` either side as to what is an appropriate
`
` strategy to proceed. I think, Patent
`
` Owner, your question is, if you waive
`
` altogether your option to file a POR, does
`
` the petitioner have an opportunity to
`
` reply at all, is that your question?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: That is our
`
` question. Our understanding is normally a
`
` petitioner would get a reply to respond to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`7
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` issues raised in the patent owner
`
` response. There would be no patent-owner
`
` response. We would assume under the rules
`
` that there would be no opportunity for a
`
` reply since no further argument was
`
` presented.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Let me consult
`
` with the panel.
`
` (Pause.)
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: I apologize to
`
` the parties. Obviously, the SAS decision
`
` has raised a number of interesting, unique
`
` fact patterns that have not all been
`
` addressed yet. Question for petitioner:
`
` If it were the case that patent owner were
`
` waiving its opportunity for a patent owner
`
` response, waiving it in writing on the
`
` record, would the petitioner be requesting
`
` any further briefing or reply or whatever
`
` form it may be?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Again, Your Honor, this
`
` is Brian Buroker. We would like the
`
` opportunity to consult with the client
`
` regarding that issue. I suspect that we
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`8
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` will narrow claims, for example, that you
`
` in the initial petition decision found
`
` there wasn't sufficient, you know,
`
` evidence to show a reasonable likelihood
`
` of a quote on unpassability, we would like
`
` the opportunity to address those points at
`
` a minimum so that we, you know, there is a
`
` complete record on those points.
`
` But, you know, that's why -- and
`
` you're right, there is a lot of issues
`
` that have been raised by the SAS decision,
`
` and that's why we were thinking that a
`
` good solution would be for the parties to
`
` meet and confer. If we can't reach
`
` agreement on what should happen, then we
`
` could each -- either each file a motion or
`
` one of us could file a motion where we
`
` could set forth our arguments in writing
`
` and give Your Honors an opportunity to
`
` think about these issues, rather than
`
` being forced to address them on a
`
` conference call without having either
`
` party have an opportunity to see the other
`
` side's argument and respond to it in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`9
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` writing.
`
` So if we may, that's where we, you
`
` know, go down the road of making the final
`
` determination on whether we will or won't
`
` file a response or have a right to or not,
`
` we think we should be given an opportunity
`
` to put something in writing in the record.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Your Honor, this
`
` is Peter Lambrianakos for the patent
`
` owner. My understanding is that counsel
`
` for SPEX raised the issue in a
`
` meet-and-confer last week with counsel for
`
` the petitioner. And the issue that was
`
` raised was whether if the patent owner,
`
` who is a plaintiff in district court
`
` litigation, were to agree to withdraw
`
` claims 38 and 39 of the 802 patent from
`
` the case, therefore, to not allege
`
` infringement of those claims any longer,
`
` whether -- whether the petitioner would
`
` agree to drop the IPR. And the answer
`
` that came back was no, and that the
`
` petitioner intended to submit additional
`
` evidence with respect to the other claims.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`10
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` So our understanding was that on that
`
` issue, which we expected to raise here
`
` today, that there has been a
`
` meet-and-confer and that the petitioner
`
` has already consulted with his client and
`
` made a decision that it was intended to
`
` present additional evidence and/or
`
` arguments as to the claims as to which it
`
` failed to show a substantial or reasonable
`
` likelihood of success.
`
` So we believe that the issue -- that
`
` specific issue of whether additional
`
` information was -- has to be brought
`
` before the board has already been
`
` conferred on and was ripe for discussion.
`
` I just wanted to point out as well
`
` that the timing on this call is
`
` necessitated by the fact that today is the
`
` deadline for a motion for rehearing, which
`
` we believe may be the proper way to raise
`
` certain issues that we are raising here
`
` today, and we were concerned about losing
`
` that deadline.
`
` For that reason, while we just
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`11
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` recently finalized the strategy and the
`
` issues that we wanted to bring before the
`
` Board, we felt it necessary so as not to
`
` lose any rights in connection with filing
`
` additional papers.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Let me confer
`
` with the panel again.
`
` MR. BUROKER: I have one point, Your
`
` Honor. This is Brian Buroker. The
`
` meet-and-confer he's referring to was
`
` between litigation counsel and was in
`
` context of how they were going to handle
`
` the litigation going forward. It was not
`
` in context with what they were going to
`
` propose in this call today to Your Honors.
`
` So I don't think that that's an accurate
`
` representation of what the context of that
`
` conversation was. I wanted to make sure
`
` that was clear before getting on this call
`
` today.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Let's not argue
`
` how we got to the phone call today. We
`
` are in the phone call today and we will
`
` work to resolve it. Again, my general
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`12
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` suggestion, guidance, request is the
`
` parties should always confer before
`
` requesting a conference call, period.
`
` So let me just leave that standing.
`
` Let me confer with the panel regarding the
`
` underlying request. Hold on a moment.
`
` (Pause.)
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: One question.
`
` Since the patent owner raised the issue,
`
` does either patent owner or petitioner
`
` intend to file a request for rehearing on
`
` the decision to institute?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: This is Peter
`
` Lambrianakos for patent owner. We were
`
` going to ask today of the Board, you know,
`
` in connection with the request we just
`
` made, whether in the alternative, if the
`
` patent owner were to withdraw from the
`
` underlying litigation Claims 38 and 39 of
`
` the 802 patent, such that there is no
`
` controversy anymore between the patent
`
` owner and petitioner concerning any claims
`
` as to which the petitioner had met its
`
` burden, whether we would be permitted or
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`13
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` whether the board would be receptive to a
`
` motion for rehearing requesting that the
`
` Board denies institution as to the
`
` remaining claims.
`
` So that is something we are
`
` considering doing today as well as perhaps
`
` a motion for rehearing with respect to the
`
` issue that was presented in the reply and
`
` surreply reached earlier in this
`
` proceeding which concerned the issue of
`
` the petitioner taking contradictory claim
`
` construction positions in the district
`
` court and in this proceeding.
`
` MR. BUROKER: And, Your Honor, for
`
` the petitioner, I believe our deadline is
`
` 30 days, and we're not there yet, so we
`
` haven't finalized a determination with the
`
` client, whether we would seek a rehearing
`
` at this point.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Hold on a
`
` moment.
`
` (Pause.)
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Again, apologies
`
` for the lengthy delay. We're discussing a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`14
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` lot of subtopics here. First off, our
`
` interpretation of the rules would suggest
`
` that, indeed, if patent owner were to
`
` waive its option for filing a patent owner
`
` response, waive it in writing, that the
`
` petitioner would have no basis for which
`
` to file a reply, reply brief. That's the
`
` first, the answer to the ultimate question
`
` that patent owner was raising in this
`
` discussion.
`
` We also want to point out that,
`
` Petitioner, you made a statement that we
`
` believe is in error in accordance with our
`
` rules, and that is a request for rehearing
`
` we believe would be a 14-day deadline, if
`
` you consider Rule 42.71(d)1. This was a
`
` decision to institute with at least one
`
` ground or one claim institution, rather
`
` than a complete denial of institution.
`
` So I believe your deadline for
`
` request for rehearing would be 14 days. I
`
` don't have a calendar in front of me to
`
` note if that's today or tomorrow or next
`
` week, but 14 days we believe would be the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`15
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` deadline.
`
` Yes, it's been pointed out to me,
`
` this was not merely an institution of one
`
` claim because of SAS, it was an
`
` institution of all claims. So the
`
` deadline is 14 days, not 30 days.
`
` That said, we believe that resolves
`
` the issues raised in this phone call. We
`
` will issue a very short order to
`
` memorialize this order. We would also
`
` request that whoever engaged the services
`
` of the court reporter, please file a
`
` transcript of this as soon as possible.
`
` Is there any questions?
`
` MR. BUROKER: Brian Buroker for
`
` petitioner. I'm sorry for misreading the
`
` rule. I was doing that on the fly and
`
` will take a look at the rule again in
`
` light of your guidance. Thank you.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Anything
`
` further?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes, in response
`
` to the Court's ruling, we had a follow-up
`
` question. And that is, if we waive the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`16
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
` POR, then is the Board's institution
`
` decision considered part of the record,
`
` you know, with respect to the Board
`
` considering its institution decision as a
`
` basis for its final written decision? And
`
` secondly, would the waiver of the POR have
`
` an effect on the timing of the final
`
` written decision?
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Everything is
`
` part of the record including, yes, the DI,
`
` unless something gets excluded from the
`
` record for some reason. But, yes, the DI
`
` is part of the record. I would point out
`
` to both parties, the standard of proof for
`
` a final decision is different than the
`
` standard of proof for the decision
`
` institution. It's a preponderance of the
`
` evidence in the final decision. I can't
`
` tell you right now if -- if it's --
`
` whether the preponderance of evidence
`
` standard has been met with regard to
`
` everything.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Then with respect
`
` to the timing, given the waiver of a POR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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 hearing
`
` and the lack of any reply, would we expect
`
` that the timing to final written decision
`
` would be expedited?
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Would either
`
` party be requesting an oral hearing?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Patent owner would
`
` not request an oral hearing.
`
` MR. BUROKER: Your Honor, it's a
`
` hypothetical. I'm not sure what's down
`
` the road, and we don't know what we would
`
` do in that regard, again, haven't had a
`
` chance to talk to the client about how
`
` they would want us to how to handle that
`
` issue.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Yes, it is a
`
` hypothetical question. I can't tell you
`
` right now that the schedule would be
`
` expedited. It's certainly a possibility.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Thank you very
`
` much, Your Honor.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Hold on, one
`
` moment. Let me consult further with the
`
` panel.
`
` (Pause.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`18
`
`
`
`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 19
`
` Telephonic hearing
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: We will issue a
`
` brief order. It might be a day or two
`
` before it gets entered. Just a final
`
` reminder, that we really need the parties
`
` to confer further on issues of this nature
`
` before requesting a phone call or
`
` requesting any kind of additional briefing
`
` or filing. We don't want to work these
`
` things out in this kind of lengthy phone
`
` call. Anything further?
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Nothing further
`
` from patent owner, Your Honor.
`
` MR. BUROKER: No, Your Honor, not
`
` from petitioner at this time.
`
` YOUR HONOR FISHMAN: Okay. Thank
`
` you, everyone.
`
` MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Thank you very
`
` much.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`19
`
`
`
`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 hearing
`
`Page 20
`
` STATE OF MINNESOTA )
`
` COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
`
`
`
` I hereby certify that I reported the
`
` telephone conference on the MAY 9, 2018 in
`
` Minneapolis, Minnesota, and that the witness
`
` was by me first duly sworn to tell the whole
`
` truth;
`
` That the testimony was transcribed under
`
` my direction and is a true record of the
`
` testimony of the witness;
`
` That the cost of the original has been
`
` charged to the party who noticed the
`
` deposition, and that all parties who ordered
`
` Telephonic hearing 21
`
` such copies;
`
` That I am not a relative or employee or
`
` attorney or counsel of any of the parties or a
`
` relative or employee of such attorney or
`
` counsel;
`
` That I am not financially interested in
`
` the action and have no contract with the
`
` parties, attorneys, or persons with an
`
` interest in the action that affects or has a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`20
`
`
`
`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 21
`
` substantial tendency to affect my
`
` impartiality;
`
` That the right to read and sign the
`
` deposition was not reserved by the witness.
`
`
`
`
`
` WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this
`
` 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ___________________________________
`
` Mari A. Skalicky RMR
`
` NOTARY PUBLIC, Hennepin County, Minnesota
`
` My commission expires 1/31/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 800-702-9580
`
`21
`
`
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
