UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, )
` )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
`vs. )
` ) Case No.
` ) IPR2018-01038
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY, LLC, )
` )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`____________________________________)
`
` REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
` PTAB HEARING
` Telephonic Conference Call
`
` Held On: Friday, October 5th, 2018
`
`Reported by: Robin Donatelli, CSR No. 7148
`PAGES 1 - 13
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 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
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-1
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`1 I N D E X
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`23456789
`
`10
`11 (None Offered)
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19 REQUESTED INFORMATION
`20 Page Line
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`3 4 5 6
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, )
` )
`7 )
` Petitioner, )
`8 )
`vs. )
`9 ) Case No.
` ) IPR2018-01038
`10 VLSI TECHNOLOGY, LLC, )
` )
`11 )
` Patent Owner. )
`12 ____________________________________)
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17 PTAB Hearing via telephonic conference
`18 call, taken at Veritext Legal Solutions, 611 Anton
`19 Boulevard, 5th Floor, Costa Mesa, California, beginning
`20 at 11:45 a.m. and ending at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October
`21 5th, 2018, before Robin Donatelli, Certified Shorthand
`22 Reporter, CSR No. 7148, for the State of California.
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 Friday, October 5th, 2018
`2 Costa Mesa, California
`
`3 4
`
` JUDGE MCGRAW: Good afternoon. This is
`5 Judge McGraw. With me on the line are Judges
`6 Chung and Gerstenblith. I believe Judge Chung
`7 might be having problems accessing the phone
`8 line, but he should be on momentarily.
`9 This is a conference call in Intel Corporation
`10 versus VSLI Technology, IPR 2018-01038.
`11 I hear that there is a court reporter on the
`12 line. I will ask when the parties introduce themselves
`13 and begin speaking, that they introduce themselves so the
`14 court reporter can determine who is talking. And I will
`15 attempt to do the same.
`16 Who is on the line on behalf of Petitioner?
`17 MS. MAK: On behalf of the Petitioner is
`18 Evelyn Mak and Donald Steinberg.
`19 JUDGE MC GRAW: Good afternoon.
`20 And on behalf of Patent Owner?
`21 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Good afternoon, your Honor,
`22 this is Nate Lowenstein, and I'm joined by my
`23 colleague Jason Linger.
`24 JUDGE MC GRAW: And good afternoon.
`25 At our last call we authorized Petitioner to
`
`Page 5
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`
`APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY:
`
`23
`
`45
`
` Judge Kimberly McGraw
`6 Judge Minn Chung
`7 Judge Bart Gerstenblith
`
`APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
`89
`
`10
`
` LAW OFFICES OF WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING
`11 HALE & DORR, LLP
` BY: EVELYN MAK, ESQ.
`12 and DONALD R. STEINBERG
` 950 Page Mill Road.
`13 Palo Alto, California 93404
` Phone: (650) 858-6000
`14 Email: Evelyn.Mak@wilmerhale.com
`15
`
`APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`16
`17 LAW OFFICES OF LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX
` BY: KENNETH WEATHERWAX, ESQ.
`18 and JASON LINGER, ESQ.
` 1880 Century Park East, Suite 815
`19 Los Angeles, California 90067
` Phone: (310) 307-4500
`20 Email: lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-2
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`1 file a reply to Patent Owner's preliminary response to
`2 address arguments that Petitioner had made statements in
`3 its petition that are allegedly inconsistent with
`4 statements that were made during prosecution of another
`5 patent.
`6 Petitioner has since filed its reply, and
`7 Patent Owner is now asking to file a short three-page
`8 sur-reply, which I believe Petitioner has opposed Patent
`9 Owner's request.
`10 I'm going to ask Patent Owner, Mr. Lowenstein,
`11 could you quickly identify what your sur-reply will
`12 address, and how the sur-reply will benefit the Board?
`13 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Sure. Thank you very much.
`14 And I appreciate both your Honors and Petitioner
`15 accommodating the call as quickly as you did.
`16 That's greatly appreciated from our perspective.
`17 So upon reviewing the reply, we do think the
`18 sur-reply will be useful to the Board. We think it's a
`19 very important issue. And frankly, at the time of our
`20 last log-in, I think we did ask for one. That was my
`21 belief at the time.
`22 But in our view, we think that the reply brief
`23 not only confirms our position, we think it dispositively
`24 confirms our position, because what the reply brief says
`25 and what appears to be its most potential argument is
`
`1 they are arguing that it has nothing to do with moving to
`2 faster cores, it somehow renders obvious selecting the
`3 fastest core. So we think it's a critical issue.
`4 We think the brief will help narrow the issue,
`5 or clarify the issues for the Board in a way that it
`6 wouldn't necessarily be obvious just from the papers
`7 alone. And we think a short three page sur-reply would
`8 do the trick. And we don't anticipate putting in any new
`9 evidence beyond what is of record, or having any
`10 discussion beyond this very issue.
`11 JUDGE MC GRAW: This is Judge McGraw.
`12 Petitioner, which I believe Ms. Mak is
`13 speaking, could you please explain why you are
`14 opposing the request?
`15 MS. MAK: Yes, we are opposing the request,
`16 because in the initial Patent Owner's preliminary
`17 response, the Patent Owner had the opportunity to
`18 explain why he thought that the arguments
`19 regarding Finkelstein were inconsistent.
`20 In our reply, we made note that the arguments
`21 that the Patent Owner made were very conclusory, and we
`22 explained why the arguments that they said were indeed
`23 not correct.
`24 And in terms of the Patent Owner's arguments
`25 that we have essentially admitted in our reply that
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 that, well, in the prior prosecution we said that, we,
`2 Intel, said that Finkelstein has nothing to do with
`3 thread migration, which is moving from a slower core to a
`4 faster core.
`5 But what they are using Finkelstein for here
`6 is, I believe their lead reference, they are using
`7 Finkelstein here to say that somehow this same reference,
`8 which has nothing to do with going from a slower core to
`9 a faster core, somehow renders obvious a claim that is,
`10 in significant part, directed towards selecting the very
`11 fastest core. Selecting the fastest core, of course, is
`12 a subset of going from a slower core to a faster core.
`13 So Finkelstein has nothing to do with that. It certainly
`14 has nothing to do with selecting the fastest core.
`15 That's one issue, but it's not the only one. I
`16 also think there are a couple of things that would be
`17 useful in terms of there is no dispute that the very same
`18 section in Finkelstein that was at issue in the prior
`19 prosecution, is the very same section of Finkelstein that
`20 they rely upon most significantly in their Petition,
`21 which is at paragraph 29 of Finkelstein and corresponding
`22 figure 4, wherein that's the paragraph where that figure
`23 was discussed.
`24 So there is no dispute that this is their key
`25 reference, and the key part of their key reference. And
`Page 7
`
`1 Finkelstein is not relevant, we explained in our reply
`2 why it's not relevant. The Patent Owner is trying to
`3 equate this concept of thread migration to the claimed
`4 invention of the '836 Patent, which in our reply we did
`5 explain exactly why the concepts are different.
`6 The Patent Owner explained that because thread
`7 migration is talking about selecting the faster core,
`8 that that means the same as selecting the fastest core,
`9 which we addressed in our reply why it's different.
`10 The other comment that the Patent Owner made
`11 was that Finkelstein is our primary reference that's used
`12 in our Petition as a grounds for the '836 Patent.
`13 I want to clarify that in our Petition we used
`14 a combination of three references; Jakubowich,
`15 Finkelstine, plus Bowman. And we relied on the
`16 combination of Finkelstein and Bowman to show that the
`17 core concepts that Patent Owner is talking about
`18 selecting the fastest core. One of the core concepts of
`19 the '836 Patent that Patent Owner says is that the Patent
`20 is dealing with selecting the fastest core.
`21 So that claimed feature, we relied on the
`22 combination of Finkelstein and Bowman to show that. So
`23 Finkelstein is not our primary reference. We did rely on
`24 the combination of two references to show that concept.
`25 So I think for these reasons, we oppose Patent
`
`Page 9
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-3
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`1 Owner's request to file a sur-reply.
`2 JUDGE MC GRAW: All right. Thank you very
`3 much. If you will hold the line for a moment,
`4 I'm going to confer with the Panel, and I will be
`5 back shortly.
`6 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor.
`7 JUDGE MC GRAW: This is Judge McGraw back on
`8 the line. In our previous call, we did not
`9 authorize Patent Owner at that time to file a
`10 sur-reply.
`11 Having heard the parties and having reviewed
`12 the Petitioner's rely, we do authorize Patent Owner now
`13 to file a short, no more than three page sur-reply. The
`14 sur-reply may not contain new evidence, and is limited to
`15 responding to the Petitioner's reply.
`16 Do the parties have any questions?
`17 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor.
`18 The only question I have is when you would like
`19 us to file by? If there is no strong preference, we
`20 would like to do it next Friday. But if your Honors are
`21 considering the papers now, we can it sooner than that.
`22 JUDGE MC GRAW: I was going to give you a
`23 week.
`24 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Okay.
`25 JUDGE MC GRAW: If I don't see any
`
`1 JUDGE MC GRAW: Okay, thank you.
`2 Just for clarity in the record then, if the
`3 parties could refer to the corrected response in any
`4 future filings just to make clear which response is being
`5 referred to.
`6 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor.
`7 JUDGE MC GRAW: And with that, the call is
`8 concluded. Thank you all very much and have a
`9 wonderful weekend.
`10 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Thank you.
`11 MS. MAK: Thank you, your Honor.
`12
`13 (Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned
`14 at 12:00 p.m.)
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
` ) ss
`2 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
`
`3 4
`
` I, Robin Donatelli, C.S.R. # 7148, a Certified
`5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the County of Orange, State
`6 of California, do hereby certify:
`7 That said Hearing was taken before me at the time
`8 and place set forth and was taken down by me in shorthand
`9 and thereafter reduced to computerized transcription
`10 under my direction and supervision, and I hereby certify
`11 the foregoing Hearing is a full, true and correct
`12 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
`13 I further certify that I am neither counsel for, nor
`14 related to any party to said action, nor in any way
`15 interested in the outcome thereof.
`16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my
`17 name this 9th day of October, 2018.
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23 <%15003,Signature%>
` Robin Donatelli
`24 Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 7148
`25
`
`Page 13
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`1 opposition from Petitioner.
`2 MS. MAK: No. Before you go though, I do
`3 see that the Patent Owner filed a preliminary
`4 response, and then shortly thereafter filed a
`5 corrected preliminary response. And when the
`6 Petitioner filed the reply, although it states
`7 that it's cited to the preliminary response, it
`8 appears that it's citing to the corrected
`9 preliminary response.
`10 So I wanted to kind of clarify this so we don't
`11 have a problem in the future understanding which document
`12 is being referred to.
`13 So if I could ask Patent Owner, what is the
`14 difference between the first preliminary response that
`15 you filed and the corrected response, and which response
`16 should the Board and the parties consider?
`17 MR. LOWENSTEIN: Your Honor, I will answer
`18 the second question first.
`19 I would consider only the corrected response.
`20 And the only difference between the preliminary response
`21 and the corrected response, both of which were filed on
`22 the same day, was frankly this very discussion of this
`23 prior Finkelstein prosecution issue. And that's the only
`24 difference that I'm aware of. There could have been some
`25 immaterial changes, but that's the key difference.
`
`Page 11
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-4
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`[& - difference]
`
`&
`& 3:11,17
`1
`
`1 1:25
`11:45 2:20
`12:00 2:20 12:14
`13 1:25
`15003 13:23
`1880 3:18
`2
`2018 1:22 2:21 5:1
`13:17
`2018-01038 5:10
`29 7:21
`
`3
`307-4500 3:19
`310 3:19
`4
`
`4 7:22
`
`5
`5th 1:22 2:19,21
`5:1
`
`6
`611 2:18
`650 3:13
`7
`7148 1:24 2:22
`13:4,24
`
`8
`815 3:18
`836 9:4,12,19
`858-6000 3:13
`9
`90067 3:19
`93404 3:13
`950 3:12
`
`9th 13:17
`a
`a.m. 2:20
`accessing 5:7
`accommodating
`6:15
`action 13:14
`address 6:2,12
`addressed 9:9
`adjourned 12:13
`admitted 8:25
`afternoon 5:4,19
`5:21,24
`allegedly 6:3
`alto 3:13
`angeles 3:19
`answer 11:17
`anticipate 8:8
`anton 2:18
`appeal 1:2 2:2
`appearances 3:1
`appearing 3:3,9
`3:15
`appears 6:25 11:8
`appreciate 6:14
`appreciated 6:16
`arguing 8:1
`argument 6:25
`arguments 6:2
`8:18,20,22,24
`asking 6:7
`attempt 5:15
`authorize 10:9,12
`authorized 5:25
`aware 11:24
`b
`
`b 4:9
`back 10:5,7
`bart 3:7
`
`beginning 2:19
`behalf 5:16,17,20
`belief 6:21
`believe 5:6 6:8 7:6
`8:12
`benefit 6:12
`beyond 8:9,10
`board 1:2 2:2 6:12
`6:18 8:5 11:16
`boulevard 2:19
`bowman 9:15,16
`9:22
`brief 6:22,24 8:4
`c
`c.s.r. 13:4
`california 2:19,22
`3:13,19 5:2 13:1,6
`call 1:19 2:18 5:9
`5:25 6:15 10:8
`12:7
`case 1:9 2:9
`century 3:18
`certainly 7:13
`certified 2:21 13:4
`13:24
`certify 13:6,10,13
`changes 11:25
`chung 3:6 5:6,6
`cited 11:7
`citing 11:8
`claim 7:9
`claimed 9:3,21
`clarify 8:5 9:13
`11:10
`clarity 12:2
`clear 12:4
`colleague 5:23
`combination 9:14
`9:16,22,24
`comment 9:10
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`computerized
`13:9
`concept 9:3,24
`concepts 9:5,17,18
`concluded 12:8
`conclusory 8:21
`confer 10:4
`conference 1:19
`2:17 5:9
`confirms 6:23,24
`consider 11:16,19
`considering 10:21
`contain 10:14
`core 7:3,4,8,9,11
`7:11,12,12,14 8:3
`9:7,8,17,18,18,20
`cores 8:2
`corporation 1:6
`2:6 5:9
`correct 8:23 13:11
`corrected 11:5,8
`11:15,19,21 12:3
`corresponding
`7:21
`costa 2:19 5:2
`counsel 13:13
`county 13:2,5
`couple 7:16
`course 7:11
`court 5:11,14
`critical 8:3
`csr 1:24 2:22
`cutler 3:10
`d
`
`d 4:1
`day 11:22 13:17
`dealing 9:20
`determine 5:14
`difference 11:14
`11:20,24,25
`
`Page 1
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-5
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`[different - name]
`
`different 9:5,9
`directed 7:10
`direction 13:10
`discussed 7:23
`discussion 8:10
`11:22
`dispositively 6:23
`dispute 7:17,24
`document 11:11
`donald 3:12 5:18
`donatelli 1:24 2:21
`13:4,23
`dorr 3:11
`e
`
`e 4:1,9
`east 3:18
`email 3:14,20
`equate 9:3
`esq 3:11,17,18
`essentially 8:25
`evelyn 3:11 5:18
`evelyn.mak 3:14
`evidence 8:9 10:14
`exactly 9:5
`explain 8:13,18
`9:5
`explained 8:22 9:1
`9:6
`
`f
`faster 7:4,9,12 8:2
`9:7
`fastest 7:11,11,14
`8:3 9:8,18,20
`feature 9:21
`figure 7:22,22
`file 6:1,7 10:1,9,13
`10:19
`filed 6:6 11:3,4,6
`11:15,21
`
`filings 12:4
`finkelstein 7:2,5,7
`7:13,18,19,21 8:19
`9:1,11,16,22,23
`11:23
`finkelstine 9:15
`first 11:14,18
`floor 2:19
`foregoing 13:11
`forth 13:8
`frankly 6:19 11:22
`friday 1:22 2:20
`5:1 10:20
`full 13:11
`further 13:13
`future 11:11 12:4
`g
`gerstenblith 3:7
`5:6
`give 10:22
`go 11:2
`going 6:10 7:8,12
`10:4,22
`good 5:4,19,21,24
`graw 5:19,24 8:11
`10:2,7,22,25 12:1
`12:7
`greatly 6:16
`grounds 9:12
`h
`
`h 4:9
`hale 3:11
`hear 5:11
`heard 10:11
`hearing 1:18 2:17
`13:7,11
`held 1:22
`help 8:4
`hereunto 13:16
`
`hold 10:3
`honor 5:21 10:6
`10:17 11:17 12:6
`12:11
`honors 6:14 10:20
`i
`identify 6:11
`immaterial 11:25
`important 6:19
`inconsistent 6:3
`8:19
`information 4:19
`initial 8:16
`intel 1:6 2:6 5:9
`7:2
`interested 13:15
`introduce 5:12,13
`invention 9:4
`ipr 5:10
`ipr2018-01038 1:9
`2:9
`issue 6:19 7:15,18
`8:3,4,10 11:23
`issues 8:5
`j
`jakubowich 9:14
`jason 3:18 5:23
`joined 5:22
`judge 3:5,6,7 5:4,5
`5:6,19,24 8:11,11
`10:2,7,7,22,25
`12:1,7
`judges 5:5
`k
`kenneth 3:17
`key 7:24,25,25
`11:25
`kimberly 3:5
`kind 11:10
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`l
`law 3:10,17
`lead 7:6
`legal 2:18
`limited 10:14
`line 4:20 5:5,8,12
`5:16 10:3,8
`linger 3:18 5:23
`llc 1:10 2:10
`llp 3:11
`log 6:20
`los 3:19
`lowenstein 3:17,20
`5:21,22 6:10,13
`10:6,17,24 11:17
`12:6,10
`lowensteinweat...
`3:20
`
`m
`mak 3:11 5:17,18
`8:12,15 11:2
`12:11
`mc 5:19,24 8:11
`10:2,7,22,25 12:1
`12:7
`mcgraw 3:5 5:4,5
`8:11 10:7
`means 9:8
`mesa 2:19 5:2
`migration 7:3 9:3
`9:7
`mill 3:12
`minn 3:6
`moment 10:3
`momentarily 5:8
`moving 7:3 8:1
`n
`
`n 4:1
`name 13:17
`
`Page 2
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-6
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`[narrow - subset]
`
`narrow 8:4
`nate 5:22
`necessarily 8:6
`neither 13:13
`new 8:8 10:14
`note 8:20
`notes 13:12
`o
`obvious 7:9 8:2,6
`october 1:22 2:20
`5:1 13:17
`offered 4:11
`office 1:1 2:1
`offices 3:10,17
`okay 10:24 12:1
`opportunity 8:17
`oppose 9:25
`opposed 6:8
`opposing 8:14,15
`opposition 11:1
`orange 13:2,5
`outcome 13:15
`owner 1:11 2:11
`3:15 5:20 6:7,10
`8:17,21 9:2,6,10
`9:17,19 10:9,12
`11:3,13
`owner's 6:1,9 8:16
`8:24 10:1
`p
`p.m. 2:20 12:14
`page 3:12 4:20 6:7
`8:7 10:13
`pages 1:25
`palo 3:13
`panel 10:4
`papers 8:6 10:21
`paragraph 7:21
`7:22
`
`park 3:18
`part 7:10,25
`parties 5:12 10:11
`10:16 11:16 12:3
`party 13:14
`patent 1:1,2,11 2:1
`2:2,11 3:15 5:20
`6:1,5,7,8,10 8:16
`8:17,21,24 9:2,4,6
`9:10,12,17,19,19
`9:19,25 10:9,12
`11:3,13
`perspective 6:16
`petition 6:3 7:20
`9:12,13
`petitioner 1:7 2:7
`3:9 5:16,17,25 6:2
`6:6,8,14 8:12 11:1
`11:6
`petitioner's 10:12
`10:15
`phone 3:13,19 5:7
`pickering 3:10
`place 13:8
`please 8:13
`plus 9:15
`position 6:23,24
`potential 6:25
`preference 10:19
`preliminary 6:1
`8:16 11:3,5,7,9,14
`11:20
`previous 10:8
`primary 9:11,23
`prior 7:1,18 11:23
`problem 11:11
`problems 5:7
`proceedings 1:16
`12:13
`prosecution 6:4
`7:1,19 11:23
`
`ptab 1:18 2:17
`putting 8:8
`q
`question 10:18
`11:18
`questions 10:16
`quickly 6:11,15
`r
`
`r 3:12
`reasons 9:25
`record 8:9 12:2
`reduced 13:9
`refer 12:3
`reference 7:6,7,25
`7:25 9:11,23
`references 9:14,24
`referred 11:12
`12:5
`regarding 8:19
`related 13:14
`relevant 9:1,2
`relied 9:15,21
`rely 7:20 9:23
`10:12
`renders 7:9 8:2
`reply 6:1,6,8,11,12
`6:17,18,22,24 8:7
`8:20,25 9:1,4,9
`10:1,10,13,14,15
`11:6
`reported 1:24
`reporter 2:22 5:11
`5:14 13:5,24
`reporter's 1:16
`request 6:9 8:14
`8:15 10:1
`requested 4:19
`responding 10:15
`response 6:1 8:17
`11:4,5,7,9,14,15
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`11:15,19,20,21
`12:3,4
`reviewed 10:11
`reviewing 6:17
`right 10:2
`road 3:12
`robin 1:24 2:21
`13:4,23
`
`s
`
`s 4:9
`says 6:24 9:19
`second 11:18
`section 7:18,19
`see 10:25 11:3
`selecting 7:10,11
`7:14 8:2 9:7,8,18
`9:20
`set 13:8
`short 6:7 8:7 10:13
`shorthand 2:21
`13:5,8,12,24
`shortly 10:5 11:4
`show 9:16,22,24
`signature 13:23
`significant 7:10
`significantly 7:20
`slower 7:3,8,12
`solutions 2:18
`sooner 10:21
`speaking 5:13
`8:13
`ss 13:1
`state 2:22 13:1,5
`statements 6:2,4
`states 1:1 2:1 11:6
`steinberg 3:12
`5:18
`strong 10:19
`subscribed 13:16
`subset 7:12
`
`Page 3
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-7
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`

`

`u
`understanding
`11:11
`united 1:1 2:1
`useful 6:18 7:17
`v
`veritext 2:18
`versus 5:10
`view 6:22
`vlsi 1:10 2:10
`vs 1:8 2:8
`vsli 5:10
`w
`want 9:13
`wanted 11:10
`way 8:5 13:14
`weatherwax 3:17
`3:17
`week 10:23
`weekend 12:9
`whereof 13:16
`wilmer 3:10
`wilmerhale.com
`3:14
`witness 13:16
`wonderful 12:9
`x
`
`x 4:1,9
`
`[suite - x]
`
`suite 3:18
`supervision 13:10
`sur 6:8,11,12,18
`8:7 10:1,10,13,14
`sure 6:13
`t
`
`t 4:9
`taken 2:18 13:7,8
`13:12
`talking 5:14 9:7,17
`technology 1:10
`2:10 5:10
`telephonic 1:19
`2:17
`telephonically 3:3
`3:9,15
`terms 7:17 8:24
`thank 6:13 10:2,6
`10:17 12:1,6,8,10
`12:11
`thereof 13:15
`things 7:16
`think 6:17,18,20
`6:22,23 7:16 8:3,4
`8:7 9:25
`thought 8:18
`thread 7:3 9:3,6
`three 6:7 8:7 9:14
`10:13
`time 6:19,21 10:9
`13:7
`trademark 1:1 2:1
`transcript 1:16
`13:12
`transcription 13:9
`trial 1:2 2:2
`trick 8:8
`true 13:11
`trying 9:2
`two 9:24
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Ex. 2014
`Page 2014-8
`Case IPR2018-01038; Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC
`
`