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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS

INC., et al

Plaintiffs,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION, et al,

Defendants,

.............................

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CA NO. 13-9-RGA

December 15, 2015

8:36 O'clock a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE

BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiffs: SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS

BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ

Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 41843

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

2

-and-

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

BY: MAXMILIAN A. GRANT, ESQ

-and-

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

BY: DAVID A. STEUER, ESQ

For Defendants: RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER

BY: KELLY E. FARNAN, ESQ

-and-

MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

BY: CHARLES M. MCMAHON, ESQ

BY: JAY H. REIZISS, ESQ

Court Reporter: LEONARD A. DIBBS

Official Court Reporter

Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 41844

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

3Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 41845

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

4

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: So this is a status conference

In Interdigital versus ZTE, Civil Action No. 13-9.

I know most of you. I guess I know all of you.

Why don't you put on the record who's here starting

with Mr.Belgam:

MR. BELGAM: Neal Belgam for plaintiff. With me is

Dave Steuer and Max Grant.

MR. GRANT: Good morning, sir.

THE COURT: Good respecting.

MS. FARNAN: For ZTE, good morning, your Honor, Kelly

Farnan.

My co-counsel Charlie McMahon and Jay Reiziss.

The only changes is that they are now with McDermott

Will & Emery.

THE COURT: Where were you before?

MR. MCMAHON: Brinks Gilson. Just stepped across the

street. Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning to you all.

So thank you for coming.

I wanted this status conference because of a confluence

of things, one of which was, I sort of noticed that there was no

activity going on, at least no activity that was visible to me.

Two, I ran into Mr. Belgam on the street. He reminded

Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 41846

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

5

me of all of your existence.

And three, I've been sitting on this Judgment as a

Matter of Law opinion.

I figured that I ought to tell you what was going on

there if it wasn't evident, perhaps it would not be evident.

So, starting with the last thing first. Two thirds of

it is written.

I haven't done anything on the patent, that is, I

understand the PTAB has -- I don't know exactly what the right

technology, but essentially they have invalidated it and it's on

appeal to the Federal Circuit.

It just seemed to me that no matter what I did, the

Federal Circuit was going to do something, and though, it

strikes me that if he they reverse the PTAB, that doesn't

necessarily mean at the end of the day that they have to find

the patent not to be invalid.

But, you know, it strikes me that if they do something

along that lines, it's probably going to be informative. It's

not necessarily binding.

If they affirm the PTAB, it seems it's going to be

binding on me.

So, it just seems since I have enough other things to

do, it's not something that I really wanted to be spending my

time doing.

You know, I am going to deny the JMOL on the other two

Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 41847

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

6

patents. That's one thing.

I could not remember which of the patents -- of the

four patents involved, the potential FRAND issues. I will ask

you that. So I also wanted to see whether there is any input

that you all wanted to give me about anything, or something else

that you think I should be doing.

I have this latest Order that, you know, talks about

among other things, including fact discovery relating to FRAND

and damages by March 4th.

But as I said, I didn't see a whole lot of things going

on, and maybe there's just nothing you need to do.

But if you are waiting for me, I figured I ought to at

least tell you where I was.

MR. GRANT: I think we have the solution to all your

problems, your Honor.

I think we're in agreement with regards to the '244,

that that should just be held in abeyance or stayed, or however

you want to describe it until the Federal Circuit releases its

opinion. I think we're all in agreement on that.

And I think we all here would jointly ask the Court to

put things on hold for 90 days,

We all agree that we've been holding off on discovery.

So,

we need to alter that schedule jointly.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 41848

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

7

THE COURT: As you may have heard, I'm generally

against having things off the record, but I will offer this

request.

Off the record.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: Back on the record.

(At this time the Court went back on the record.)

There will be a status report due in 90 days. I'll

schedule something fairly soon after that, .

MR. GRANT: Happy Holidays.

THE COURT: Happy Holidays.

(End of conference.)

Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 569 Filed 03/02/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 41849