Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24485 Page 1 of 48
`
` 1164
`
` 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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE HONORABLE DANA M. SABRAW, JUDGE PRESIDING
`
`
`________________________________
` )
`WI-LAND INC., )
` )
` PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO. 14CV1507-DMS
` ) CASE NO. 14CV2235-DMS
` VS. )
` ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`APPLE, INC., ) TUESDAY JULY 31, 2018
` )
` DEFENDANT. )
`________________________________)
`AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS )
`________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`JURY TRIAL, DAY 6, VOLUME 6B
`PAGES 1164-1211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY
`COMPUTER ASSISTED SOFTWARE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`MAURALEE RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR NO. 11674
` FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`ORDERTRANSCRIPT@GMAIL.COM
`
`
`
` 1164
`
` 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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE HONORABLE DANA M. SABRAW, JUDGE PRESIDING
`
`
`________________________________
` )
`WI-LAND INC., )
` )
` PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO. 14CV1507-DMS
` ) CASE NO. 14CV2235-DMS
` VS. )
` ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`APPLE, INC., ) TUESDAY JULY 31, 2018
` )
` DEFENDANT. )
`________________________________)
`AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS )
`________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`JURY TRIAL, DAY 6, VOLUME 6B
`PAGES 1164-1211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY
`COMPUTER ASSISTED SOFTWARE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`MAURALEE RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR NO. 11674
` FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`ORDERTRANSCRIPT@GMAIL.COM
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24486 Page 2 of 48
`
` 1165
`
` 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
`
`COUNSEL APPEARING:
`
`FOR PLAINTIFF: ROBERT A. COTE, ESQ.
` JONATHAN R. YIM, ESQ.
` KEVIN R. SCHUBERT, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER MCNETT, ESQ.
` BRETT E. COOPER, ESQ
` MCKOOL SMITH
` ONE BRYANT PARK, 47TH FLOOR
` NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036
`
` MICHAEL MCKOOL, JR., ESQ.
` ASHLEY NICOLE MOORE, ESQ.
` MCKOOL SMITH
` 300 CRESENT COURT, SUITE 1500
` DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
`
` WARREN HENRY LIPSCHITZ, ESQ.
` MCKOOL SMITH
` 1719 WHITTIER AVENUE
` DALLAS, TEXAS 75218
`
` STEVEN J. POLLINGER
` MCKOOL SMITH
` 300 W 6TH STREET, SUITE 1700
` AUSTIN, TX 78746
`
`FOR DEFENDANT: JOHN ALLCOCK, ESQ.
` SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ.
` ERIN PAIGE GIBSON, ESQ.
` JACOB ANDERSON, ESQ.
` TIFFANY CAROL MILLER, ESQ.
` DLA PIPER
` 401 B STREET, SUITE 1700
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
`
` ROBERT BUERGI, ESQ.
` DLA PIPER
` 2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
` EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24487 Page 3 of 48
`
` 1166
`
` 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
`
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2018 - 1:00 P.M.
`(CALL TO ORDER OF THE COURT AT 1:00 P.M.)
`MR. POLLINGER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: YES.
`MR. POLLINGER: I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY REURGE THE
`ISSUE OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY FROM DR. MADISETTI, AND I THINK THE
`DEBATE WAS WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING NEW THAT THEY HAD
`PRESENTED WITH REGARD TO THEIR NONINFRINGEMENT ARGUMENTS THAT
`WE HADN'T SEEN BEFORE, AND THIS -- WHAT WE SEE HERE ON THE TOP
`IS SLIDE 15, AND THIS IS WHERE THEY TOOK AND PIECE BY PIECE
`REDID DR. MADISETTI'S SLIDE BELOW HERE, SLIDE 52, AND THAT WAS
`NOWHERE IN THEIR EXPERT REPORTS. SO THE TOP IS FUJA'S SLIDE
`15, THE BOTTOM IS DR. MADISETTI'S SLIDE 52. THE FIRST TIME WE
`GOT THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN COURT TODAY. WHAT WE GOT TO THEM WAS
`THAT STILL FROM 15, AND THEY DIRECTLY ATTACKED DR. MADISETTI'S
`SLIDE 52 TAKING IT APART PIECE BY PIECE. WE HAD NOT SEEN THAT
`BEFORE, AND I THINK IN FAIRNESS, DR. MADISETTI SHOULD BE
`ALLOWED TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS WHAT THEY DID WITH SLIDE 52. I
`THINK IT WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL FOR HIM NOT TO HAVE THE
`OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE THE JURY.
`THE COURT: WHAT'S THE RESPONSE?
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. SO FIRST OF ALL,
`THEY HAVE HAD THIS SLIDE FOR A NUMBER OF DAYS. YOU HEARD NO
`OBJECTIONS AS IT BEING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DR. FUJA'S REPORT,
`BECAUSE IT'S NOT. WHAT I DID WAS I WALKED HIM THROUGH THAT
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24488 Page 4 of 48
`
` 1167
`
` 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
`
`SLIDE AND REBUILT IT BASED ON EXACTLY WHAT'S ON THIS SLIDE.
`THE COURT: AND WHEN YOU SAY "THEY'VE HAD THIS SLIDE,"
`YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN, 52?
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. OBVIOUSLY THE
`BOTTOM SLIDE IS DR. MADISETTI'S SLIDE, THE TOP SLIDE IS THE
`REBUILT ONE THAT I WENT THROUGH WITH THE WITNESS TODAY. WE
`DISCLOSED THAT TO THEM THREE DAYS AGO, SO. BUT THE POINT IS,
`YOUR HONOR, THAT NOTHING ABOUT WHAT HE DID IS ANY DIFFERENT
`THAN WHAT'S ON HERE, AND I MADE SURE OF THAT BECAUSE I KEPT
`POINTING HIM TO AS HE IS ADDING THINGS WHERE IT IS ON THIS
`DOCUMENT, ON THIS SLIDE. SO HIS TESTIMONY WAS NO DIFFERENT
`THAN JUST SIMPLY WALKING THROUGH THIS AND SAYING, HE LEFT ALL
`THAT OUT. SO THE PREJUDICE IS TO US IF HE'S NOW ALLOWED TO GET
`BACK UP AND SAY WHATEVER IN THE GUISE OF REBUTTAL WHEN IT'S
`NOT.
`
`MR. POLLINGER: FIRST, YOUR HONOR, DR. MADISETTI NEVER
`HAD THAT SLIDE 15 FROM FUJA WHEN HE TESTIFIED AND TOOK THE
`STAND. ADDITIONALLY, IT WASN'T A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE WE
`FIRST GOT THIS SLIDE. WHAT WE GOT A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO WAS
`THIS STILL ON THE TOP. WE NEVER GOT -- THEY NEVER DISCLOSED TO
`US THIS PIECE-BY-PIECE DISMANTLING OF DR. MADISETTI'S SLIDE 52.
`I WAS, FRANKLY, SURPRISED. I HADN'T SEEN IT BEFORE TODAY, AND
`THEY OBVIOUSLY PUT A LOT OF GRAPHICS WORK INTO DOING THAT.
`THAT WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO US, AND THEN THEY HAVE A LOT OF
`GRAPHICS WORK PUT INTO REBUILDING IT WITH SLIDE 15 FROM
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24489 Page 5 of 48
`
` 1168
`
` 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
`
`DR. FUJA. THAT WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO US PRIOR TO TODAY, AND,
`AGAIN, MOST IMPORTANTLY, DR. MADISETTI NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO
`ADDRESS THIS IN HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF, AND
`IT WOULD BE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL FOR THE JURY TO BE LEFT WITH
`THIS VISION OF DISMANTLING AND DISCREDITING -- ATTEMPTING TO
`DISCREDIT DR. MADISETTI'S SLIDE 15 (SIC) BY WHAT DR. FUJA DID
`TODAY ON HIS SLIDE 15.
`THE COURT: WASN'T THAT ALL COVERED IN THE REPORTS,
`FOR EXAMPLE, BY DR. FUJA?
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: ABSOLUTELY.
`MR. POLLINGER: THERE'S NO DISCLOSURE OF THIS.
`THE COURT: I MEAN, THE CONCEPTS --
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: ABSOLUTELY.
`THE COURT: -- THAT PROFESSOR FUJA WAS TAKING ISSUE
`WITH DR. MADISETTI'S OPINIONS IN THE REPORT. ISN'T THIS SLIDE
`52, THE DISMANTLING, THAT'S A DEMONSTRATIVE TO EXPLAIN THE
`OPINIONS THAT WERE IN PROFESSOR FUJA'S REPORT, AND THAT WAS
`ALREADY DISCLOSED. I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT WAY OF EXPLAINING
`IT, BUT IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT. THIS IS JUST A DEMONSTRATIVE TO
`EXPLAIN WHAT WAS IN PROFESSOR FUJA'S REPORTS. SO MY CONCERN IS
`WHERE WE LEFT OFF IS IF DR. MADISETTI IS PERMITTED TO TESTIFY,
`HE'S GOING TO HAVE THE SAME OPINION BUT HE'LL JUST BE WALKING
`THROUGH A DEMONSTRATIVE, AND THAT'S NOT TRUE REBUTTAL. THAT'S
`JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN OPINIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY
`BEEN VETTED AND HAVE BEEN STATED IN THE REPORTS.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24490 Page 6 of 48
`
` 1169
`
` 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
`
`MR. POLLINGER: THESE WERE NOT GIVEN TO US PRIOR TO
`HIS TESTIMONY. I THINK HE NEEDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN
`THEM. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, THEIR EXPERT REPORTS HAVE A
`HOST OF NONINFRINGEMENT ARGUMENTS. I MEAN, IF WE WERE TO LIST
`THEM OUT AND COUNT THEM UP, I THINK IT WOULD AMOUNT TO 30. AND
`WHAT WE HEARD FROM IN OPENING WAS THE JINGLE THAT WE AGGREGATE,
`WE DON'T ALLOCATE, AND IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL FOR US TO
`ADDRESS ALL 30-SOME ODD OF THEIR NONINFRINGEMENT OPINIONS IN
`OUR CASE IN CHIEF. IT WOULD NOT BE PRACTICAL. WE WOULD HAVE
`TO PROVE A NEGATIVE ON EACH ONE OF THOSE. I THINK WE SHOULD
`HAVE A SHORT OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST ADDRESS THE DISMANTLING OF
`DR. MADISETTI'S SLIDE 52.
`THE COURT: I'M GOING TO STAND ON THE INITIAL RULING.
`I THINK THAT IS NOT PROPER REBUTTAL. I REALLY THINK IT'S A
`SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO STATE AN OPINION BUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
`BUT IT'S THE SAME -- THEY'RE THE SAME CONCEPTS, THAT'S WHAT I
`GO BACK TO, SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DECLINE THE INVITATION.
`LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE JURY IN, AND WE'LL PICK
`UP WITH MR. STANWOOD.
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: YOUR HONOR, I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK
`QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE SOME GUIDANCE ON SOMETHING. I WOULD
`LIKE TO ASK MR. STANWOOD: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN THIS CASE
`ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PATENT IS VALID. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
`VIOLATES THE MIL. I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THERE IS ANY DROP
`DEFENSE OR CLAIM FROM APPLE. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT AND
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24491 Page 7 of 48
`
` 1170
`
` 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
`
`AND MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT OBJECTIONABLE.
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: CAN I HEAR IT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR?
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN THIS CASE
`ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PATENT IS VALID?
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AS
`LONG AS IT DOESN'T GO FURTHER THAN THAT.
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: IT'S ONE QUESTION.
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: OKAY.
`THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING IN THE
`
`JURY.
`(JURY ENTERING AT 1:02 P.M.)
`THE COURT: OKAY. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU FOR
`WAITING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE WERE DISCUSSING A NUMBER OF
`ISSUES AND ULTIMATELY I THINK WE STREAMLINED THE PRESENTATION.
`WE HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL WITNESS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO, FROM
`YOUR PERSPECTIVE, RECESS EARLY TODAY AND PICK UP TOMORROW WITH
`INSTRUCTION AND ARGUMENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO WI-LAN'S REBUTTAL
`ONE ADDITIONAL WITNESS.
`COUNSEL.
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: YOUR HONOR, WI-LAN CALLS MR. KEN
`STANWOOD.
`KENNETH STANWOOD TESTIFIED ON REBUTTAL AS FOLLOWS:
`THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON. SIR, I JUST REMIND YOU
`YOU REMAIN UNDER OATH IN YOUR ENTIRE TESTIMONY.
`THE WITNESS: YES.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24492 Page 8 of 48
`
` 1171
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: THANK YOU.
`COUNSEL.
`
`REBUTTAL DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`WELCOME BACK, MR. STANWOOD.
`A
`THANK YOU.
`Q
`WE'RE NEARING THE END OF THIS TRIAL AND WE HAVE A FEW
`QUESTIONS FOR YOU JUST BASED ON SOME OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD.
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: MR. DIAZ, CAN YOU PLEASE PULL UP THE
`SUBSCRIBER UNIT THAT MR. STANWOOD TAUGHT US ABOUT.
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`I WOULD LIKE YOU TO JUST HELP ORIENT US SO WE CAN DISCUSS
`THESE IN A WAY THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. REMIND US WHAT WE SEE
`HERE, MR. STANWOOD.
`A
`HERE WE SEE TWO CONNECTIONS COMING INTO A SUBSCRIBER UNIT,
`EACH GOING TO A DIFFERENT QUEUE, ONE FOR VOICE OR HIGH PRIORITY
`DATA AND ONE FOR NONVOICE OR LOW PRIORITY DATA.
`Q
`AND WHY DO YOU SEPARATE OUT THE VOICE AND THE DATA INTO TWO
`SEPARATE CONNECTIONS AND QUEUES LIKE THIS?
`A
`SO THAT THE VOICE DATA IN THIS CASE CAN BYPASS ANY
`CONGESTION CAUSED BY THE NONVOICE DATA.
`Q
`AND WHERE ARE THE USER CONNECTIONS ON THIS FIGURE?
`A
`IN THIS FIGURE, THEY'RE THE TWO WHITE BARS AT THE BOTTOM
`COMING IN.
`Q
`AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY CONNECTING?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24493 Page 9 of 48
`
` 1172
`
` 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
`
`THEY'RE CONNECTING THE USERS, THE GENERATORS OF THE DATA,
`A
`WITH THE QUEUES.
`Q
`AND WHAT ARE THE USERS, THE GENERATORS OF THE DATA, IN A
`CELL PHONE?
`A
`THE PHONE FUNCTIONALITY, THE VOICE CALL FUNCTIONALITY, AND
`THE APPS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE LIKE, YOU KNOW, EMAIL, WEB
`BROWSING INSTAGRAM.
`Q
`OKAY. SO THESE WOULD BE THE DIFFERENT APPS ON YOUR PHONE;
`IS THAT RIGHT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`HOW MANY APPS MIGHT SHARE ONE OF THESE QUEUES?
`MR. ALLCOCK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS BEYOND
`THE SCOPE OF PROPER REDIRECT.
`THE COURT: OVERRULED.
`YOU CAN ANSWER.
`THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE?
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`SURE. HOW MANY DIFFERENT APPS MIGHT BE SHARING ONE OF
`THESE QUEUES? FOR EXAMPLE, THE DATA QUEUE ON THE RIGHT?
`A
`TENS OR HUNDREDS.
`Q
`AND COULD IT BE JUST ONE APP?
`A
`IT COULD BE JUST ONE APP, YEAH.
`Q
`SO IT COULD BE ONE? IT COULD BE A HUNDRED?
`A
`CORRECT.
`Q
`AND TO SEND THIS DATA, WE NEED TO REQUEST BANDWIDTH AND
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24494 Page 10 of 48
`
` 1173
`
` 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
`
`ALLOCATE BANDWIDTH TO THE DATA; IS THAT RIGHT?
`A
`CORRECT.
`Q
`AND ACCORDING TO YOUR PATENT, WHERE DO YOU DO THE BANDWIDTH
`ALLOCATION?
`A
`ALLOCATE THE BANDWIDTH BETWEEN THE QUEUES.
`Q
`WHY DO YOU DO IT AT THE QUEUES?
`A
`BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE EVERYTHING IS SEPARATED OUT BY
`PRIORITY, SO THAT'S WHERE THE SCHEDULING ALGORITHM IN THE MAC
`LAYER KNOWS WHAT THE PRIORITY OF THE DATA IS AND IS ABLE TO
`GIVE THE BANDWIDTH TO THE DATA IN A PROPER WAY RELATIVE TO THE
`ALGORITHMS.
`Q
`OKAY. LET'S PULL UP THE PATENT AND LOOK AT CLAIM 26 REAL
`QUICK. DOES CLAIM 26 SAY WHERE YOU ALLOCATE THE BANDWIDTH?
`MR. ALLCOCK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS --
`THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER.
`THE WITNESS: IT SAYS HERE ALLOCATING BETWEEN THE
`
`QUEUES.
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? OH, THANK YOU. YOU'VE GOT IT
`HIGHLIGHTED THERE.
`AND HOW ARE THESE QUEUES ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO YOUR CLAIM?
`THEY'RE ORGANIZED TO A TRAFFIC PRIMARY, IN THIS CASE
`A
`QUALITY OF SERVICE.
`Q
`WHAT IS QUALITY OF SERVICE?
`A
`WELL, QUALITY OF SERVICE IS A COMPLICATED TOPIC. PRIORITY
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24495 Page 11 of 48
`
` 1174
`
` 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
`
`IS ONE ASPECT OF IT. IT CAN INCLUDE THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, BIT
`RATES AND SENSITIVITY TO THE DELAY OR JITTER, WHICH IS
`CONSISTENTLY HOW PACKETS COME OUT.
`Q
`SO IS THIS BASICALLY THE IDEA THAT YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO
`PRIORITIZE THE VOICE OVER THE OTHER DATA?
`A
`THAT'S DEFINITELY ONE WAY TO USE IT.
`Q
`AND WHY DO YOU ORGANIZE THE QUEUES BASED IN THAT WAY, BASED
`ON THE PRIORITY?
`A
`BECAUSE OUR WHOLE CONCEPT HERE IS WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE
`CERTAIN THAT HIGH PRIORITY DATA GETS THE SERVICES THAT IT NEEDS
`FROM THE NETWORK WITHOUT LOW PRIORITY DATA DEGRADING.
`Q
`OKAY. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT FIGURE 13 OF YOUR PATENT. AND
`WHERE ARE THE QUEUES SHOWN HERE?
`A
`THEY'RE SHOWN IN THE CENTER OF EACH CPE IN THE LEFT-HAND
`SIDE.
`Q
`LET'S ZOOM IN ON CPE 1. HOW MANY DIFFERENT QUEUES DOES
`YOUR PATENT SHOW?
`A
`IT SHOWS ANY NUMBER. YOU KNOW, ONE TO END WITH N BEING A
`NUMBER. IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW MANY QOS CLASSES YOU WANT TO BE
`ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE YOUR DATA.
`Q
`AND WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO USE MORE THAN TWO QUEUES, FOR
`EXAMPLE, JUST FOR VOICE AND DATA?
`A
`YOU MIGHT HAVE STREAMING VIDEO, YOU MIGHT HAVE CONTROL
`MESSAGES.
`Q
`NOW DOES YOUR PATENT REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24496 Page 12 of 48
`
` 1175
`
` 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
`
`CONNECTIONS AND QUEUES?
`A
`NO, IT DOES NOT.
`Q
`HOW APPLE SAYS THAT ALLOCATING TO THESE QUEUES DOESN'T
`ALLOCATE TO THE CONNECTIONS BECAUSE THE QUEUES IN THEIR
`PRODUCTS DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DATA COMES FROM. THAT'S WHAT
`WE'VE HEARD, RIGHT?
`MR. ALLCOCK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS GETTING
`INTO INFRINGEMENT TESTIMONY.
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: THIS IS JUST LAYING FOUNDATION, YOUR
`HONOR, FOR THE ISSUE.
`THE COURT: OKAY. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
`THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE.
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`SURE. APPLE HAS SAID IN THIS TRIAL THAT IT DOESN'T
`INFRINGE BECAUSE THE QUEUES DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DATA COMES
`FROM. HAVE YOU HEARD THEM SAY THAT?
`A
`YES, I HAVE.
`Q
`DO THE QUEUES SHOWN HERE IN YOUR PATENT NEED TO KNOW WHICH
`USERS OR CONNECTIONS SENT THEM DATA?
`A
`NO, THEY DON'T.
`Q
`WHY NOT?
`A
`BECAUSE WE'RE QUEUING IT UP BY QOS. ONCE YOU QUEUE IT UP
`BY QOS, THEN IT'S THE PRIORITY ALGORITHMS THAT DECIDE WHAT
`TRAFFIC GETS SENT, AND THE USERS ARE -- THE USER CONNECTIONS
`ARE SERVICED BY SERVICING THESE QUEUES.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24497 Page 13 of 48
`
` 1176
`
` 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
`
`DOES IT MATTER WHICH APPS SENT DATA TO EACH OF THESE
`Q
`QUEUES?
`A
`NO, IT DOESN'T.
`Q
`WHAT MATTERS ACCORDING TO YOUR PATENT?
`A
`WHICH QOS PACKET DESERVES AND WHICH QUEUE IT GETS PUT INTO.
`Q
`LET'S GO BACK TO CLAIM 26. AND I SEE HERE WHERE THE CLAIM
`IS TALKING ABOUT THE QUEUES. DOES THIS SAY IN THE CLAIM THAT
`THE QUEUES HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THE DATA COMES FROM?
`A
`NO, IT DOESN'T.
`Q
`AND DID YOU HEAR APPLE SAY AT ANY POINT IN THIS TRIAL THAT
`THEY DON'T ALLOCATE BANDWIDTH BETWEEN THE QUEUES?
`A
`YEAH. I THINK THEY HAVE QUEUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
`LOGICAL CHANNELS THAT THEY WERE ALLOCATING BANDWIDTH TO.
`Q
`AND DID YOU HEAR THEM SAY THAT THEY DON'T DO THAT?
`A
`NO.
`
`MR. ALLCOCK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS EXPERT
`TESTIMONY.
`THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`NOW DOES YOUR PATENT REQUIRE ANY ONE QUEUE OR CONNECTION TO
`ACTUALLY BE FASTER THAN THE OTHER QUEUE OR CONNECTION?
`A
`NO.
`Q
`WHY DO YOU CALL THE VOICE QUEUE THAT YOU SHOWED US AN
`EXPRESS LANE IF IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FASTER?
`A
`BECAUSE IT'S BYPASSING. IT'S NOT REALLY FASTER. IT'S LIKE
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24498 Page 14 of 48
`
` 1177
`
` 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
`
`THE I-15 EXPRESS LANE, THE SPEED LIMIT IS THE SAME.
`Q
`SO IF I'M GOING DOWN THE EXPRESS LANE AT 20-MILES PER HOUR
`AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE HIGHWAY STUCK IN TRAFFIC, DOES THAT
`MEAN THAT MY LANE -- I'M SORRY. WHY AM I ABLE TO PASS ALL
`THOSE CARS ON THE RIGHT? IS IT BECAUSE OF THE SPEED LIMIT?
`A
`NO. IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE STOPPED AND YOU'RE NOT.
`Q
`NOW ANOTHER ISSUE WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IS THAT YOU CAN'T
`INFRINGE IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE CONNECTIONS GOING INTO A SINGLE
`QUEUE. DOES YOUR PATENT DESCRIBE MULTIPLE CONNECTIONS GOING
`INTO A SINGLE QUEUE?
`MR. ALLCOCK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. LEADING AND
`BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROPER REBUTTAL.
`THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
`BY MR. LIPSCHITZ:
`Q
`OKAY, MR. STANWOOD, I WANT TO SHIFT GEARS AND TALK ABOUT
`ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT IN THIS CASE. DID YOU
`HEAR APPLE SAY THAT MOST OF THE IDEAS IN YOUR PATENT WERE WELL
`KNOWN BEFORE 1999?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`MR. STANWOOD, IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN THIS CASE ABOUT
`WHETHER YOUR PATENT IS VALID?
`A
`NO, THERE IS NOT.
`Q
`LET'S LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT, THE QUALCOMM PATENT THAT APPLE
`SHOWED THE JURY AT DX-276. MR. STANWOOD, HAVE YOU READ THIS
`PATENT?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24499 Page 15 of 48
`
` 1178
`
` 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
`
`YES, I HAVE.
`A
`DID THIS QUALCOMM PATENT DISCLOSE YOUR IDEA?
`Q
`NO, IT DID NOT.
`A
`WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE QUALCOMM PATENT?
`Q
`WELL, WRONG IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH TERM. IT'S A NICE
`A
`PATENT.
`Q
`I'M SORRY. WHAT IS DIFFERENT --
`A
`IT'S DIFFERENT.
`Q
`-- ABOUT THE QUALCOMM PATENT?
`A
`WHAT'S DIFFERENT IS THEY'RE STILL USING VOICE SERVICE. SO
`THEY'RE USING -- THEY'RE STILL USING THE TWO LITTLE PIPES THAT
`WE SHOWED, I GUESS IT WAS MONDAY OF LAST WEEK, TO MAIL UP THE
`CIRCUITS FOR VOICE. THEY'RE NOT SCHEDULING THE VOICE AT ALL.
`IN FACT, THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT SCHEDULING THE VOICE BECAUSE THEY
`CAN'T SCHEDULE TRAFFIC THAT IS THAT SENSITIVE TO DELAY. SO
`THEY JUST MAIL UP THESE CIRCUITS AND HAVE THEM THERE FOR THE
`VOICE. THEY'RE ONLY SCHEDULING THEIR NONVOICE DATA PACKETS.
`AND EVEN THERE, THEY'RE SCHEDULING THEM BY THE BASE STATION IN
`SOME CIRCUMSTANCES OR EATEN DEEPER INTO THE NETWORK AT OTHER
`CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY'RE NOT SCHEDULING THEM AT THE SUBSCRIBER
`UNITS. IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF PART OF THE
`PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IS THAT THE VOICE DATA, IF YOU
`TAKE IT OUT OF THE CIRCUIT-SWITCHED NETWORK, IT'S DIFFICULT TO
`MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT MEETS ITS DELAY CONSTRAINTS. AND YOU
`KNOW, THEY MET THOSE DELAY CONSTRAINTS BY KEEPING IT
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24500 Page 16 of 48
`
` 1179
`
` 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
`
`CIRCUIT-SWITCHED, THEN YOU WASTE UP TO HALF THE BANDWIDTH OF
`THE CIRCUITS.
`Q
`AND WE'VE HEARD THAT TERM "CIRCUIT-SWITCHED" A LOT IN THIS
`CASE. DOES THAT REFER TO THE OLD 2G AND 3G NETWORKS?
`A
`YEAH. TYPICALLY THEY'RE CONSIDERED CIRCUIT-SWITCHED
`BECAUSE YOU DEDICATE THOSE RESOURCES FOR THAT CIRCUIT FOR THAT
`CALL.
`Q
`ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS QUALCOMM PATENT WASN'T EVEN DOING
`INTERNET PHONECALLS?
`A
`NOT FOR THE PHONECALLS.
`Q
`AND IT WAS USING THE OLD PHONE NETWORK; IS THAT WHAT YOU
`SAID?
`A
`IT WAS USING SOME OLD PHONE NETWORK. I'M NOT CERTAIN
`EXACTLY WHICH. PROBABLY THEY WERE TARGETING THEIR CDMA
`NETWORK, WHICH IS THEIR CLAIM TO FAME.
`Q
`OKAY. AND HOW MANY QUEUES DID EACH PHONE HAVE ACCORDING TO
`THE QUALCOMM PATENT?
`A
`IT APPEARS THAT THEY ONLY HAD ONE EACH.
`Q
`ONE QUEUE IN EACH PHONE?
`A
`THAT'S WHAT THE PATENT APPEARS TO STATE.
`Q
`WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?
`A
`I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT PAGE AND LINE NUMBER. IT'S IN
`THERE QUITE A FEW PLACES.
`Q
`I'LL PULL UP ONE EXAMPLE. LET'S PULL UP COLUMN 22, LINE
`11. WHAT DOES THAT SAY, MR. STANWOOD?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24501 Page 17 of 48
`
` 1180
`
` 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
`
`IT SAYS: IN THE PRESENT INVENTION THE QUEUE SIZE OF REMOTE
`A
`STATION 6 IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ASSIGNING THE MAXIMUM
`SCHEDULED TRANSMISSION RATE.
`Q
`OKAY. SO IF YOU JUST HAD ONE QUEUE IN EACH PHONE, WAS THIS
`QUALCOMM PATENT TEACHING HOW THE PHONE ITSELF CAN PRIORITIZE
`VOICE OVER OTHER TYPES OF DATA?
`A
`NO. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS PATENT IS TEACHING HOW THE
`BASE STATION AT THE FIRST LEVEL, THE BASE STATION CONTROLLER AT
`A DEEPER LEVEL INTO THE NETWORK, AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE EVEN
`DEEPER IN THE NETWORK CAN DO THE SCHEDULING, BUT NOT THE REMOTE
`STATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT TO THE SUBSCRIBER
`STATION.
`Q
`IF THE PHONES HERE ARE JUST USING ONE QUEUE IN THE OLD
`PHONE NETWORK, DID THEY SEND VOICE AND DATA AT THE SAME TIME?
`A
`IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THAT, BUT PROBABLY NOT.
`Q
`SO HOW IS YOUR SYSTEM BETTER, MR. STANWOOD?
`A
`AGAIN, WE'RE NOT WASTING THE -- UP TO HALF OF THE BANDWIDTH
`OF A VOICE CIRCUIT YET STILL BEING ABLE TO MAINTAIN -- YOU
`KNOW, SUPPORT THE TIME SENSITIVITY OF VOICE DATA.
`Q
`MR. STANWOOD, I JUST HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION FOR YOU. APPLE
`HAS REPEATEDLY SAID IN YOUR CASE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE
`CREDIT FOR OTHER'S WORK. ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR
`ANYBODY ELSE'S WORK?
`A
`NO. YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD WORK THAT CAME
`BEFORE WHAT WE DID AT ENSEMBLE AND THERE'S BEEN VERY GOOD WORK
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24502 Page 18 of 48
`
` 1181
`
` 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
`
`THAT'S COME AFTER. YOU KNOW, THE WORK ON SOLVING THE CALL DROP
`PROBLEM THAT THE APPLE ENGINEERS HAVE DONE IS A VERY GOOD
`EXAMPLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS COURSE OF TIME, THERE'S
`BEEN, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH DONE BY US AND OTHERS CONTRIBUTING TO A
`VARIETY OF BOTH MOBILE AND FIXED STANDARDS.
`MR. LIPSCHITZ: THANK YOU, MR. STANWOOD.
`THE COURT: CROSS-EXAMINATION?
`MR. ALLCOCK: JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
`REBUTTAL CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. ALLCOCK:
`Q
`SO JUST TO -- BY THE WAY, GOOD AFTERNOON.
`A
`THANK YOU.
`Q
`SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU DID NOT INVENT EVERY FORM OF
`BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION, DID YOU?
`A
`THAT'S CORRECT.
`Q
`THERE ARE MANY, MANY, MANY DIFFERENT WAYS PEOPLE CAN DO
`BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION?
`A
`YOU QUITE OFTEN USED THE WORD "MANY" MULTIPLE TIMES IN A
`ROW. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THAT MANY MANIES, BUT, YES, THERE
`ARE OTHERS WAYS TO DO IT.
`Q
`THE SAME OF ADAPTIVE MODULATION, THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO
`DO IT?
`A
`YES, THERE'S DEFINITELY MORE THAN ONE.
`Q
`AND I'M GOING TO END THIS BY SAYING WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY
`ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU, MR. STANWOOD, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24503 Page 19 of 48
`
` 1182
`
` 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
`
`FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.
`A
`YOU'RE WELCOME.
`THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. THANK YOU.
`OKAY. BOTH SIDES REST; AM I CORRECT? SUBJECT TO EXHIBITS?
`MR. COOPER: SUBJECT TO EXHIBITS, YES, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: OKAY. SO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS IN. WE
`WILL START TOMORROW AT 9:00. WE WILL START WITH JURY
`INSTRUCTIONS. THE INSTRUCTIONS WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO READ,
`PROBABLY ABOUT 45 MINUTES WOULD BE MY GUESS, AND THEN WE'LL
`MOVE RIGHT INTO CLOSING ARGUMENTS, SO THE CASE WILL BE
`SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR DELIBERATION SOMETIME LATER IN THE
`MORNING, PERHAPS EVEN EARLY AFTERNOON. IT WILL TAKE A CHUNK OF
`TIME, BUT CERTAINLY THE CASE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR
`DELIBERATIONS TO START TOMORROW.
`THANK YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
`HAVE A NICE AFTERNOON. WE'LL SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW AT 9:00.
`ALSO WE'LL PROVIDE LUNCH MEMOS FOR YOU, SO WE'LL HAVE THE
`COFFEE AND PASTRIES IN THE MORNING, AND WE'LL TRY TO HAVE LUNCH
`ARRIVE AT 11:30, 12:00, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO WHEN YOU BEGIN
`YOUR DELIBERATIONS, YOU CAN HAVE LUNCH AS WELL. THANK YOU.
`WE'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW.
`(JURY IN EVENING RECESS AT 1:30 P.M.)
`THE COURT: OKAY. WE'RE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE
`JURY. ON EXHIBITS, THAT SEEMS LIKE COUNSEL CAN MEET AND CONFER
`AND SIMPLY LET MS. KLOSTERMAN KNOW WHICH EXHIBITS ARE COMING
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24504 Page 20 of 48
`
` 1183
`
` 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
`
`IN, OR DO WE HAVE ANY REMAINING ISSUES?
`MR. COOPER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE ATTEMPTED TO
`MEET AND CONFER LAST NIGHT. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CONNECT. WE
`WILL DO SO AND RESOLVE THAT FOR YOU.
`THE COURT: OKAY. AND THEN ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS,
`THERE WAS THE COURT'S PROPOSED. LET'S START WITH THAT. SO
`MOST ALL OF THESE WERE THE JOINT AGREED UPON INSTRUCTIONS.
`THERE WERE A FEW MODIFICATIONS HERE AND THERE. SO ON THE
`INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE EMAILED TO COUNSEL LAST NIGHT, IS THERE
`ANY OBJECTION?
`MS. GIBSON: THERE IS, YOUR HONOR. SOME THINGS HAVE
`CHANGED SINCE WE'VE SUBMITTED THOSE. THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE.
`THE COURT: YES. THE ONES YOU FILED THIS MORNING?
`MS. GIBSON: NO. THIS IS THE SET FROM LAST NIGHT.
`LET ME FIND MY LIST HERE. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE CLAIMS
`REFERENCED THAT ARE NO LONGER AT ISSUE IN THE CASE. THERE'S
`DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS INSTRUCTIONS, AND WE DIDN'T HEAR ANY
`EVIDENCE OF THAT IN THIS CASE. ISSUES LIKE THAT.
`THE COURT: SO LET'S START, I GUESS, WITH YOU,
`MS. GIBSON. LET ME KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO FIX.
`MS. GIBSON: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. JUST A MINUTE.
`(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS)
`MS. GIBSON: SO, YOUR HONOR, THE FIRST ONE THAT WOULD
`BE IMPACTED IS SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS.
`THE COURT: YES.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24505 Page 21 of 48
`
` 1184
`
` 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
`
`MS. GIBSON: WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO REMOVE UNASSERTED
`
`CLAIMS.
`
`MR. COOPER: YOUR HONOR, DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND
`FORTH? WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
`THE COURT: SURE. YES.
`MS. GIBSON: I'M HOPEFUL WHAT I AM ABOUT TO POINT OUT
`WILL NOT BE TOO CONTROVERSIAL.
`THE COURT: IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT.
`MS. GIBSON: I HOPE NOT.
`THE COURT: ON SUMMARY CONTENTIONS, TELL ME AGAIN
`WHICH ONE IS IT? LINE 4?
`MS. GIBSON: THAT'S RIGHT, LINES 3 AND 4. WE JUST
`NEED TO CHANGE THOSE TO REFLECT THE CLAIMS.
`MR. MCNETT: YOUR HONOR, CHRIS MCNETT FOR WI-LAN.
`BRIEFLY ON THAT, I BELIEVE HE SUBMITTED ON JULY 22ND A SET OF
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT DOES HAVE THAT CHANGE, IF THAT'S EASIER
`FOR THE COURT.
`THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO
`WHICH ONE. JUST SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. WHAT ARE WE
`TAKING OUT OF LINES 3 AND 4?
`MS. GIBSON: SO, YOUR HONOR, THE CLAIMS THAT SHOULD
`REMAIN ARE 9, 26, 27, AND 1.
`THE COURT: YES. OKAY. SO WE'RE TAKING OUT 10 AND 9
`FROM THOSE TWO LINES. EVERYTHING ELSE ON THIS INSTRUCTION IS
`CORRECT?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24506 Page 22 of 48
`
` 1185
`
` 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
`
`MS. GIBSON: IT IS BY US.
`YOU?
`MR. MCNETT: NO OBJECTION.
`MS. GIBSON: NEXT IN THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, THIS IS
`JUST A FORMATTING REQUEST. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE COURT'S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS AS PRESENTED, IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR WHAT GOES
`WITH WHAT, SO WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT THE GRID LINES ONTO THE
`CHART SO IT'S CLEAR WHICH CONSTRUCTIONS GO WITH WHICH TERMS.
`THE COURT: SO YOU JUST WANT A LINE UNDER EACH
`CONSTRUCTIONS?
`MS. GIBSON: THAT'S OUR REQUEST.
`THE COURT: OKAY.
`MR. MCNETT: AND, YOUR HONOR, WI-LAN DOESN'T OBJECT TO
`THAT, AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED IN THE
`JULY 22ND SUBMISSION. THAT WORD DOCUMENT HAS THE LINES
`CORRECTLY IN PLACE.
`MR. POLLINGER: AND, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE GO TO THE
`NEXT INSTRUCTION, THERE'S ONE QUESTION WE HAD. THIS MAY TAKE A
`WHILE. THERE WAS ONE QUESTION WE HAD IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS THAT
`MR. MCKOOL WANTED TO ADDRESS.
`MR. MCKOOL: YES, YOUR HONOR. SO I LOOKED AT THE
`COURT'S RULES AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT CLOSING, SO I
`JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FALL WITHIN WHAT COURT WANTS US
`TO DO TOMORROW. WHAT WE HAD IN MIND WOULD BE THAT
`MR. LIPSCHITZ IS GOING TO OPEN FOR US, AND OPEN FULLY, AND THAT
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24507 Page 23 of 48
`
` 1186
`
` 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
`
`HE WOULD PROBABLY TAKE AROUND 35 MINUTES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
`AND THEN I WOULD DO THE REBUTTAL FOR ABOUT 25 MINUTES. THAT
`WOULD BE OUR PLAN.
`THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE FINE. I HAVE NOT KEPT TRACK
`OF TIME, BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT THAT'S NOT --
`MR. MCKOOL: WE HAVE THAT MUCH TIME, BUT I DOUBT THAT
`WE WANT TO BELABOR THIS FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR.
`THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE FINE.
`MR. MCKOOL: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
`THE COURT: OKAY. MS. GIBSON.
`MS. GIBSON: IN THE INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY
`INSTRUCTION, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE THE LAST PARAGRAPH
`SAYS: IN ORDER TO PROVE INFRINGEMENT, WI-LAN MUST PROVE THAT
`THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE OR MORE OF THESE TYPES OF INFRINGEMENT
`ARE MET. AND WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT DIRECT INFRINGEMENT NOW.
`THE COURT: YES.
`MS. GIBSON: SO WE PROPOSE THAT IT JUST SAY WI-LAN
`MUST PROVE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INFRINGEMENT.
`THE COURT: YES. OKAY.
`MR. MCNETT: NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THAT.
`THE COURT: WHAT'S NEXT?
`MS. GIBSON: ALL RIGHT. UNDER DIRECT INFRINGEMENT, IT
`NEEDS TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS SINCE
`THAT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL.
`THE COURT: YES.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 508 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.24508 Page 24 of 48
`
` 1187
`
` 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
`
`DO YOU AGREE?
`MR. MCNETT: NO OBJECTION TO THAT, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: WHERE IS THAT REFERENCE?
`MS. GIBSON: SO ON THE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT INSTRUCTION
`THAT FOLLOWS INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY.
`THE COURT: YES. OKAY.
`MS. GIBSON: SO I THINK WE JUST DELETE THE FIRST
`SENTENCE, YOUR HONOR, AND START WITH: IN ORDER TO PROVE DIRECT
`INFRINGEMENT BY LITERAL INFRINGEMENT.
`THE COURT: I THINK THAT WORKS. OKAY.
`MS. GIBSON: THE NEXT INSTRUCTION, DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS SHOULD BE DELETED ENTIRELY.
`THE COURT: YES.
`MS. GIBSON: AND THEN NEXT, I THINK -- IS YOUR HONOR
`READY TO MOVE ON?
`THE COURT: YES.
`MS. GIBSON: IN THE GLOSSARY, THERE ARE A FEW TERMS
`THAT WE THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AN
`ISSUE IN THE CASE. AND ANOTHER ISSUE TOO, IF WE'RE GOING TO
`DEFINE FILING DATE FOR THE JURY, GIVEN WHAT WE THINK IS RATHER
`CONFUSING EVIDENCE THEY'VE HEARD ON THIS POINT, WE SHOULD ALSO
`INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF PRIORITY DATE GIVEN THE DISPUTE AT
`TRIAL. SO WE WOULD MAKE THE REQUEST FOR ONE ADDITIONAL TERM IN
`THE GLOSSARY, THAT IS "PRIORITY DATE," AND WE'D ASK TO REMOVE
`THE FOLLOW
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
