Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 400 PageID #: 56002
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 400 PagelD #: 56002
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 400 PagelD #: 56002
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 400 PageID #: 56003
` 1124
`Draft Transcript
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
` )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` ) C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`v. )
` )
`GOOGLE LLC,
`)
` )
` Defendant. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Monday, May 1, 2023
`8:22 a.m.
`Jury Trial
`
`Volume VI
`
`
`
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
` SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
` BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 3 of 400 PageID #: 56004
` 1125
`Draft Transcript
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`
`
` SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
` BY: JOHN LAHAD, ESQ.
` BY: KEMPER DIEHL, ESQ,
` BY: MAX STRAUS, ESQ.
` BY: SETH ARD, ESQ.
` BY: KALPANA SRINIVASAN, ESQ.
` Counsel for the Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
` POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
` BY: DAVID ELLIS MOORE, ESQ.
`
`
`-and-
`
`
` PAUL HASTINGS
` BY: ROBERT W. UNIKEL, ESQ.
` BY: CHAD J. PETERMAN, ESQ.
` BY: MATTHIAS A. KAMBER, ESQ.
` BY: ANDREA ROBERTS, ESQ.
`BY: VINCENT LING, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for the Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 4 of 400 PageID #: 56005
` 1126
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Proceedings commenced in the courtroom beginning at
`
`8:22 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`
`Good morning.
`
`So we're at our fifth day of evidence
`
`presentation.
`
`All right. Am I correct that who we're
`
`planning to put on today is Mr. -- Dr. Fox, and then
`
`Dr. Kidder, or Mr. Kidder?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Dr. Fox and Mr. Kidder, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And do you have a sense of
`
`how long we're going to hear from Dr. Fox?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Little over an hour, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then we'll have cross.
`
`And then Mr. Kidder is --
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Mr. Kidder will be about
`
`45 minutes to 50 minutes.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And at that point, does
`
`defendant intend to be finished with their evidence
`
`presentation?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: After Mr. Kidder, yes, Your
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 5 of 400 PageID #: 56006
` 1127
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. And we've got
`
`objections to demonstratives being used by Mr. Kidder, but
`
`are we good with Dr. Fox, at least, so we can get started
`
`without worrying about objections in his demonstratives?
`
`MR. LAHAD: I think we're ready to go, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. You're -- pardon?
`
`MR. LAHAD: I think we're ready to go. We have
`
`no objections to Mr. Fox's demonstratives.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. But Mr. Kidder,
`
`you do?
`
`MR. LAHAD: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I got a letter -- please be
`
`seated. I got a letter saying there were objections, but
`
`I don't have copies or anything about what the
`
`objectionable material is. So we've got five minutes now.
`
`We can start taking a look at that.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I have a copy
`
`of the all the demonstratives and exhibits that Arendi is
`
`objecting to. I think, essentially, the objections can be
`
`characterized as they went outside the scope of
`
`Mr. Weinstein's report and presented a new damages number.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. I can see exactly where this
`
`is going to go. I just need to lay eyes on them.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 6 of 400 PageID #: 56007
` 1128
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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. PETERMAN: They are trying to prevent
`
`Mr. Kidder from responding to that new theory that --
`
`THE COURT: I am on the same page. Let me just
`
`see what slides -- do you want to confer with the other
`
`side about which slides are -- should be handed up?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: I have a copy of everything that
`
`they objected to.
`
`May I approach?
`
`THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. All right. Just
`
`give me a minute to take a look at these.
`
`This is everything -- these are just the ones
`
`that are objected to?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Those are the ones that are
`
`objected to, Your Honor. And then also, there's an
`
`exhibit that we would like to introduce, same issue, that
`
`they -- that they've objected to as well.
`
`THE COURT: An exhibit that you want to
`
`introduce into evidence?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. Why don't you
`
`hand that up as well.
`
`So they're objecting to like 40 of your slides?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, okay, we're not
`
`going to get this done in the next five minutes.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 7 of 400 PageID #: 56008
` 1129
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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. SRINIVASAN: Well, Your Honor, if I may.
`
`Some of these, I understood, that they replaced last
`
`night, so...
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Well, no, that's not correct.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Pursuant to our meet and
`
`confer.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Everybody, let's slow down
`
`because we're going to -- I don't want to get off with a
`
`start this morning where we're muddling up the record. So
`
`let's, everybody, sit down. We'll just go and we can talk
`
`about it while everybody is having a seat.
`
`All right. The first page is DDX-10.018.
`
`What's plaintiff's objection to this?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, for these and the
`
`next few slides, the calculation that's performed here was
`
`not done by Mr. Kidder in his report. He did a different
`
`extended views calculation comparing revenues basis
`
`between the different entities without doing it as a
`
`function of each license amount.
`
`And when we conferred about this last night,
`
`Google sent replacement slides doing it with a manner in
`
`which Mr. Kidder had actually disclosed in his report. We
`
`said that we didn't object to those.
`
`So I don't know if they're insisting on doing
`
`it this way, but this isn't the way in which -- he didn't
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 8 of 400 PageID #: 56009
` 1130
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`calculate it this way in his report.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Do you dispute the
`
`calculations, or do you just dispute the way that it is
`
`being presented to the jury?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Well, the methodology is just
`
`not what he did in his report.
`
`THE COURT: It's a different methodology.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Right.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Counsel.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, we disagree. This
`
`is a methodology based off of revenues. Clearly, it's a
`
`question of, if you apply the revenues versus the
`
`settlement agreement first, or if you apply it versus the
`
`revenues for Apple. So now we're thinking that, A plus B
`
`equals C, is what Mr. Kidder initially presented in his
`
`expert report.
`
`We think for a jury -- in order to not confuse
`
`the jury, we want to essentially put in front of them B
`
`plus A equals C. So it's the same result, it's just a
`
`slightly different way of getting presentation -- way of
`
`getting to the result.
`
`And this is a result of the change that
`
`plaintiffs made with respect to the damages theory. We
`
`think it's clearer now, the way that Mr. Kidder wants to
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 9 of 400 PageID #: 56010
` 1131
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`present it in the slides that are in front of you, versus
`
`the way that he presented it in his expert report.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Where in the record is his
`
`report that opines on this issue that we're talking about
`
`right now? What page so we can take a look at it on a
`
`break?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes, Your Honor. So do you have
`
`his reports there?
`
`THE COURT: No. No one has ever presented them
`
`to us, the slides. We have hunted and found most of them
`
`on the docket.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Okay. Give me a moment, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: I have a copy for the Court,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, I have one copy of
`
`both of his reports. I can get a second copy.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Great. That's great.
`
`So counsel just handed up the expert report of
`
`Douglas Kidder, October 20, 2020, and a supplemental
`
`expert report of Mr. Kidder, August 26, 2022.
`
`What pages should I look at to see if this has
`
`been previously disclosed?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yeah. So, Your Honor, in the
`
`second report, the 2022 report, paragraphs 152 to 160 is
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 10 of 400 PageID #: 56011
` 1132
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`where Mr. Kidder goes through the revenue-based
`
`comparison.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then -- so we'll look at
`
`that on a break. And then what -- is it the same argument
`
`for how many of these slides?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Through the first testimonial
`
`slide. So the next eight slides, through 10.026. They're
`
`all the same issue.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: And, Your Honor, I will state
`
`that it doesn't appear that Arendi disagrees that
`
`Mr. Kidder came up with the scale revenue number. So for
`
`that we'll look at the top of Slide 25. There's a scale
`
`revenue number for Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and InNova.
`
`Doesn't appear that Arendi disagrees with those
`
`numbers, because I think no matter which way you do the
`
`calculation, you wind up with those same numbers. It's
`
`really just a question of presentation.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. We will take a
`
`look at that. All right. It's 8:30 now. So we'll bring
`
`the jury out and then we'll deal with this. I want to
`
`make sure we get started on time because we told them all
`
`to get here early today.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Ms. Garfinkel, can we
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 11 of 400 PageID #: 56012
` 1133
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`check and see if everybody is here.
`
`Sounds like we are missing one juror. So let's
`
`continue on.
`
`Okay. Then we've got objection to 10.032?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: That's right, Your Honor. As
`
`to the next three slides, 32, 33, 34, those are
`
`undisclosed opinions from Mr. Kidder's report. He does
`
`disclose December 2017. And I think he was instructed to
`
`use that date. There's nothing in his report about
`
`maintenance releases or source code being published around
`
`that time. He just said he was instructed to use that
`
`date.
`
`And now they're using testimony -- he had the
`
`opportunity to ask why that was, but now they're using
`
`testimony as to the basis for using that date, which
`
`Mr. Kidder didn't disclose in his report.
`
`He has one line in his report that says he was
`
`instructed to use December 2017 as the date when STS was
`
`enabled, that's it. There's no reference to maintenance
`
`releases, source code, any of the things that are being
`
`added here.
`
`So we don't object to him obviously relying on
`
`the December 2017 date, which has always been part of his
`
`analysis for the other apps, and then for Google Chrome.
`
`But for him to be utilizing the reason that they selected
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 12 of 400 PageID #: 56013
` 1134
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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 date when he didn't opine on it, that's an
`
`undisclosed opinion.
`
`They have it in the record from their fact
`
`witnesses, but he chose not to ask them at the time he
`
`issued two reports on this.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So stand by. Let me
`
`read these slides before I hear from Google.
`
`Counsel.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Kidder chose to
`
`focus on different aspects of the case when there was more
`
`accused products at issue and --
`
`Mr. Kidder chose to focus on different aspects
`
`of the case when there were additional products at issue.
`
`As of April 21st when Arendi changed to narrow its theory
`
`to STS only, Mr. Kidder relooked at issues and looked at
`
`issues for the first time with an STS-only basis.
`
`Now he feels that his testimony regarding the
`
`maintenance release is important for his STS-only opinion.
`
`This is the first time that he's been able to make an
`
`STS-only opinion.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, if I may on that.
`
`THE COURT: Just give me a second.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Sure.
`
`THE COURT: Let me just ask everyone about
`
`Slide 32, 33, and 34. This appears just to be testimony
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 13 of 400 PageID #: 56014
` 1135
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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 we've heard at trial. So is there any particular
`
`reason why we can't put this up on the screen?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Well, for Mr. -- I mean, if
`
`Mr. Kidder is going to say he has understanding about why
`
`STS -- why he's using that December 2017 date, that is not
`
`in his opinion. He did -- in his report, paragraph 175,
`
`he said he was asked to consider a date of December 2017
`
`as the date of first infringement when STS was enabled
`
`Android 8. That's all he says.
`
`So our objection is that if he's going to get
`
`up there and say, I understand it was released on that
`
`date because that's when the maintenance release was,
`
`that's when the source code was published -- he doesn't
`
`have any basis for that. He was instructed to use the
`
`date. We understand that.
`
`But now they're trying to use, you know, things
`
`that he didn't develop. He didn't ask why that date was
`
`chosen. And it's not correct that he didn't analyze an
`
`STS-only world. That's the subject of his supplemental
`
`report from 2022. He specifically considered a scenario
`
`in which only STS was accused. He opined on a damages
`
`number, that's the damages number he's presenting today.
`
`So he had the opportunity to ask why that date,
`
`and he didn't. And so we object to him using testimony
`
`from the proceeding to try to add detail, well, as to why
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 14 of 400 PageID #: 56015
` 1136
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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 date was appropriate.
`
`THE COURT: Wait. Let me just ask you about
`
`what you just said. You're saying this 2022 report,
`
`there's a scenario where he analyzed that STS, but not
`
`Contact Detectors and Quick Action was accused?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Where is that?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: That's in Paragraph 30 and
`
`175. In Paragraph 30, he says, "I have also been asked to
`
`consider an alternative scenario in which only STS is
`
`found to be properly accused of infringement such that the
`
`hypothetical negotiation would have taken place around
`
`December 5, 2017."
`
`THE COURT: Give me a minute.
`
`So Counsel, did or did he not analyze what the
`
`royalty would be -- or respond to Mr. Weinstein's
`
`calculation? You know what I'm asking.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes, yes.
`
`THE COURT: Tell me what I'm asking, and then
`
`tell me the answer.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: There's two issues here.
`
`Mr. Kidder did put forth an STS calculation under
`
`Mr. Kidder's own model. And Mr. Kidder's own model is
`
`really not dependent on the number of units. He did not
`
`have the opportunity to present an STS under
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 15 of 400 PageID #: 56016
` 1137
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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. Weinstein's new model. And that's really the
`
`distinction here.
`
`Mr. Weinstein's new model depends totally on
`
`units. On cross-examination he admitted if the units were
`
`wrong, the numbers were wrong. And that was squarely not
`
`in front of Mr. Kidder in his 2022 report.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. That was what I was asking,
`
`and I appreciate the answer.
`
`Counsel?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, Mr. Weinstein's
`
`model never changed. It has always been based on units.
`
`And Mr. Kidder's responsive report is -- knew exactly what
`
`Mr. Weinstein was disclosing.
`
`In Paragraph 175 of his supplemental report, he
`
`says he's been asked to consider -- and he's always had a
`
`different model. He has a revenue-based model -- now, it
`
`does apportion based on a number of installed units, and
`
`we'll get to that.
`
`But he's always had that model. Mr. Weinstein
`
`always had a download-based model. But in Paragraph 175,
`
`you can see -- and in the tables -- Paragraph 175, he
`
`said, "I was asked to consider a scenario in which the
`
`data of first alleged infringement was no earlier than
`
`December 5, 2017, when STS was enabled to Android."
`
`He says, "Under this scenario, the base of
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 16 of 400 PageID #: 56017
` 1138
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`accused devices and downloads would be smaller, and would
`
`therefore result in a greater downward adjustment for
`
`extensive used relative to Microsoft, Samsung, and Apple."
`
`And he offers a damages, a lump sum payment damages number
`
`of $500,000, which based on the slides, I understand, is
`
`the number he's going to be sponsoring today.
`
`And then in the Exhibit 5 to the report, you
`
`can see -- in the Exhibit 5.0, to the supplemental
`
`reports, he can see that he has listed all the downloads
`
`for 2017 and 2018 for all of the apps.
`
`And at that time, he was responding to
`
`Mr. Weinstein's report that was STS only for the 12 of the
`
`13 apps. That he went ahead and assumed, what if it was
`
`STS only for everything.
`
`The $500,000 that he came up with in his
`
`September '22 report is what he's presenting today. It's
`
`the same analysis he planned for that, and that's why it's
`
`already disclosed in his report. It's not something that
`
`he didn't foresee coming.
`
`That's -- the December 2017 date forward, for
`
`all applications, that is what he opined about in 2020 --
`
`in this 2022 report; assuming that there would be only STS
`
`accused, no Content Data Detectors, no CQSA.
`
`He's responding to and providing an opinion
`
`about an STS-only scenario.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 17 of 400 PageID #: 56018
` 1139
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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. PETERMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Kidder --
`
`THE COURT: So we've got multiple things going
`
`on here. So we've kind of moved on from what we were
`
`talking about with respect to these three slides. So...
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, with -- yeah, with
`
`respect to those three slides, I think the issue is that
`
`he was instructed to look at a December 2017 hypothetical
`
`negotiation date for this alternative STS-only scenario.
`
`And that's fine that he was instructed to use that.
`
`Well, now he wants to say this is the reason
`
`that date was chosen, there was a source code release,
`
`there as maintenance release. That's not in his report.
`
`There's nothing about that in there, even though he does
`
`say he relies on this December report.
`
`THE COURT: Right. But we've got two things
`
`going on here that he's going to testify about. He's
`
`going to testify about his own opinion, and he's also
`
`going to testify about his reaction to your expert's
`
`opinion. And so maybe that doesn't change what his own
`
`opinion is, but certainly I think he should be allowed to
`
`testify about his reaction to Arendi's opinion.
`
`And these three slides, I don't have a problem
`
`with. Let's keep going.
`
`Actually, let me ask Ms. Garfinkel, do we have
`
`all the jurors here?
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 18 of 400 PageID #: 56019
` 1140
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`All right. Let's take a break from this, and
`
`we will take it up later.
`
`Bring the jury in.
`
`THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`(The jury enters the courtroom at 8:44 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Please have a seat.
`
`Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
`
`Please be seated.
`
`Welcome back. I hope everyone had a restful
`
`weekend. We are going to continue today with the
`
`testimony.
`
`Let's have Google call its next witness.
`
`MS. ROBERTS: Your Honor, Google calls
`
`Dr. Edward Fox.
`
`THE CLERK: Please approach.
`
`Please state and spell your name for the
`
`record.
`
`F-O-X.
`
`THE WITNESS: Edward Fox Edward, E-D-W-A-R-D,
`
`EDWARD FOX, having been called as a witness, being
`
`first duly sworn under oath or affirmed, testified as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`THE CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 19 of 400 PageID #: 56020
` 1141
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION.
`
`MS. ROBERTS: Your Honor, may I approach with
`
`binders?
`
`THE COURT: Yes, please.
`
`BY MS. ROBERTS:
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning.
`
`A.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Q.
`
`Would you please introduce yourself to the jury.
`
`A.
`
`Good morning. My name is Edward Fox. I live in
`
`Blacksburg, Virginia with my wife of 51 years, and we've
`
`raised four children and occasionally have our four
`
`grandchildren visit us.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you prepare some demonstratives to assist with
`
`your testimony today?
`
`A.
`
`I did. I have an hour-long, a little bit shorter
`
`than some of the classes I teach.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you please describe your educational background
`
`to the jury.
`
`A.
`
`In 1965, I started taking courses at Columbia
`
`University and Stevens Institute of Technology. In 1967,
`
`I started at MIT, where I began as a math major. I wanted
`
`to work with computers. They didn't have a computer
`
`science program back then. And so when the
`
`electro-engineering department decided to offer a computer
`
`science election, I switched to electro-engineering. And
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 20 of 400 PageID #: 56021
` 1142
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`so I worked in IT.
`
`I was really fortunate to have a good friend, Bob
`
`Frankston, who of the one of the two inventors of
`
`spreadsheets, and as my undergraduate advisor, I had a
`
`person named J.C.R. Licklider. He is often called the
`
`grandfather of the Internet because of his work leading to
`
`funding of the first Internet activities. Also, one on
`
`the founders in the field of hemorrhage computer tracks.
`
`So I had a wonderful mentor when I was undergraduate
`
`student at MIT in the electro-engineering department.
`
`Q.
`
`And did you obtain a degree from MIT?
`
`A.
`
`I finished my bachelors of science in 1972. I spent
`
`six years in South Carolina. My wife, who then was going
`
`to Harvard, had a wonderful job there, so I went to join
`
`her. And I spent a year teaching at a two-year college,
`
`and then I spent six years in a steel joist manufacturing
`
`plant running and developing software systems.
`
`I decided at that point that I had done all I could
`
`do and I wanted to pursue the field of information
`
`retrieval -- search engines, finding things -- then I
`
`started doing my bachelors thesis at MIT. So I picked
`
`Cornell University, where the world leader of the father
`
`of information retrieval was there so I could work with
`
`him. So I start in 1978 at Cornell university. I
`
`finished my master's in 1981 and my PhD in 1983.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 21 of 400 PageID #: 56022
` 1143
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`Q.
`
`Can you describe your professional background for the
`
`jury?
`
`A.
`
`So tomorrow I finish the last class of my 40th year
`
`of Virginia Tech as a faculty member in computer science,
`
`and then I proceed with grading all of their student
`
`projects. There's twenty-two teams that I'm working with
`
`this semester in a Capstone computer science course.
`
`Along the way, I've served as a volunteer on a number
`
`of different editorial boards. One of boards I was
`
`elected to is the Computing Research Association board,
`
`which represents the computer research community for the
`
`whole U.S. In addition to that, I've, over the years,
`
`participated and helped assessing submissions and so forth
`
`at hundreds of conferences and workshops.
`
`And at Virginia Tech, I won a number of awards. One
`
`for teaching innovation, one for service, and most
`
`recently one as a commercialization champion because I
`
`worked with a lot of students filing different preliminary
`
`and patent applications, including one that's been issued
`
`so far.
`
`I've also working with my students and my colleagues.
`
`I've done a lot of publications of all different types and
`
`have been fortunate to travel all around the world giving
`
`talks. If you add all the numbers that are listed there,
`
`it's well over 1100. So many different things I've been
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 22 of 400 PageID #: 56023
` 1144
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`involved in.
`
`Because of that, the Association for Computing,
`
`NIEEE, one of the professional societies, has designated
`
`me as a fellow, as has ACM, the other big computer society
`
`that I joined in 1967. ACM has also added me to the
`
`Academy for Information Retrieval, which is the leaders in
`
`the field of information retrieval.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you being compensated for your work on this case?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. I'm being compensated on an hourly basis.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of
`
`this matter?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`MS. ROBERTS: Your Honor, I'd like to tender
`
`Docs as an expert in the art.
`
`MR. LAHAD: No objection, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Dr Fox is accepted as
`
`an expert.
`
`BY MS. ROBERTS:
`
`Q.
`
`Dr. Fox, what were you asked to do in this case?
`
`A.
`
`I was asked to provide my expert opinion concerning
`
`the validity of the asserted claims of the '843 patent and
`
`as to the possible benefit of Arendi's inventions over the
`
`prior art methods that existed.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you please explain to the jury what work you did
`
`to reach your opinions.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 23 of 400 PageID #: 56024
` 1145
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`A.
`
`I did a lot of work starting in 2019 up until this --
`
`up until this morning. I studied the '843 patent and its
`
`asserted claims. I studied what's called the file history
`
`or the prosecution history, which is a big binder that I
`
`have sitting in front of me, which is all of the
`
`documentation from the time the patent was filed until it
`
`was issued.
`
`In that, I noted there's a passage that points to
`
`Arendi's Petition for Accelerated Examination Support that
`
`it filed during the prosecution of the '356 patent, which
`
`happens to share the same specification as the '843 patent
`
`that we are considering in this litigation.
`
`As I do with my students, I studied the prior art up
`
`to the period of 1997 because I like them to know what
`
`happened years ago. I also studied specific pieces of
`
`prior art describing prior art systems. I studied the
`
`deposition transcripts. We've heard testimony here from
`
`Anind Dey, James Miller, and Atle Hedloy.
`
`I traveled to California just as COVID was getting
`
`started -- just made it out in time -- and inspected two
`
`PowerBook systems, which we've heard about that James
`
`Miller talked about and that he purchased and put software
`
`on, so that I would understand the systems as they stood
`
`from Apple Data Detectors. I also interviewed Mike
`
`Pinkerton, who was a student at the same time as Anind Dey
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 24 of 400 PageID #: 56025
` 1146
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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 whose thesis I studied as well.
`
`Q.
`
`What opinions did you reach?
`
`A.
`
`So my opinion is that the asserted claims of the '843
`
`patent are invalid. And I base this on two things.
`
`First, is that they with anticipated by the CyberDesk
`
`system. In other words, Anind Dey did it first. Also,
`
`they were obvious in light of three prior art systems.
`
`For example, Apple makes this obvious through its data
`
`detectors. And the three systems I considered are
`
`CyberDesk, Apple Data Detectors, and very common thing we
`
`all are familiar with, Microsoft Word, but back in 1997.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you give the jury a high level overview of the
`
`basis for your opinion?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. There were four points that I wanted to make
`
`about this. The first is that Arendi admits that the
`
`so-called shortcut elements of the asserted claims were
`
`well known in the prior art. And we'll talk about what
`
`those are. But just to quickly summarize what they are,
`
`they're listed here.
`
`The first is that analyzing text to find types of
`
`information. The second is providing an input device for
`
`a user command to act on identified information. The
`
`third is receiving from it an input device, a command to
`
`act on identified information. The fourth is causing a
`
`search for the identified information to find the
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 25 of 400 PageID #: 56026
` 1147
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`associated information. And the fifth is performing
`
`action, at least -- using at least part of the found
`
`second information. These are all the pieces of this
`
`so-called shortcut.
`
`Q.
`
`What is the second important point supporting your
`
`opinion?
`
`A.
`
`The second point is that the '843 patent's
`
`requirement to put instructions all in one program was a
`
`very obvious choice and one of very few available design
`
`choices. This makes clear and obvious argument, which
`
`makes the patent invalid. But there's more; there's two
`
`more points.
`
`Q.
`
`All right. Can you tell us what the third important
`
`point is?
`
`A.
`
`The third point is that Arendi's principal argument
`
`to the Patent Office that allowed it to get the patent was
`
`that the prior art used instructions to set up the input
`
`device and receive the user commands that were separate
`
`from the document editing program. Arendi's invention
`
`required the instructions for those actions to be fully
`
`inside the first computer program.
`
`Q.
`
`What is the fourth important point supporting your
`
`opinion?
`
`A.
`
`In spite of that, Arendi is now arguing that Google's
`
`products are covered by the '843 patent's claims. You
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 547-2 Filed 05/10/23 Page 26 of 400 PageID #: 56027
` 1148
`Draft Transcript
`
` 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
`
`heard last week from the experts who built the systems
`
`that Google's products use instructions that are separate
`
`from the document editing program.
`
`Arendi's arguments contradict its statements to the
`
`Patent Office. If we apply these new arguments, then the
`
`'843 patent claims cover the prior art CyberDesk and Apple
`
`Data Detectors systems, and, therefore, make the patent
`
`invalid.
`
`Q.
`
`So let's delve into those specific four points. What
`
`do you mean that Arendi
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
