`
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CA NO. 16-453-RGA,
`16-454-RGA,
`16-455-RGA
`
`December 4, 2017
`
`: : : : : : : :
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`10:06 o'clock a.m.
`
`
`
`: :
`
`Defendant,
`.............................
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON
`BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ
`BY: ALAN R. SILVERSTEIN, ESQ
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 114 PageID #: 23037
`
`
`2
`
`For Defendant:
`
`-and-
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`BY: AARON M. FRANKEL, ESQ
`BY: PAUL J. ANDRE, ESQ
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`BY: JACK B. BLUMENFELD, ESQ
`-and-
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`BY: MICHAEL A. TOMASULO, ESQ
`BY: MICHAEL M. MURRAY, ESQ
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`LEONARD A. DIBBS
`Official Court Reporter
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 114 PageID #: 23038
`
`
`3
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(The proceedings occurred at 10:06 o'clock a.m. as
`
`follows:)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning and please be seated.
`This is a Markman Hearing in Acceleration Bay v.
`Activision Blizzard, Civil Action No. 16-453, plus the two
`related cases.
`Mr. Rover, good morning.
`MR. ROVNER: Good morning, your Honor.
`For the record, Phil Rovner from Potter, Anderson for
`plaintiff for Acceleration Bay.
`With me from Kramer Levin is Paul Andre and Aaron
`Frankel.
`MR. FRANKEL: Good morning, your Honor.
`MR. ROVNER: And also Alan Silverstein from my firm.
`MR. SILVERSTEIN: Good morning, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Good morning to you all.
`Mr. Blumenfeld.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Good morning, your Honor.
`Jack Blumenfeld from Morris Nichols for the defendants
`along with Mike Tomasulo.
`MR. TOMASULO: Good morning, your Honor.
`MR. ROVNER: Mike Murray.
`MR. MURRAY: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`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
`
`10:05:56
`
`10:06:15
`
`10:06:23
`
`10:06:31
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 4 of 114 PageID #: 23039
`
`
`4
`
`MR. ROVNER: And J.C. Masullo, all from Winston &
`Strawn for the defendants today.
`And, again, with your Honor's permission, Mr. Tomasulo
`and Mr. Murray will be splitting the issues.
`THE COURT: Sure. That's fine.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`All right.
`So, let's begin.
`MR. ANDRE: Good morning, your Honor.
`Paul Andre for Acceleration Bay. I have some slides to
`hand up to you.
`THE COURT: Sure.
`MR. ANDRE: Mr. Frankel and I will be splitting up the
`terms today. We're going in the chronological order set out in
`the briefing, and we'll take turns with defense counsel as we go
`through them.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ANDRE: As your Honor knows, this is the third
`Markman Hearing we've had in this case, or in these series of
`cases, and they involve six patents.
`Now, these six patents are very, very different. They
`cover the same subject area, but they do it in very different
`ways.
`
`With the constructions that are proposed by defendants,
`
`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
`
`10:06:57
`
`10:07:07
`
`10:07:26
`
`10:07:40
`
`10:07:56
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 5 of 114 PageID #: 23040
`
`
`5
`
`they have taken this process and taken ordinary terms and made
`them extraordinary. They have given them special construction
`where none exist.
`I have the task of taking the first term of connection.
`Now, connection is a pretty straightforward term.
`People in ordinary, daily use, use the word connection.
`People in science use connection. There is nothing special
`about this. It deserves its ordinary meaning.
`Now, in this case, your Honor asked, well, what is the
`ordinary meaning of connection?
`It's just a link connecting two things together. There
`is nothing in the prosecution history. There's nothing in the
`specification. There's nothing anywhere that would take it
`outside of its ordinary meaning.
`THE COURT: So, Page 12 in the brief, there's a diagram
`-and I'm sure you have it in your slides somewhere -- of Figure
`1 from the '344 patent.
`Yes.
`Are A and D connected to each other?
`MR. ANDRE: Indirectly.
`THE COURT: Well, are they connected within the meaning
`of the claims?
`MR. FRANKEL: No, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`Thank you, Mr. Frankel.
`
`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
`
`10:08:14
`
`10:08:36
`
`10:08:50
`
`10:09:08
`
`10:09:17
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 6 of 114 PageID #: 23041
`
`
`6
`
`Well, that's a start.
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, you ask me those kinds of
`questions, and I have to check with Mr. Frankel, you know,
`because he's the one who -- -
`THE COURT: No, that's all right.
`It's much better to got the team's answer than an
`
`answer.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Yes. Well, and going back to the term
`itself, you know, if you look at the way the defendants proposed
`to construe it, they -- a point-to-point network channel
`maintained between the unique addresses of two participants,
`which data can be sent and received.
`That's a very, very specific type of connection. And
`they use the TCP/IP protocol as this definition of what a
`connection is. They say that the claims are limited to those
`types of connections.
`When, in fact, throughout the prosecution history, in
`the specifications and the claims, there are numerous types of
`connections.
`And the way I look at these claims -- and we talked
`about this in the first Markman Hearing -- there are things --
`this is a very dynamic network.
`People come, they join, they leave, connections are
`changing all the time. They give a very rigid point-to-point
`network channel.
`
`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
`
`10:09:30
`
`10:09:47
`
`10:10:05
`
`10:10:16
`
`10:10:34
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 7 of 114 PageID #: 23042
`
`
`7
`
`Connection, the way they're trying to do it here, is
`just improper.
`THE COURT: Well, so, you say the connections change
`all the time, but -- and that's something that is possibly the
`defendants will agree with you -- I dont know -- but it seems a
`perfectly reasonable thing to say -- but at any particular time,
`you know, some computers and participants are connected to other
`computers or participants and sometimes they're not, right?
`MR. ANDRE: That's correct.
`THE COURT: And, so, when they are connected to other
`computers, how are they connected?
`MR. ANDRE: Well, they can be -- the patent talks about
`two different types of connections; internal connections and
`external connections. And the internal connections, those are
`different than the external connections. They are not this
`point-to-point network channel maintained through unique
`addresses of two participants.
`THE COURT: Well, and that may be, but what are they?
`You know, saying there's external connections and
`internal connections, that doesn't help me understand very much
`what you mean when you say "connections," you know, based on the
`first answer or the first question I had.
`You know, you are saying that connection doesn't -- is
`not something that necessarily that -- that people would be part
`of the network -- not people -- that computers could be part of
`
`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
`
`10:10:49
`
`10:11:10
`
`10:11:27
`
`10:11:40
`
`10:12:06
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 8 of 114 PageID #: 23043
`
`
`8
`
`the network and not necessarily be connected to each other,
`okay, you know, that is something that is not a connection.
`But what is the connection in the network?
`MR. ANDRE: Well, a connection is just -- is defined by
`the claims themselves.
`I put up the example of Claim 13 of the '344 patent.
`And what it is, is just a link between participants
`that allows the exchange of data, the direct exchange of data.
`THE COURT: I'm sorry.
`It allows the direct exchange of data?
`MR. ANDRE: Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ANDRE: And that's all connection is. There is
`nothing more to this. I mean, I guess that's way I --
`THE COURT: And, so, in the defendants proposed
`constructions that are on Page 14 of the joint brief -- and what
`you have up there -- you've got some stuff bolded in defendants'
`proposed construction.
`The part where they say, "through which date can be
`sent and received," I take it you don't, in particular, object
`to that?
`MR. ANDRE: Not in particular.
`The issue we have is the point-to-point network channel
`maintained between the unique addresses of two participants.
`THE COURT: And if the unique addresses the two
`
`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
`
`10:12:20
`
`10:12:34
`
`10:12:40
`
`10:13:13
`
`10:13:27
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 9 of 114 PageID #: 23044
`
`
`9
`
`participants was taken out, because I understand your objection
`to that is -- well, actually it's helpful for me to hear you say
`what your objection to that is, because I guess at least one
`objection, I think of yours to that is that because of this
`dynamic changing of things, there's a suggestion in that
`construction that maybe these connections are fixed more than
`you want -- than you think the claims require, or might just
`lead the jury, or something like that.
`So, I understand that objection.
`I guess what I'm wondering is, does the port, whether
`it's internal or external, that's connected to some other
`computer, those ports, they do have unique addresses, right?
`MR. ANDRE: They would have unique addresses, I
`believe, but not in the way we're talking about here.
`I mean, that's not my understanding. Mr. Frankel can
`go through this chapter and verse. I'm sure Mr. Hannah, if he
`wasn't in Hawaii right now, would be doing this instead of me.
`He's on a preplanned vacation, unfortunately.
`THE COURT: Well, any time Mr. Frankel wants to stand
`up and overrule you, he can stand up and do it, okay?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, your Honor, I'm addressing the next
`term neighbors, which is related.
`I can get to that point then or, if you would like, I
`can speak to it briefly now?
`THE COURT: Well, why don't you address it now, because
`
`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
`
`10:13:53
`
`10:14:15
`
`10:14:42
`
`10:14:57
`
`10:15:12
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 10 of 114 PageID #: 23045
`
`
`10
`
`maybe it would help -- sorry, Mr. Andre --
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, anytime he throws me a life
`line, I tend to grab it.
`MR. FRANKEL: Your Honor, the issue with requiring,
`with the focus on the unique address, is that depending on the
`protocol that is being used, it's not necessarily based on the
`unique addressing.
`There is also network address translation issues
`referred to as NAT where people who are communicating are behind
`the firewall.
`So, the message gets sent to the firewall, it gets
`translated, it goes to the individual behind the firewall who's
`intended to receive the message.
`These are the type of --
`THE COURT: But the person who is behind the firewall,
`they have a unique address, too, right?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, every computer has a unique
`
`address.
`
`THE COURT: That's what I thought.
`So, it is not the fact that they are talking about
`unique addresses -- that you think it's -- you don't think that
`is technically incorrect, the fact that each person -- each
`computer that is sending or receiving something has a unique
`address.
`
`Your concern with that is something else, right?
`
`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
`
`10:15:32
`
`10:15:50
`
`10:16:01
`
`10:16:16
`
`10:16:34
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 11 of 114 PageID #: 23046
`
`
`11
`
`MR. FRANKEL: Correct, your Honor.
`The communications -- defendants' construction is that
`the channel maintains between the unique addresses.
`I'm not sure that I understand what that means. I
`doubt that the jury would understand what that means. It seems
`to be implying that the communication protocol has to
`specifically be using the unique address of the intended
`recipient.
`And there are many communication schemes such as the
`NAT translation issue that I raised where that would not
`necessarily be the case, so that --
`THE COURT: So, if the defendants' construction was a
`point-to-point network channel between two unique addresses, and
`you got rid of the word "maintained," would that sort of remove
`your concern about the unique addresses?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, if I understand the Court
`correctly, you're saying that every computer has a unique
`address.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I think we all agree that's a fact.
`MR. FRANKEL: Right.
`But what's the benefit in terms of explaining this to
`the jury?
`THE COURT: No, no, no, I -- well, that's a reasonable
`question, Mr. Frankel.
`But what I'm actually trying to figure out is, whether
`
`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
`
`10:16:49
`
`10:17:02
`
`10:17:37
`
`10:17:50
`
`10:18:01
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 12 of 114 PageID #: 23047
`
`
`12
`
`we're just arguing about language here and how to convey
`something to the jury, or whether it should be conveyed to the
`jury, or whether the defendants are technically incorrect?
`MR. FRANKEL: The reason the defendants are technically
`incorrect as to the unique address is that often when there's an
`address translation protocol that is being used, the two parties
`communicating don't know the final destination address of the
`other party.
`THE COURT: But, nevertheless, there is a final
`destination address out there?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, that's something like the tree
`falling in the forest with no one around to hear it. And that
`the other -- the counter party to the communication may not be
`aware of that final address.
`So, to put that unique address in the claim limitation
`is implying that it would need to be aware of that final
`address.
`And I don't want to get into infringement issues, but I
`assume that's why the defendants are trying to include that in
`the construction.
`We're not -- I don't think anyone is debating the fact
`that when a computer is connected to the internet or another
`network, it does have a unique address. Sometimes computers
`aren't even aware of their own address and they have to go to
`another server to learn it, which is confusing, but not really
`
`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
`
`10:18:20
`
`10:18:40
`
`10:18:58
`
`10:19:12
`
`10:19:27
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 13 of 114 PageID #: 23048
`
`
`13
`
`relevant to the basic point here that the connection is just two
`computers or processes are exchanging data.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`I think what you've said so far is helpful about the --
`between the unique addresses.
`What about the point-to-point? When two computers are
`connected, are they -- and I gather from the answer in regards
`to the diagram in Figure 1, that means they are directly
`connected, directly able to send the data to each other, right?
`MR. FRANKEL: To answer that, I would point out that
`Figure 1 is not a literal diagram.
`For example, these lines don't represent a dedicated
`cable that's connecting the two. If the network is implemented
`over the internet, which is one of the preferred embodiments
`disclosed, there could be 50 routers and other computers along
`the edge.
`I think that what the edge represents in this context
`is that A is talking to E directly in the sense that A and E are
`communicating without going through another participant in the
`network.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. FRANKEL: Not that they are directly talking
`without going through any routers or other computers along the
`way. Just that looking at the participants of the network only,
`A is directly going to E.
`
`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
`
`10:19:49
`
`10:20:30
`
`10:20:49
`
`10:21:06
`
`10:21:16
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 14 of 114 PageID #: 23049
`
`
`14
`
`Whereas, A and B, when they exchange information, it's
`through another participant in the network. That's the sense
`that it's direct or indirect.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. FRANKEL: That's why -- that's another reason why
`we think no construction is necessary, given that that's what is
`set forth in the claims themselves.
`But the -- yes?
`THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt, because you're
`saying helpful stuff here.
`But, so, if you look at that and taking -- bearing in
`mind what you said about routers and such -- is that your idea
`-- and bear in mind what you said earlier in response to my
`question that A is not connected to B, but and A is connected to
`E -- how do you distinguish in a way that would make sense to
`the jury why A is connected to E, but it's connected to B?
`MR. FRANKEL: So, your Honor, the distinction that I
`would make is that A communicates with E without going through
`other participants in the network, but for A to exchange a
`message with B, it has to go through another participant in the
`network.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`That's, again, helpful.
`So, let me ask about that, because this is actually the
`question I meant to ask.
`
`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
`
`10:21:29
`
`10:21:42
`
`10:22:19
`
`10:22:42
`
`10:22:53
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 15 of 114 PageID #: 23050
`
`
`15
`
`Are A and B neighbors?
`MR. FRANKEL: No.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. FRANKEL: For the same reason, your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right.
`Is there anything else -- taking of the time from Mr.
`Andre here -- is there anything else that either of you want say
`about the connection and neighbor terms?
`MR. ANDRE: The neighbor term, I'll let from Mr.
`Frankel talk more about that.
`The only thing I would say with the -- the last things
`I want to talk about -- I have two things that I want to talk
`about in terms of connection.
`One is a claim differentiation issue.
`The defendants are the TCP/IP protocol. And that's
`where they get their definition from.
`If you look in Claim 1 of the '069 patent, you see here
`that there is a connection there. And then the connections and
`the Dependant Claims talk about TCP/IP and the internet.
`So, just under the law of claim differentiation, you
`can't have a connection in Claim 1 do the same thing as the
`connections in Claims 11 and 12.
`That's one important point.
`THE COURT: But -- you know, my impression of the claim
`differentiation argument for this at least is, neither side has
`
`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
`
`10:23:02
`
`10:23:17
`
`10:23:31
`
`10:23:47
`
`10:24:01
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 16 of 114 PageID #: 23051
`
`
`16
`
`a point. At least looking at Dependent Claim 12 I think one or
`the other -- and I don't remember who -- said, well, there are
`other kinds of connections systems besides TCP/IP.
`So, it's not something where, you know, saying it's a
`particular form of connection, says anything about whether or
`not the Independent Claim were talking about connections, or
`what connection was.
`MR. ANDRE: Right.
`THE COURT: But, so, you really can't argue claim
`differentiation, because one is a very particular thing.
`And, so, that doesn't say much about what the more
`general term in Claim 1 is.
`MR. ANDRE: I think what we're trying to say is that
`defendants' proposed construction is based on TCP/IP, and that's
`an Independent Claim.
`So, that's our claim differentiation argument.
`And, lastly, is the -- the last thing I want to point
`out is the -- in the IPRs.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ANDRE: Now, I don't think that what the PTAB does
`has any bearing here whatsoever, or what the defendants argued
`to the PTAB do. I think this kind of goes to the good faith
`argument I mentioned earlier.
`They argued in the IPR that connections should be given
`its ordinary meaning, its plain meaning, and if it did have a
`
`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
`
`10:24:36
`
`10:24:52
`
`10:25:10
`
`10:25:25
`
`10:25:40
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 17 of 114 PageID #: 23052
`
`
`17
`
`special meaning. Now, there are different interpretation
`standards.
`There's the broadest reasonable interpretation versus
`how to look at it here.
`Nonetheless, even under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, if a meaning has anything special to it, it has
`a special meaning. You have to give it that special meaning.
`You just can't ignore the special meaning that it has.
`And, in this particular case, the defendants were
`petitioners, as they were in the IPRs, they argued for the plain
`meaning.
`
`Now, whether they got it or not, if they did it doesn't
`matter. They said, I only care what the PTAB does.
`I don't think it's good faith to say in the one body,
`the PTAB, they argue for the plain meaning, and then come to
`this Court and say it's not the plain meaning. There's a
`special meaning.
`That's beyond the pale.
`I'll let Mr. Frankel talk about neighbors, unless you
`have any questions about that issue?
`THE COURT: Well, my observation generally is, each
`side will take the opposite position in the PTAB, surprise.
`So, in any event, I'll hear from Mr. Frankel. If he
`has anything to say in addition about neighbors, though I think
`he's already covered that.
`
`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
`
`10:25:53
`
`10:26:06
`
`10:26:23
`
`10:26:34
`
`10:26:52
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 18 of 114 PageID #: 23053
`
`
`18
`
`MR. FRANKEL: Your Honor, we have mostly addressed the
`issues with neighbors.
`The dispute between the parties for this term is, if
`the participants have to agree to maintain a connection --
`THE COURT: And, so, in that regard, it seemed to be
`the case possibly -- and I wanted to confirm -- that the way
`this works is, they do -- the connection is formed by this
`handshake agreement, right?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, that's certainly the case for the
`TCP/IP protocol that defendants are trying to read into the
`claims.
`
`THE COURT: But not to some other protocols?
`MR. FRANKEL: That's correct, your Honor.
`There are different types of protocols.
`There are these connection oriented protocols,
`connectionless protocols. I'm not aware of every protocol under
`the sun.
`The claims are not --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Frankel.
`When you say "connectionless protocols" or
`"connectionless," what do you mean?
`MR. FRANKEL: There are different families of
`protocols, but some do not require a fixed agreement to maintain
`a channel.
`So, the messages are being sent, but there is more
`
`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
`
`10:27:12
`
`10:27:34
`
`10:27:46
`
`10:27:58
`
`10:28:14
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 19 of 114 PageID #: 23054
`
`
`19
`
`freedom for the path that they can take to get from one point to
`the other.
`THE COURT: And do you say that a connectionless
`protocol is something that is included in a patent that claims a
`connection?
`MR. FRANKEL: That's correct.
`Even a connectionless protocol is used to connect
`participants in the sense that they are exchanging data. And
`that is what is required by the patents. That's what is
`required by the claims in particular.
`And going back to go Figure 1, which everyone seems to
`agree is how you determine who the neighbors are and who's
`connected. Again, it's that the data is either being exchanged
`directly in the sense that it's not going through other
`participants, or indirectly in the sense that it's going from
`one participant to a second, and then on to a third.
`The particular protocol, if there's a handshake that's
`used, if there's not a handshake that is being used, that is not
`relevant to this process here.
`And, as my colleague pointed out, some claims do cover
`a particular protocol and some claims don't, but there is
`nothing in the specification that says this concept can only be
`implemented with a specific type of protocol.
`THE COURT: It requires an agreement.
`So, let's assume for the sake of argument that I agree
`
`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
`
`10:28:34
`
`10:28:51
`
`10:29:10
`
`10:29:28
`
`10:29:47
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 20 of 114 PageID #: 23055
`
`
`20
`
`with you.
`I have to say that I cannot imagine that I would ever
`actually construe neighbor the way you all have proposed
`construing it.
`So, let's assume though that you're right.
`Based on what you said just a few minutes ago, would
`you say that a neighbor is a participant, or a computer that has
`-- that is -- well, actually, it's easier to talk about it in
`the plural.
`The neighbors, would you say that's a pair of
`participants that have a connection that does not go through a
`third participant?
`MR. FRANKEL: Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`If you -- let's assume for the sake of argument that I
`like what you're saying generally, but I hate your proposed
`construction, what would you suggest as an alternative to what
`you have in the brief?
`Something like what I just said.
`MR. FRANKEL: I think what you just said is very well
`said, your Honor.
`THE COURT: I've got a lot of gratuitous compliments
`
`here.
`
`Anything else, Mr. Frankel?
`MR. FRANKEL: Just briefly, your Honor.
`
`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
`
`10:30:04
`
`10:30:36
`
`10:30:52
`
`10:31:06
`
`10:31:17
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 21 of 114 PageID #: 23056
`
`
`21
`
`The characterizations of what was said during the
`prosecution of these claims don't -- the applicants never took a
`position that is contrary to what we just said.
`And, you know, this quote here from Alagar that's in
`the brief that the defendants rely on heavily, all that is being
`said is that Alagar didn't teach a regular network. There was
`nothing in that, you know, distinguishing of Alagar that was
`based on the particular protocol that was being used, or a
`handshake, or an agreement, or anything like that. It was just
`that the number of connections themselves were not regular.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`Thank you, Mr. Frankel.
`THE COURT: Mr. Murray?
`MR. MURRAY: Good morning, your Honor.
`Michael Murray for defendants.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MR. MURRAY: I have some slides.
`May I approach?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. MURRAY: Okay.
`So, I'm going to address connections.
`We can start off by pointing out the plaintiff's
`position that a connection is a link is really kind of a
`meaningless construction. It doesn't provide any clarity as far
`as --
`
`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
`
`10:31:37
`
`10:31:57
`
`10:32:14
`
`10:32:38
`
`10:32:51
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 22 of 114 PageID #: 23057
`
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, I wouldn't spend a lot of time
`attacking plaintiff's construction. I would spend more time
`defending your own.
`MR. MURRAY: Okay.
`So, there are three aspects of our construction that
`are very important.
`The first is that it's a point-to-point connection
`between two nodes, two neighbors, two participants.
`THE COURT: And do you agree with Mr. Frankel that a
`different way of saying that is essentially that they are
`connected without a third participant in the middle?
`MR. MURRAY: Certainly they are connected without a
`third participant in the middle. But the fact that it's a
`point-to-point connection is important, because there are the
`neighbor bonds -- and I will get to that when we talk about
`neighbor. But there's a neighbor bond that is formed between
`two participants. They have to agree to connect and they have
`to maintain that connection.
`THE COURT: Well, so, part of what Mr. Frankel said --
`he used various computer terminology including the word
`"router."
`
`I take it if there are 50 routers in between A and E,
`you don't care, that could still be a point-to-point connection
`under your definition of point-to-point?
`MR. MURRAY: That's right, because A and E still decide
`
`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
`
`10:32:57
`
`10:33:08
`
`10:33:23
`
`10:33:36
`
`10:33:49
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 23 of 114 PageID #: 23058
`
`
`23
`
`and agree that they are going to be neighbors. They are going
`to, you know, share information, so there's a point-to-point
`connection between them. The fact that it goes through some
`routers doesn't matter.
`So, if I'm just sending your Honor an e-mail, right, I
`address that directly to your Honor, that's kind of a
`point-to-point communication. That e-mail can bounce through
`some routers before it gets to you.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. MURRAY: But if I'm not sending it to you, and if
`it's forwarded to Mr. Tomasulo, then I don't have a
`point-to-point connection to Mr. Tomasulo.
`THE COURT: All right.
`So --
`MR. MURRAY: It's point-to-point to you, and then you
`might have a point-to-point connection to Mr. Tomasulo.
`THE COURT: And, so -- keep going, sorry.
`MR. MURRAY: So, point-to-point is important,
`maintaining the connection is also important, and the unique
`address aspect is also important.
`And I didn't hear plaintiff's really disagreeing that
`there are unique addresses there. And that's part of having a
`point-to-point communication is that you need to know that
`address. It's directed to that address.
`THE COURT: Let's assume that firewalls is another term
`
`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
`
`10:34:02
`
`10:34:13
`
`10:34:20
`
`10:34:34
`
`10:34:48
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 24 of 114 PageID #: 23059
`
`
`24
`
`that I vaguely understand. Let's assume there's a firewall
`between A and E.
`Do they still have a point-to-point connection?
`MR. MURRAY: Sure. There still has to be a unique
`address, because it's ultimately going to a particular port.
`THE COURT: So, when the firewall -- let's assume the
`firewall is protecting E.
`Does A know what E's unique address is, or do they use
`some -- do they have to know it, or do they just have to, in a
`way, send out the right signal so that it will get there?
`MR. MURRAY: E has to have a unique address that A is
`aware of, so that A can direct the communication to E.
`Now, that address gets translated into something else
`at the firewall before it ultimately goes to go E. That doesn't
`really matter. There's still a unique address that is being
`used by A to send that point-to-point communication.
`THE COURT: All right.
`So, under your explanation here, if two computers don't
`know or don't have some way of addressing something to get it to
`this unique address, is there any way that this system could
`work?
`
`MR. MURRAY: I can't think of one.
`In order to be neighbors -- and the whole point of this
`system is that, first of all, it's an m-regular. These claims
`are all m-regulars. That each participant has m-neighbors 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
`
`10:35:12
`
`10:35:32
`
`10:35:48
`
`10:36:23
`
`10:36:39
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 25 of 114 PageID #: 23060
`
`
`25
`
`they are going to send communications, or there's certain data
`that they want to broadcast throughout the network, so you're
`going to have direct that data to each of your neighbors.
`So, you have to be able to address that data to each of
`those neighbors. You have to know the address of the neighbor.
`THE COURT: I guess maybe a different way of asking the
`question, Mr. Murray is, if I'm -- can I send something
`point-to-point if I don't know the address of the point that I'm
`sending it to?
`MR. MURRAY: You have to have -- no