Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 1 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 1 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 2 of 42
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`In re:
` Docket #14cv2396 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: Docket #14cv9558
` NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
` - against -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: New York, New York
` GOOGLE, LLC, et al.,
`
` October 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Defendants.
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`------------------------------------- :
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
`THE HONORABLE SARAH NETBURN,
` UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`BY: CHARLES MACEDO, ESQ.
`90 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`BY: AMY HAYDEN, ESQ.
` MARC FENSTER, ESQ.
` BRIAN LEDAHL, ESQ.
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`
`For Defendants:
`BY: ANDREW TRASK, ESQ.
`
`
`
`
`
` GRAHAM SAFTY, ESQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`725 12th Street N.W.
`
`
`
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services
`
`
`
`
`
`155 East Fourth Street #3C
`
`
`
`
`
`New York, New York 10009
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: (212) 420-0771
`
`
`
`
`
`Email: Transcription420@aol.com
`
`
`Proceedings conducted telephonically and recorded by
`electronic sound recording;
`Transcript produced by transcription service.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 3 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E X A M I N A T I O N S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Direct
`
`
`
`Cross
`
` Re-
`Direct
`
` Re-
`Cross
`
`
`
`Witness
`
`None
`
`
`E X H I B I T S
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`None
`
`
`
`
`
` Description
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ID
`
`Voir
`
`In Dire
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 4 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 4 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`3
`3
`
`HONORABLE SARAH NETBURN (THE COURT):
`--
`H O NO RA BL E SA RA H N ET BU RN ( TH E CO U RT ): --
`
`everybody,
`this is Judge Netburn. This case is Network-
`e v er yb od y, t hi s i s Ju dg e Ne tb ur n . Th is c as e is Ne tw or k -
`
`1 Technologies versus Google, et al. The docket number
`1 Te ch no lo gi es v e rs us G oo gl e, e t a l. T he d oc ke t n um be r
`
`is 14cv9558 and 14cv2396.
`i s 1 4c v9 55 8 an d 1 4c v2 39 6.
`
`Can I ask counsel for plaintiff, Network-l,
` Ca n I as k co un s el f or p la in ti f f, N et wo rk -1 ,
`
`to state her appearance.
`t o s ta te h er a pp e ar an ce .
`
`MR. BRIAN LEDAHL:
`Thank you, Your Honor,
`it’s
`M R . BR IA N LE DA HL : Th an k yo u, Y o ur H on or , it ’s
`
`Brian Ledahl
`from Russ August
`& Kabat on behalf of
`B r ia n Le da hl f ro m R us s Au gu st & Ka ba t on b eh al f o f
`
`Network-1.
`I believe also on the call on our side are
`N e tw or k- 1. I b el i ev e al so o n th e c al l on o ur s i de a re
`
`my colleagues, Marc Fenster and Amy Hayden from my
`m y c ol le ag ue s, M a rc F en st er a nd Am y Ha yd en f ro m m y
`
`firm, and Charles Macedo from the Amster Rothstein
`f i rm , an d Ch ar le s M ac ed o fr om t h e Am st er R ot hs t ei n
`
`firm.
`f i rm .
`
`THE COURT:
`Thank you, good afternoon.
`And on
`T H E CO UR T: Th an k y ou , go od a ft e rn oo n . An d on
`
`behalf of the defendants?
`b e ha lf o f th e de f en da nt s ?
`
`MR. ANDREW TRASK:
`Good afternoon, Your Honor,
`M R . AN DR EW T RA SK : Go od a ft er no o n, Y ou r Ho no r ,
`
`this is Andrew Trask for defendants, Google and YouTube
`t h is i s An dr ew T r as k fo r de fe nd a nt s , G oo gl e an d Y ou Tu be
`
`from Williams & Connolly, and joining me
`is Graham
`f r om W il li am s & C on no ll y, a nd j o in in g me i s Gr a ha m
`
`Safty, as well as Demarron Berkley who is senior
`S a ft y, a s we ll a s D em ar ro n Be rk l ey w ho i s se ni o r
`
`litigation counsel
`in-house at Google.
`l i ti ga ti on c ou ns e l in -h ou se a t G oo gl e.
`
`THE COURT: Great,
`thank you.
`Some
`T H E CO UR T: Gr ea t , th an k yo u. S om e
`
`housekeeping matters,
`I
`am recording today’s
`h o us ek ee pi ng m at t er s, I a m re co r di ng t od ay ’s
`
`conference, we weren’t able to get a court reporter
`c o nf er en ce , we w e re n’ t ab le t o g et a c ou rt r ep o rt er
`
`here because of a radical shortage of court reporters
`h e re b ec au se o f a r ad ic al s ho rt a ge o f co ur t re p or te rs
`
`that we’re facing so I’m recording today’s conference.
`t h at w e’ re f ac in g s o I’ m re co rd i ng t od ay ’s c on f er en ce .
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 5 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 5 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`4
`4
`
`If anyone wants to have a transcript made of the
`I f a ny on e wa nt s t o ha ve a t ra ns c ri pt m ad e of t h e
`
`conference you can request that of my deputy. To
`c o nf er en ce y ou c a n re qu es t th at of m y de pu ty . T o
`
`facilitate that possible transcription, I’1l ask that
`f a ci li ta te t ha t p os si bl e tr an sc r ip ti on , I’ ll a s k th at
`
`the lawyers state their name every time they speak so
`t h e la wy er s st at e t he ir n am e ev e ry t im e th ey s p ea k so
`
`that any transcriber will know to whom to attribute any
`t h at a ny t ra ns cr i be r wi ll k no w t o wh om t o at tr i bu te a ny
`
`statements.
`s t at em en ts .
`
`We are here on the letter that was filed with
`W e a re h er e on t h e le tt er t ha t w as f il ed w it h
`
`Judge Gardephe that he referred to me filed on
`J u dg e Ga rd ep he t h at h e re fe rr ed to m e fi le d on
`
`September 7th,
`it’s a joint letter regarding the
`S e pt em be r 7 t h, i t ’s a j oi nt l et t er r eg ar di ng t h e
`
`supplemental expert report that Network-1’s expert
`s u pp le me nt al e xp e rt r ep or t th at Ne tw or k - 1’ s ex p er t
`
`filed.
`As
`IT understand the landscape,
`this expert
`f i le d. As I u nd e rs ta nd t he l an d sc ap e, t hi s ex p er t
`
`report was developed and served following supplemental
`r e po rt w as d ev el o pe d an d se rv ed fo ll ow in g su pp l em en ta l
`
`discovery which itself was necessitated after Google
`d i sc ov er y wh ic h i ts el f wa s ne ce s si ta te d af te r G oo gl e
`
`announced that it had moved I believe the servers or
`a n no un ce d th at i t h ad m ov ed I b e li ev e th e se rv e rs o r
`
`the relevant technology out of the United States and as
`t h e re le va nt t ec h no lo gy o ut o f t he U ni te d St at e s an d as
`
`a result parties came to me and requested permission
`a re su lt p ar ti es ca me t o me a nd re qu es te d pe rm i ss io n
`
`which was granted to conduct new supplemental discovery
`w h ic h wa s gr an te d t o co nd uc t ne w s up pl em en ta l d is co ve ry
`
`and to allow Network-1,
`if it chose,
`to serve a
`a n d to a ll ow N et w or k - 1, i f it c h os e, t o se rv e a
`
`supplemental expert report based on that supplemental
`s u pp le me nt al e xp e rt r ep or t ba se d o n th at s up pl e me nt al
`
`discovery.
`d i sc ov er y.
`
`Just so I make sure I’ve got
`the history
`J u st s o I ma ke s u re I ’v e go t th e h is to ry
`
`right, does that all sound correct to everybody?
`r i gh t, d oe s th at al l so un d co rr e ct t o ev er yb od y ?
`
`MR. TRASK:
`This is Andrew Trask, Your Honor,
`M R . TR AS K: Th is is A nd re w Tr as k , Yo ur H on or ,
`
`that sounds right to me.
`t h at s ou nd s ri gh t t o me .
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 6 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 6 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`5
`5
`
`MR. LEDAHL: And, Your Honor,
`it’s Brian
`M R . LE DA HL : A nd , Y ou r Ho no r , i t ’s B ri an
`
`Ledahl,
`I
`think generally speaking that is,
`that is
`L e da hl , I th in k g en er al ly s pe ak i ng t ha t is , th a t is
`
`correct from our perspective as well.
`c o rr ec t fr om o ur pe rs pe ct iv e as we ll .
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`My further understanding is
`T H E CO UR T: Ok ay . My f ur th er u n de rs ta nd in g is
`
`that this issue of whether Google might move its
`t h at t hi s is su e o f wh et he r Go og l e mi gh t mo ve i t s
`
`servers was something that was raised or disclosed by
`s e rv er s wa s so me t hi ng t ha t wa s r ai se d or d is cl o se d by
`
`Google as early as 2015, and that that potential move
`G o og le a s ea rl y a s 20 15 , an d th a t th at p ot en ti a l mo ve
`
`was even addressed, even if in amore cursory way, by
`w a s ev en a dd re ss e d, e ve n if i n a m or e cu rs or y w ay , by
`
`Network-1’s expert
`in its December, 2019, report.
`We
`N e tw or k- 1’ s ex pe r t in i ts D ec em b er , 20 19 , re po r t. We
`
`then had the movement and the supplemental discovery.
`I
`t h en h ad t he m ov e me nt a nd t he s u pp le me nt al d is c ov er y. I
`
`further understand that the 216 patent that’s at
`issue
`f u rt he r un de rs ta n d th at t he 2 16 pa te nt t ha t’ s a t is su e
`
`in today’s dispute was never disclosed by Network-1
`i n t od ay ’s d is p u t e wa s ne ve r di s cl os ed b y Ne tw o rk -1
`
`including during the supplemental discovery and was
`i n cl ud in g du ri ng th e su pp le me nt a l di sc ov er y an d w as
`
`first raised as part of this supplemental report.
`f i rs t ra is ed a s p ar t of t hi s su p pl em en ta l re po r t.
`
`Let me
`turn to you, Mr. Ledahl,
`is that
`L e t me t ur n to y o u, M r. L ed ah l, is t ha t
`
`correct?
`c o rr ec t?
`
`MR. LEDAHL:
`IT
`think with a couple of
`M R . LE DA HL : I t h in k wi th a c ou p le o f
`
`clarifications. So, first of all, what was disclosed at
`c l ar if ic at io ns . S o, f ir st o f al l , wh at w as d is c lo se d at
`
`least as early as 2015 was a far more vague and
`l e as t as e ar ly a s 2 01 5 wa s a fa r m or e va gu e an d
`
`uncertain kind of movement and what was disclosed after
`u n ce rt ai n ki nd o f m ov em en t an d w ha t wa s di sc lo s ed a ft er
`
`discovery or in the supplemental discovery from our
`d i sc ov er y or i n t he s up pl em en ta l d is co ve ry f ro m o ur
`
`perspective, it was suggested that something
`p e rs pe ct iv e, i t w as s ug ge st ed t h at s om et hi ng
`
`unspecified, either part or all of the system, might be
`u n sp ec if ie d, e it h er p ar t or a ll of t he s ys te m, mi gh t be
`
`moved overseas as opposed to a much more precise
`m o ve d ov er se as a s o pp os ed t o a m uc h mo re p re ci s e
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 7 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 7 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`6
`6
`
`description of an actual move that took place only
`d e sc ri pt io n of a n a ct ua l mo ve t h at t oo k pl ac e o nl y
`
`after discovery ended.
`a f te r di sc ov er y e nd ed .
`
`With respect to --
`W i th r es pe ct t o - -
`
`THE COURT: But before the supplemental
`T H E CO UR T: Bu t b ef or e th e su pp l em en ta l
`
`discovery, correct?
`d i sc ov er y, c or re c t?
`
`MR. LEDAHL: Well let me, when you say before
`M R . LE DA HL : W el l l et m e , w he n y ou s ay b ef or e
`
`the supplemental discovery, what do you mean?
`t h e su pp le me nt al di sc ov er y, w ha t d o yo u me an ?
`
`THE COURT: That, as I understand it,
`the
`T H E CO UR T: Th at , a s I un de rs ta n d it , th e
`
`supplemental discovery was necessitated because Google
`s u pp le me nt al d is c ov er y wa s ne ce s si ta te d be ca us e G oo gl e
`
`then was more precise and provided more information
`t h en w as m or e pr e ci se a nd p ro vi d ed m or e in fo rm a ti on
`
`about what it actually at that point had done.
`a b ou t wh at i t ac t ua ll y at t ha t p oi nt h ad d on e.
`
`MR. LEDAHL: That’s correct, Your Honor,
`the
`M R . LE DA HL : T ha t ’s c or re ct , Yo u r Ho no r , t he
`
`disclosure at that time and the supplemental discovery
`d i sc lo su re a t th a t ti me a nd t he su pp le me nt al d i sc ov er y
`
`was about
`the precise nature of the move that Google
`w a s ab ou t th e pr e ci se n at ur e of th e mo ve t ha t G oo gl e
`
`had made and also some related analyses and information
`h a d ma de a nd a ls o s om e re la te d a na ly se s an d in f or ma ti on
`
`about
`the actual changes to the system.
`That -- that
`a b ou t th e ac tu al ch an ge s to t he sy st e m . T ha t - - th at
`
`disclosure about
`the actual change though, all of that
`d i sc lo su re a bo ut th e ac tu al c ha n ge t ho ug h, a ll of t ha t
`
`happened long after opening expert reports and expert
`h a pp en ed l on g af t er o pe ni ng e xp e rt r ep or ts a nd ex pe rt
`
`discovery had closed in the case initially.
`d i sc ov er y ha d cl o se d in t he c as e i ni ti al ly .
`
`THE COURT: Right,
`I understand that as well.
`T H E CO UR T: Ri gh t , I un de rs ta nd th at a s we ll .
`
`MR. LEDAHL: Okay.
`And then to your question,
`M R . LE DA HL : O ka y . A nd t he n to yo ur q ue st io n,
`
`the second piece I did want
`to address, you asked about
`t h e se co nd p ie ce I di d wa nt t o a dd re ss , yo u as k ed a bo ut
`
`whether the 216 patent was disclosed in the
`w h et he r th e 21 6 p at en t wa s di sc l os ed i n th e
`
`supplemental discovery.
`I don’t believe Google
`s u pp le me nt al d is c ov er y. I d on ’t be li ev e Go og le
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 8 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 8 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`7
`7
`
`propounded any supplemental discovery, Network-1 did
`p r op ou nd ed a ny s u pp le me nt al d is c ov er y, N et wo rk - 1 di d
`
`and took various, both written discovery and also
`a n d to ok v ar io us , b ot h wr it te n d is co ve ry a nd a l so
`
`depositions, but
`to my knowledge I don’t recall Google
`d e po si ti on s, b ut to m y kn ow le dg e I d on ’t r ec al l G oo gl e
`
`propounding any supplemental discovery to respond to in
`p r op ou nd in g an y s up pl em en ta l di s co ve ry t o re sp o nd t o in
`
`that context.
`t h at c on te xt .
`
`THE COURT: Well, you know,
`I
`think one of the
`T H E CO UR T: We ll , y ou k no w, I t h in k on e of t he
`
`concerns that I have, which is a concern that Google
`c o nc er ns t ha t I h av e, w hi ch i s a c on ce rn t ha t G oo gl e
`
`has,
`is that this issue was never presented to the
`h a s, i s th at t hi s i ss ue w as n e v e r pr es en te d to th e
`
`defendants. And, you know,
`there is some reliance,
`I
`d e fe nd an ts . A nd , y ou k no w, t he r e is s om e re li a nc e, I
`
`think,
`that the parties may reasonably take when an
`t h in k, t ha t th e p ar ti es m ay r ea s on ab ly t ak e wh e n an
`
`issue is presented, and I appreciate that in 2015 it
`i s su e is p re se nt e d, a nd I a pp re c ia te t ha t in 2 0 15 i t
`
`wasn’t fully baked. But this issue was presented, your
`w a sn ’t f ul ly b ak e d. B ut t hi s is s ue w as p re se nt e d, y ou r
`
`expert even back in 2019 knew of this potential non-
`e x pe rt e ve n ba ck in 2 01 9 kn ew o f t hi s po te nt ia l n on -
`
`infringing alternative that Google was raising even if
`i n fr in gi ng a lt er n at iv e th at G oo g le w as r ai si ng ev en i f
`
`it didn’t have the precise ordinance,
`so to speak, and
`i t d id n’ t ha ve t h e pr ec is e or di n an ce , so t o sp e ak , an d
`
`it seems to me that Network-1 withheld this significant
`i t s ee ms t o me t h at N et wo rk -1 w i th he ld t hi s si g ni fi ca nt
`
`piece of information and in some ways sandbagged Google
`p i ec e of i nf or ma t io n an d in s om e w ay s sa nd ba gg e d Go og le
`
`by presenting it for the first time extensively in this
`b y p re se nt in g it fo r th e fi rs t t im e ex te ns iv el y i n th is
`
`supplemental expert report. And what
`I’m trying to
`s u pp le me nt al e xp e rt r ep or t. A nd wh at I ’m t ry in g t o
`
`figure out is whether or not Google had any way of
`f i gu re o ut i s wh e th er o r no t Go o gl e ha d an y wa y o f
`
`knowing that this was coming or whether or not it was
`k n ow in g th at t hi s w as c om in g or wh et he r or n ot it w as
`
`reasonable for Google to rely on the silence of
`r e as on ab le f or G o og le t o re ly o n t he s il en ce o f
`
`Network-1 that it was not going to raise this issue or
`N e tw or k- 1 th at i t w as n ot g oi ng to r ai se t hi s i ss ue o r
`
`not bring up this new patent.
`n o t br in g up t hi s n ew p at en t.
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 9 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 9 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`8
`8
`
`MR. LEDAHL:
`So, Your Honor, Brian Ledahl
`M R . LE DA HL : S o, Yo ur H on or , Br i an L ed ah l
`
`again.
`Just to speak to that a little bit,
`I
`think
`a g ai n. Ju st t o s pe ak t o th at a li tt le b it , I t hi nk
`
`perhaps what’s most
`important
`there is that prior to
`p e rh ap s wh at ’s m o st i mp or ta nt t h er e is t ha t pr i or t o
`
`the supplemental discovery,
`the kind of analysis that
`t h e su pp le me nt al di sc o v er y, t he ki nd o f an al ys i s th at
`
`relates to the 216 patent and whether it might be
`r e la te s to t he 2 1 6 pa te nt a nd w h et he r it m ig ht be
`
`infringed by the supplemental system really wasn’t
`i n fr in ge d by t he su pp le me nt al s y st em r ea ll y wa s n’ t
`
`available to us.
`We couldn’t really do that analysis
`a v ai la bl e to u s. W e co ul dn ’t r e al ly d o th at a n al ys is
`
`and our expert couldn’t do that analysis until we had
`a n d ou r ex pe rt c o ul dn ’t d o th at an al ys is u nt il we h ad
`
`the supplemental
`information.
`t h e su pp le me nt a l in fo rm at io n.
`
`And part of that is,
`let me explain a little
`A n d pa rt o f th at is , le t me e xp l ai n a li tt le
`
`bit,
`so Google had made this very generic contention
`b i t, s o Go og le h a d ma de t hi s ve r y ge ne ri c co nt e nt io n
`
`that it would move something in its system outside the
`t h at i t wo ul d mo v e so me th in g in it s sy st em o ut s id e th e
`
`US, maybe all of it, maybe some subset, but without
`U S , ma yb e al l of it , ma yb e so me su bs et , bu t wi t ho ut
`
`specifying what portion. Now, Network-1 has other
`s p ec if yi ng w ha t p or ti on . No w, N e tw o r k- 1 ha s ot h er
`
`patents and Google noticed that part of this issue
`p a te nt s an d Go og l e no ti ce d th at pa rt o f th is i s su e
`
`arose because the patents ensued our method claim or
`a r os e be ca us e th e p at en ts e ns ue d o ur m et ho d cl a im o r
`
`involved method claims where the steps of the method
`i n vo lv ed m et ho d c la im s wh er e th e s te ps o f th e m et ho d
`
`need to be performed in the United States. But there
`n e ed t o be p er fo r me d in t he U ni t ed S ta te s . Bu t t he re
`
`are issues related to whether a patent that has,
`is not
`a r e is su es r el at e d to w he th er a pa te nt t ha t ha s , is n ot
`
`a method claim,
`a system claim like the one in the 2016
`a me th od c la im , a s ys te m cl ai m l ik e th e on e in th e 20 16
`
`patent, whether that is infringed when parts of the
`p a te nt , wh et he r t ha t is i nf ri ng e d wh en p ar ts o f t he
`
`system are operated or exist outside the United States.
`s y st em a re o pe ra t ed o r ex is t ou t si de t he U ni te d S ta te s .
`
`That analysis requires more than just knowing something
`T h at a na ly si s re q ui re s mo re t ha n j us t kn ow in g s om et hi ng
`
`might be outside the United States, you had to have a
`m i gh t be o ut si de th e Un it ed S ta t es , yo u ha d to ha ve a
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 10 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 10 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`9
`9
`
`little more understanding of what exactly was going to
`l i tt le m or e un de r st an di ng o f wh a t ex ac tl y wa s g oi ng t o
`
`be moved, what was still in the US,
`if anything, how
`b e m ov ed , wh at w a s st il l in t he US , if a ny th in g , ho w
`
`that would interact. That’s all information that we
`t h at w ou ld i nt er a ct . Th at ’s a ll in fo rm at io n th a t we
`
`didn’t have until such time as Google made its
`d i dn ’t h av e un ti l s uc h ti me a s G oo gl e ma de i ts
`
`supplemental disclosures and we
`took supplemental
`s u pp le me nt al d is c lo su re s an d we to ok s up pl em en t al
`
`discovery about that.
`And so to suggest that we could
`d i sc ov er y ab ou t t ha t. An d so t o s ug ge st t ha t w e co ul d
`
`have presented this analysis earlier is,
`frankly,
`h a ve p re se nt ed t h is a na ly si s ea r li er i s, f ra nk l y,
`
`factually incorrect because the predicate information
`f a ct ua ll y in co rr e ct b ec au se t he pr ed ic at e in fo r ma ti on
`
`that was needed to do this analysis wasn’t something we
`t h at w as n ee de d t o do t hi s an al y si s wa sn ’t s om e th in g we
`
`received until we had supplemental discovery on this,
`r e ce iv ed u nt il w e h ad s up pl em en t al d is co ve ry o n t hi s,
`
`until we
`learned of the actual change as opposed to a
`u n ti l we l ea rn ed of t he a ct ua l c ha ng e as o pp os e d to a
`
`whole constellation of hypothetical changes which might
`w h ol e co ns te ll at i on o f hy po th et i ca l ch an ge s wh i ch m ig ht
`
`or might not have looked like this.
`o r m ig ht n ot h av e l oo ke d li ke t h is .
`
`THE COURT:
`TIT understand that but
`those
`T H E CO UR T: I un d er st an d th at b u t th os e
`
`arguments to me are the types of arguments that you
`a r gu me nt s to m e a re t he t yp es o f a rg um en ts t ha t y ou
`
`would have successfully raised back in 20-whatever it
`w o ul d ha ve s uc ce s sf ul ly r ai se d b ac k in 2 0 - wh at e ve r it
`
`was, 2020, when we authorized the supplemental
`w a s, 2 02 0, w he n w e au th or iz ed t h e su pp le me nt al
`
`discovery. And so the thing I’m having trouble with is
`d i sc ov er y. A nd s o t he t hi ng I ’m ha vi ng t ro ub le wi th i s
`
`recognizing back then that you needed additional
`r e co gn iz in g ba ck th en t ha t yo u n ee de d ad di ti on a l
`
`discovery because now what was ambiguous has been
`d i sc ov er y be ca us e n ow w ha t wa s a mb ig uo us h as b e en
`
`crystallized. The Court allowed supplemental discovery
`c r ys ta ll iz ed . Th e C ou rt a ll ow ed su pp le me nt al d i sc ov er y
`
`and allowed supplemental expert reports based on that
`a n d al lo we d su pp l em en ta l ex pe rt re po rt s ba se d o n th at
`
`discovery, but during that discovery period you did not
`d i sc ov er y, b ut d u ri ng t ha t di sc o ve ry p er io d yo u d id n ot
`
`disclose to Google that your expert would be relying on
`d i sc lo se t o Go og l e th at y ou r ex p er t wo ul d be r e ly i n g on
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 11 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 11 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`10
`10
`
`this critical factor. And so you say well
`they didn’t
`t h is c ri ti ca l fa c to r. A nd s o yo u s ay w el l th ey di dn ’t
`
`propound any discovery themselves, presumably had you
`p r op ou nd a ny d is c ov er y th em se lv e s, p re su ma bl y h ad y ou
`
`said to them during that discovery period we think that
`s a id t o th em d ur i ng t ha t di sc ov e ry p er io d we t h in k th at
`
`this non-infringing alternative actually infringes the
`t h is n on -i nf ri ng i ng a lt er na ti ve ac tu al ly i nf ri n ge s th e
`
`216 patent, presumably Google would have conducted
`2 1 6 pa te nt , pr es u ma bl y Go og le w o ul d ha ve c on du c te d
`
`discovery at that time. And so while I appreciate that
`d i sc ov er y at t ha t t im e. A nd s o w hi le I a pp re ci a te t ha t
`
`you might not have understood the full scope of
`y o u mi gh t no t ha v e un de rs to od t h e fu ll s co pe o f
`
`Google’s actions until the supplemental discovery
`G o og le ’s a ct io ns un ti l th e su pp l em en ta l di sc ov e ry
`
`period,
`I’m still having a hard time understanding why
`p e ri od , I’ m st il l h av in g a ha rd ti me u nd er st an d in g wh y
`
`it’s justified that you didn’t share with your
`i t ’s j us ti fi ed t h at y ou d id n ’ t s ha re w it h yo ur
`
`adversary that your expert would be relying on a patent
`a d ve rs ar y th at y o ur e xp er t wo ul d b e re ly in g on a pa te nt
`
`that had never been disclosed and that was not
`t h at h ad n ev er b e en d is cl os ed a n d th at w as n ot
`
`exchanged during the supplemental discovery period.
`e x ch an ge d du ri ng th e su pp le me nt a l di sc ov er y pe r io d.
`
`MR. LEDAHL: Well, Your Honor, and again,
`M R . LE DA HL : W el l , Yo ur H on or , a nd a ga in ,
`
`Brian Ledahl speaking,
`I’m hard pressed,
`so I
`B r ia n Le da hl s pe a ki ng , I’ m ha rd pr es se d , s o I
`
`appreciate the Court’s comments, but
`I don’t know, and
`a p pr ec ia te t he C o ur t’ s co mm en ts , b ut I d on ’t k n ow , an d
`
`Google certainly hasn’t pointed to discovery either
`G o og le c er ta in ly ha sn ’t p oi nt ed to d is co ve ry e i th er
`
`during or before the supplemental discovery period or
`d u ri ng o r be fo re th e su pp le me nt a l di sc ov er y pe r io d or
`
`other disclosure requirements that would have sort of
`o t he r di sc lo su re re qu ir em en ts t h at w ou ld h av e s or t of
`
`related to that. This is part of an expert’s analysis
`r e la te d to t ha t. Th is i s pa rt o f a n ex pe rt ’s a n al ys is
`
`that was disclosed in an expert report and it was,
`i
`t h at w as d is cl os e d in a n ex pe rt re po rt a nd i t w as , i
`
`mean this was a specifically authorized expert report
`m e an t hi s wa s a s pe ci fi ca ll y au t ho ri ze d ex pe rt re po rt
`
`and the analysis relates precisely to the issue about
`a n d th e an al ys is re la te s pr ec is e ly t o th e is su e a bo ut
`
`which Google changed its contentions and supplemented
`w h ic h Go og le c ha n ge d it s co nt en t io ns a nd s up pl e me nt ed
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 12 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 12 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`11
`11
`
`its contentions after discovery.
`I’m not sure what,
`i t s co nt en ti on s a ft er d is co ve ry . I’ m no t su re wh at ,
`
`I’ve not seen a pointer to a request or another kind of
`I ’ ve n ot s ee n a p oi nt er t o a re q ue st o r an ot he r k in d of
`
`disclosure obligation that would have required us to
`d i sc lo su re o bl ig a ti on t ha t wo ul d h av e re qu ir ed us t o
`
`sort of sua sponte tell them we might make this
`s o rt o f su a sp on t e te ll t he m we mi gh t ma ke t hi s
`
`additional argument
`in our expert report or our expert
`a d di ti on al a rg um e nt i n ou r ex pe r t re po rt o r ou r e xp er t
`
`might present this additional analysis in the absence
`m i gh t pr es en t th i s ad di ti on al a n al ys is i n th e a bs en ce
`
`of any request or other kind of similar discovery tool.
`o f a ny r eq ue st o r o th er k in d of si mi la r di sc ov e ry t oo l.
`
`I
`just don’t know what
`the circumstances are that would
`I ju st d on ’t k no w w ha t th e ci rc u ms ta nc es a re t h at w ou ld
`
`have required us to provide that information other than
`h a ve r eq ui re d us to p ro vi de t ha t i nf or ma ti on o t he r th an
`
`putting it in the expert report which is what we did.
`p u tt in g it i n th e e xp er t re po rt wh ic h is w ha t w e di d.
`
`THE COURT: Right, but
`to the extent
`the
`T H E CO UR T: Ri gh t , bu t to t he e x te nt t he
`
`stipulation that authorized the supplemental discovery
`s t ip ul at io n th at au th or iz ed t he su pp le me nt al d i sc ov er y
`
`and the right to serve a supplemental expert report,
`to
`a n d th e ri gh t to se rv e a su pp le m en ta l ex pe rt r e po rt , to
`
`the extent that governs the scope of your expert report
`t h e ex te nt t ha t g ov er ns t he s co p e of y ou r ex pe r t re po rt
`
`it’s plaint that that scope was
`limited to,
`the scope
`i t ’s p la in t th at th at s co pe w as li mi te d to , th e s co pe
`
`of the expert report was
`limited to discovery, or
`o f t he e xp er t re p or t wa s li mi te d t o di sc ov er y, or
`
`information that was based on the supplemental
`i n fo rm at io n th at wa s ba se d on t h e su pp le me nt al
`
`discovery. And it doesn’t sound like this expert’s
`d i sc ov er y. A nd i t d oe sn ’t s ou nd li ke t hi s ex pe r t’ s
`
`opinion was based on that supplemental discovery, at
`o p in io n wa s ba se d o n th at s up pl e me nt al d is co ve r y, a t
`
`least not
`in full.
`I understand it was based on what
`l e as t no t in f ul l . I un de rs ta nd it w as b a s ed o n w ha t
`
`Google provided you but it certainly wasn’t based on
`G o og le p ro vi de d y ou b ut i t ce rt a in ly w as n’ t ba s ed o n
`
`anything that Network-1 provided to Google.
`a n yt hi ng t ha t Ne t wo rk -1 p ro vi de d t o Go og le .
`
`MR. LEDAHL: Well, Your Honor, and Brian
`M R . LE DA HL : W el l , Yo ur H on or , a nd B ri an
`
`Ledahl again speaking,
`the -- two things. First of
`L e da hl a ga in s pe a ki ng , th e -- t w o th in gs . F ir s t of
`
`

`

`25
`
`1 2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 13 of 42
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 287-3 Filed 11/01/22 Page 13 of 42
`
`1
`
`
`
`12
`12
`
`all,
`just as a small point of clarification,
`the
`a l l, j us t as a s m al l po in t of c l ar if ic at io n, t h e
`
`stipulation,
`itself,
`that Your Honor entered, didn’t
`s t ip ul at io n, i ts e lf , th at Y ou r H on or e nt er ed , d id n’ t
`
`actually authorize expert reports, it contemplated that
`a c tu al ly a ut ho ri z e ex pe rt r ep or t s, i t co nt em pl a te d th at
`
`the parties could subsequently seek leave for
`t h e pa rt ie s co ul d s ub se qu en tl y s ee