Trial: Day 07 Closing, Jury Instructions, Verdict 8/26/2009 8:00:00 AM
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`* Civil Docket No.
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
`* 2:07-CV-153
`* Marshall, Texas
`
`vs.
`
`*
`* August 26, 2009
`SAP AMERICA INC., ET AL * 8:00A.M.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHAD EVERINGHAM
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`ANDAJURY
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: MR. SAM BAXTER
`McKooi-Smith
`104 East Houston, Suite 300
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`MR. THEODORE STEVENSON, Ill
`McKooi-Smith
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`MR. SCOTT COLE
`MR. STEVEN J. POLLINGER
`MS. LAURIE L. GALLUN
`MR. JOSH W. BUDWIN
`MR. KEVIN M. KNEUPPER
`McKooi-Smith
`300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 787011
`
`19
`20 APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE:
`21
`
`MS. SUSAN SIMMONS, CSR
`COURT REPORTERS:
`MS. JUDITH WERLINGER, CSR
`Official Court Reporters
`100 East Houston, Suite 125
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903/935-3868
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`VERSATAv. SAP
`
`Unsigned
`A002858
`
`Page 1
`VERSATA EXHIBIT 2061
`SAP v. VERSATA
`CASE CBM2012-00001
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`* Civil Docket No.
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
`* 2:07-CV-153
`* Marshall, Texas
`
`vs.
`
`*
`* August 26, 2009
`SAP AMERICA INC., ET AL * 8:00A.M.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHAD EVERINGHAM
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`ANDAJURY
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: MR. SAM BAXTER
`McKooi-Smith
`104 East Houston, Suite 300
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`MR. THEODORE STEVENSON, Ill
`McKooi-Smith
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`MR. SCOTT COLE
`MR. STEVEN J. POLLINGER
`MS. LAURIE L. GALLUN
`MR. JOSH W. BUDWIN
`MR. KEVIN M. KNEUPPER
`McKooi-Smith
`300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 787011
`
`19
`20 APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE:
`21
`
`MS. SUSAN SIMMONS, CSR
`COURT REPORTERS:
`MS. JUDITH WERLINGER, CSR
`Official Court Reporters
`100 East Houston, Suite 125
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903/935-3868
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`VERSATAv. SAP
`
`Unsigned
`A002858
`
`Page 1
`VERSATA EXHIBIT 2061
`SAP v. VERSATA
`CASE CBM2012-00001
`
`
`
`Trial: Day 07 Closing, Jury Instructions, Verdict 8/26/2009 8:00:00 AM
` All right. Let's move on to sorting.
`
`Sorting by pricing type, first of all.
`
` So what are we talking about?
`
` Again, pricing type is like the base
`
`price or a discount. I told you that SAP does the heavy
`
`lifting in advance, upfront in its procedure. One of
`
`the things it does is it sets these things by datatype.
`
`It segregates them. So when SAP does sorting, it sorts
`
`only within a given condition type, only discounts. Or
`
`it pulls base prices and sorts only base prices.
`
` It does not do what Trilogy does, which
`
`is to scoop all this stuff up together, and then have to
`
`sort, hmmm, is this a base price or a discount or a
`
`freight or a tax?
`
` No need to, because I've only pulled base
`
`prices. I don't need to figure out whether they're
`
`discounts or a freight or taxes in here. I know what
`
`I've got. I've got base prices.
`
` And that's exactly what the experts
`
`testified to. Dr. Boyd, in your opinion, do the accused
`
`products sort according to pricing type?
`
` According to pricing type, no. They sort
`
`within one of these silos loss. In other words, one of
`
`these condition types. They don't have to sort across.
`
`So after data is retrieved, the sorting might take place
`
` 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
`
`VERSATA v. SAP
`
`Unsigned
`
`Page 72
`
`A002929
`
`
`
`Trial: Day 07 Closing, Jury Instructions, Verdict 8/26/2009 8:00:00 AM
`great, but I owe you, the government and the public, my
`
`teachings and my understanding so that the public can
`
`benefit from it.
`
` What you can't do is present some of them
`
`but then leave some of them behind the curtain that you
`
`can exploit for yourself. You can't hold back. And
`
`yet, that is what Trilogy did here. The evidence is --
`
`again, it's unequivocal that that's what happened.
`
` So let's talk about group combinations.
`
` You saw this document. Mr. Carter wrote
`
`it before the patent applications were filed, and he
`
`wrote: But if I want to assign an adjustment not just
`
`to this guy but an adjustment to this guy who lives here
`
`and he's in this division, there are two ways I could do
`
`it.
`
` One is, I could create a much more
`
`complicated hierarchy, which he called enumerating the
`
`hierarchy. Go from 13 nodes, I think, to 40. But, he
`
`said, that can create some problems. That can be
`
`difficult to maintain or require more resources. I've
`
`got a better way. I'll use something I call group
`
`combinations.
`
` Utilizing a group combination,
`
`PriceBUILDER allows you to use the same hierarchy which
`
`was first described as simple one.
`
` 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
`
`VERSATA v. SAP
`
`Unsigned
`
`Page 77
`
`A002934
`
`
`
`Trial: Day 07 Closing, Jury Instructions, Verdict 8/26/2009 8:00:00 AM
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`validity.
`
` I will now instruct you how those words
`
`are to be construed and understood when deciding the
`
`issues of infringement and validity.
`
` You have been provided with written
`
`copies of the '350 and '400 patents and copies of these
`
`claim term definitions, and you may use them during your
`
`deliberations.
`
` The term according to said hierarchy
`
`10 means according to respective hierarchical levels.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` The terms applying and applied mean
`
`determine how to use and use in the manner determined.
`
` The term computer instructions to
`
`implement means computer instructions causing a computer
`
`to implement.
`
` The term computer readable program code
`
`configured to cause a computer means program
`
`instructions including software providing those
`
`instructions to cause a computer.
`
` Now, that definition was not included in
`
`your glossary, but you'll have a copy of that to take
`
`with you into the jury room.
`
` The term denormalized number means a
`
`number used as a price adjustment that does not have
`
`fixed units and may assume a different meaning and
`
`VERSATA v. SAP
`
`Unsigned
`
`Page 100
`
`A002957
`
`
`
`Trial: Day 07 Closing, Jury Instructions, Verdict 8/26/2009 8:00:00 AM
`different units depending on the pricing operation that
`
`is being performed.
`
` The specific units to be associated with
`
`a number and how the number will be applied are
`
`determined during runtime, the time the system uses the
`
`pricing adjustment data to determine the price of the
`
`product offered to the purchasing organization.
`
` The term each of said pricing adjustments
`
`means each pricing adjustment mentioned in any
`
`limitation of the referenced independent claim.
`
` The term hierarchy means a branching
`
`arrangement of at least two levels of data.
`
` The term organizational groups means
`
`groups of purchasing organizations where each group has
`
`a characteristic.
`
` The term plurality means at least two.
`
` The term pricing adjustments means a
`
`denormalized number that may affect the determined
`
`price.
`
` The term pricing information means any
`
`information relating to price, other than an adjustment
`
`to price, that is not a denormalized number.
`
` The term pricing type means a class or
`
`category of pricing adjustments.
`
` The term products means any good or
`
` 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
`
`VERSATA v. SAP
`
`Unsigned
`
`Page 101
`
`A002958
`
`
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
