throbber
(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)ØŒ
`
` 1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` 2 TYLER DIVISION
` 3
` VIRNETX, INC. )
` 4 DOCKET NO. 6:10cv417
` -vs- )
` 5 Tyler, Texas
` ) 8:52 a.m.
` 6 APPLE, INC. November 1, 2012
` 7
` 8 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
` MORNING SESSION
` 9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
` UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY
` 10
` 11
` 12 A P P E A R A N C E S
` 13
` 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
` 15
` MR. DOUGLAS CAWLEY
` 16 MR. BRADLEY W. CALDWELL
` MR. JASON D. CASSADY
` 17 MR. JOHN AUSTIN CURRY
` McKOOL SMITH
` 18 300 Crescent Court, Ste. 1500
` Dallas, TX 75201
` 19
` 20
` 21 COURT REPORTERS: MS. JUDITH WERLINGER
` MS. SHEA SLOAN
` 22 shea_sloan@txed.uscourts.gov
` 23
` 24 Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
` produced by a Computer.
` 25
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:238) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)ØØ
`
` 2
`
` 1 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
` 2 MR. ROBERT M. PARKER
` MR. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER BUNT
` 3 PARKER BUNT & AINSWORTH
` 100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114
` 4 Tyler, TX 75702
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` FOR THE DEFENDANT:
` 9
` MR. DANNY L. WILLIAMS
` 10 MR. TERRY D. MORGAN
` MR. RUBEN S. BAINS
` 11 MR. CHRIS CRAVEY
` MR. MATT RODGERS
` 12 MR. DREW KIM
` MR. SCOTT WOLOSON
` 13 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C.
` 10333 Richmond, Ste. 1100
` 14 Houston, TX 77042
` 15
` MR. ERIC ALBRITTON
` 16 MR. STEPHEN E. EDWARDS
` MS. DEBRA COLEMAN
` 17 MR. MATTHEW C. HARRIS
` ALBRITTON LAW FIRM
` 18 P.O. Box 2649
` Longview, TX 75606
` 19
` 20 MR. JOHN M. DESMARAIS
` MR. MICHAEL P. STADNICK
` 21 DESMARAIS, LLP - NEW YORK
` 230 Park Avenue
` 22 New York, NY 10169
` 23
` 24
` 25
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:237) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)ØŁ
`
` 3
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
` 2 (Jury out.)
` 3 COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
` 4 THE COURT: Please be seated.
` 5 All right. I understand there's a matter
` 6 before we bring the jury in; is that correct?
` 7 MR. ALBRITTON: Your Honor, there may be
` 8 a couple. I have just one very minor housekeeping
` 9 matter I wanted to raise with you.
` 10 This offer of proof issue --
` 11 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
` 12 MR. ALBRITTON: -- what I would propose,
` 13 if it's okay with the Court, is that by tomorrow evening
` 14 we can actually file a written offer of proof with the
` 15 witnesses and the testimony and the exhibits, as opposed
` 16 to taking up the Court's time actually calling people
` 17 live, if that's --
` 18 THE COURT: And this is the offer of
` 19 proof regarding?
` 20 MR. ALBRITTON: On the re-exam issues,
` 21 Your Honor.
` 22 THE COURT: Okay. Any objection to that?
` 23 MR. CURRY: We have no objections to the
` 24 procedure.
` 25 THE COURT: All right.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:236) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ø(cid:231)
`
` 4
`
` 1 MR. ALBRITTON: Thank you, Your Honor.
` 2 We also have some issues related to the
` 3 briefing on inducement. The briefs that the -- that
` 4 were filed, it's going to come up with Dr. Jones. Based
` 5 on one of his slides, we understand he's going to offer
` 6 some opinions in that regard, and so we thought it might
` 7 make sense for the Court to take those issues up.
` 8 THE COURT: All right. I've taken a look
` 9 at that, and I -- well, let me just hear from each side,
` 10 and then I'll tell what you I think.
` 11 Go ahead.
` 12 And I've read the briefs and the cases
` 13 and everything, so I don't need a whole lot of
` 14 discussion; but just sort of what your main point is
` 15 regarding the testimony.
` 16 MR. CRAVEY: Thank you, Your Honor. May
` 17 it please the Court. Chris Cravey, on behalf of Apple.
` 18 As Your Honor just stated, the basic
` 19 issue that we take with Dr. Jones' report and his
` 20 demonstratives now is that they articulate the wrong
` 21 standard for inducement.
` 22 Specifically with respect to the
` 23 knowledge prong of inducement, they have -- they want to
` 24 put forth a negligence standard, knew or should have
` 25 known of the acts that constitute infringement. And the
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» º –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ł(cid:240)
`
` 5
`
` 1 Supreme Court in the Global-Tech case has specifically
` 2 held that that standard no longer applies; and that with
` 3 respect to the knowledge prong, you either have to have
` 4 actual knowledge.
` 5 And the one exception the Supreme Court
` 6 now makes for that actual knowledge is willful
` 7 blindness.
` 8 And so respect to the negligence
` 9 standard, the Supreme Court specifically recognized that
` 10 negligence standard of being out there and rejected it
` 11 in favor of this willful blindness standard. And in
` 12 fact, the Supreme Court said in their opinion that the
` 13 willful blindness standard is one that surpasses. In
` 14 other words, it is above the negligence standard.
` 15 In fact, the Supreme Court said that the
` 16 willful blindness standard is one that surpasses
` 17 recklessness, which we know is above negligence.
` 18 THE COURT: Well, what -- what --
` 19 specifically what testimony and demonstratives are you
` 20 objecting to, or that you have filed your -- I guess
` 21 it's a motion in limine, right?
` 22 MR. CRAVEY: Yes, Your Honor. And I've
` 23 got two demonstratives here I can show the Court.
` 24 THE COURT: All right.
` 25 MR. CRAVEY: Okay. This is the first
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Œ –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ł(cid:239)
`
` 6
`
` 1 slide, Your Honor. This is -- and the numbering might
` 2 be off, because there was a lot of back-and-forth last
` 3 night between the parties on these demonstratives for
` 4 Jones.
` 5 But here on this Jones Exhibit No. 39
` 6 demonstrative, you see on the last prong there that what
` 7 they want to show the jury is that Apple knew or should
` 8 have known that the encouragement or instructions would
` 9 result in others infringing.
` 10 And so what that is, Your Honor, that's
` 11 the negligence standard that the Supreme Court in
` 12 Global-Tech specifically rejected. And so what we would
` 13 submit to the Court, respectfully, is that Jones should
` 14 not be permitted to give opinions on the wrong statement
` 15 of law, because it will mislead the jury.
` 16 And I have another slide too, Your Honor,
` 17 but I think you get -- there's one that basically has
` 18 kind of a similar statement.
` 19 THE COURT: All right. Response?
` 20 MR. CURRY: The Supreme Court's decision
` 21 in Global-Tech relates to the first prong, knowledge of
` 22 the patent. Global-Tech specifically declined to reach
` 23 the intent prong that -- that's at issue in Apple's
` 24 motion in limine. And it's important, because that's
` 25 what was not -- that's what was not disturbed by the
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ø –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ł(cid:238)
`
` 7
`
` 1 Supreme Court. And, in fact, sitting en banc after
` 2 Global-Tech in the Akamai case, the Federal Circuit
` 3 still cites to its DSU opinion for the intent prong and
` 4 makes no claim that Global-Tech affected it at all.
` 5 So they're just conflating the different prongs is the
` 6 problem.
` 7 MR. CRAVEY: Your Honor, may I address
` 8 that point?
` 9 THE COURT: Just a moment.
` 10 All right. Go ahead.
` 11 MR. CRAVEY: Your Honor, I disagree with
` 12 VirnetX's lawyer that the willful blindness test that
` 13 the Supreme Court in Global-Tech was addressing -- with
` 14 respect to the knowledge of the patent.
` 15 Here -- I have here -- I show the
` 16 specific issue that was addressed by the Court, and it
` 17 says: Actively induces infringement of a patent must
` 18 know that the induced acts constitute patent
` 19 infringement.
` 20 So then addressing that issue, the Court
` 21 said: Accordingly, we now hold that the induced
` 22 infringer under 271(b) requires knowledge that the
` 23 induced acts constitute infringement.
` 24 And the reason why I would say that this
` 25 quote is significant, because if you look over on the
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ł –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ł(cid:237)
`
` 8
`
` 1 column to the left here, you'll see that the Court
` 2 specifically acknowledges that knowledge of the patent
` 3 is needed as a separate issue that -- than what the
` 4 Court is dealing with in the other paragraph.
` 5 So I don't think we're conflating that
` 6 the knowledge that the Supreme Court is addressing here,
` 7 the actual knowledge has to go to the acts that
` 8 constitute patent infringement.
` 9 I think the Supreme Court also recognizes
` 10 that to have that actual knowledge of the acts that
` 11 constitute patent infringement, it necessarily lends
` 12 itself that you have to have knowledge of the patent.
` 13 And then I'll just -- if the Court will
` 14 indulge me, I'll point to one other section of this --
` 15 in this opinion.
` 16 In noting this exception to the actual
` 17 knowledge requirement that the Supreme Court is
` 18 articulating here in talking about the very narrow
` 19 exception they're trying to make with respect to willful
` 20 blindness, you see here that the Court specifically
` 21 recognizes that this willful blindness exception will be
` 22 very narrow and that it will surpass the recklessness
` 23 and negligence standard.
` 24 THE COURT: All right. I will sustain
` 25 the objection.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:231) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ł(cid:236)
`
` 9
`
` 1 MR. CURRY: Your Honor?
` 2 THE COURT: Yes.
` 3 MR. CURRY: Given that you're sustaining
` 4 the objection, can we change our slides to say "knew" on
` 5 the last prong in?
` 6 THE COURT: Sure.
` 7 MR. CURRY: Thank you.
` 8 THE COURT: All right. What's next?
` 9 MR. DESMARAIS: Good morning, Your Honor.
` 10 John Desmarais for Apple, on a very short issue.
` 11 We have prepared a video clip that we
` 12 wanted to play tomorrow, once Apple starts its case.
` 13 And the witness is Dr. Short. He was testifying at
` 14 deposition both personally and as a 30(b)(6). And in
` 15 the excerpt we're playing he actually answers the
` 16 question:
` 17 Now, you're here today in your
` 18 personal capacity as well as you're speaking for the
` 19 company, correct?
` 20 And his answer is: Yes, sir.
` 21 That's my understanding.
` 22 It's a short, four-minute clip, and
` 23 VirnetX is maintaining a hearsay objection to the clip,
` 24 even though he was speaking as a corporate
` 25 representative. There are no other objections to the
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:240) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Łº
`
` 10
`
` 1 clip.
` 2 THE COURT: Okay. Response?
` 3 MR. CURRY: He gave depo -- I'm sorry --
` 4 live testimony yesterday. We don't know why they didn't
` 5 cross him live.
` 6 And further, I don't even know whether
` 7 these topics were covered by the deposition testimony
` 8 that they want to play.
` 9 MR. DESMARAIS: It's the testimony that
` 10 goes to Apple's defense of validity, Your Honor. I
` 11 don't think it's appropriate for us to put that evidence
` 12 on during VirnetX's opening case.
` 13 THE COURT: Well, I don't think it is;
` 14 but if you have the live witness here, I would suggest
` 15 that you call the live witness. And then if he doesn't
` 16 testify in accordance with his deposition, you can
` 17 cross-examine him with it.
` 18 MR. DESMARAIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` 19 MR. CURRY: One more thing, Your Honor.
` 20 They did cross-examine Dr. Short on their validity case
` 21 yesterday.
` 22 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to allow him
` 23 to re-call him, if they wish to.
` 24 All right. Anything further before we
` 25 bring the jury in?
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:239) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)ŁŒ
`
` 11
`
` 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I've got just
` 2 a few things that are going to come up, but I think we
` 3 can address these really quickly.
` 4 As I understand from VirnetX's counsel,
` 5 they want to publish a page of Apple source code, which
` 6 is obviously highly confidential. And I just had a
` 7 logistics question, and that is, they -- when they
` 8 publish it on the ELMO -- I talked to Mr. Curry this
` 9 morning and offered a couple of options.
` 10 I would prefer it not -- we'd prefer not
` 11 to go to the trouble of clearing the courtroom or even
` 12 asking the Court to do that, but I was going to ask if
` 13 the two side monitors can be blanked out separately from
` 14 the other monitors?
` 15 So that's just a question of the Court
` 16 staff, I guess.
` 17 Alternatively, I had asked him if he
` 18 could -- if we could provide simply copies for the jury
` 19 to look at as opposed to publishing it, because it's not
` 20 that we're going to flash it up to say this is what
` 21 source code looks like. They want to trace through some
` 22 subroutines or something like that.
` 23 So that's just a logistics issue, I
` 24 think, more than anything.
` 25 THE COURT: Okay. Response?
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:238) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)ŁØ
`
` 12
`
` 1 MR. CALDWELL: I think it's probably a
` 2 60- or 80-page document. We're going to put one page up
` 3 to show a couple of little function calls. We're not
` 4 even going through that whole page. We can do it
` 5 however Your Honor wants. In fact, if we just want to
` 6 have the witness even sort of walk over and hand that
` 7 copy.
` 8 THE COURT: Why don't you just do that.
` 9 Instead of putting it on the monitors, just have him
` 10 walk over -- have a page of the code for the jury, if
` 11 you want to.
` 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` 13 MR. CALDWELL: Okay. Good enough.
` 14 The witness may actually wind up handing us his copy. I
` 15 don't know that we have to make a copy of the source
` 16 code.
` 17 THE COURT: Okay.
` 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Also there are a couple of
` 19 exhibits I think, Mr. Curry, that y'all plan to move in
` 20 today. One is PX 295; is that correct?
` 21 Anyway, this is a third-party
` 22 confidential document, and we would simply ask that it
` 23 be moved in under seal. It belongs to a -- it's
` 24 third-party confidential information, I should say,
` 25 produced in the case so...
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:237) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)ŁŁ
`
` 13
`
` 1 MR. CURRY: We have no objection.
` 2 THE COURT: All right. PX 295, when it's
` 3 moved in, will be under seal.
` 4 MR. WILLIAMS: And then the next to the
` 5 last real quickly, PX 493.
` 6 This is the disk, Mr. Curry.
` 7 As I understand last night, we asked is
` 8 this a paper or is it Gabriel -- and it's supposed to be
` 9 Gabriel source code. We asked last night is this paper
` 10 or digital or what.
` 11 So I think this morning, they said, well,
` 12 it's on a disk. So what we would suggest is, if they're
` 13 moving it in, we won't object to that, based on that
` 14 representation; but we would just like an opportunity to
` 15 go back and check that later.
` 16 But with that understanding, we would not
` 17 have an objection.
` 18 THE COURT: All right. Fine.
` 19 MR. CURRY: We'll provide that
` 20 opportunity.
` 21 THE COURT: Okay.
` 22 MR. WILLIAMS: And then very lastly --
` 23 one moment, Your Honor.
` 24 So the last issue, I think, at least
` 25 between Mr. Curry and I, has to do with -- there was an
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:236) –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)Ł(cid:231)
`
` 14
`
` 1 RFA that was submitted in the case from VirnetX to
` 2 Apple, and it had to do with whether anyone at Apple
` 3 knew about the patents -- knew about the patents,
` 4 period.
` 5 If I could get that language.
` 6 And they want to read the answer -- the
` 7 request and the answer in today, I presume, while
` 8 Dr. Jones is on the stand.
` 9 MR. CURRY: Yes.
` 10 MR. WILLIAMS: And specifically, the
` 11 request for admission says: Admit that absolutely no
` 12 one at Apple was aware of Microsoft's license of
` 13 VirnetX's patents.
` 14 We have -- we interposed several
` 15 objections, but one specific objection was Apple objects
` 16 to this request for admission, because it does not
` 17 specify a time period. So let me read that again.
` 18 Absolutely no -- admit that absolutely no
` 19 one at Apple was aware of Microsoft's license of
` 20 VirnetX's patents. So one of the objections was
` 21 timeframe; obviously, pre-suit, post-suit. So we put
` 22 them specifically on notice of what our objection was.
` 23 And then we said, subject to the
` 24 objections, Apple denies this request for admission. So
` 25 what they want to do -- let me just read the request and
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)º –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)(cid:231)(cid:240)
`
` 15
`
` 1 what they want to read:
` 2 Admit that absolutely no one at Apple was
` 3 aware of Microsoft's license of VirnetX's patents.
` 4 Apple denies this request for admission.
` 5 So what they want to do is to say aha,
` 6 see, Apple admits that somebody at Apple knew about
` 7 Microsoft's license with the VirnetX patents. The
` 8 problem is we specifically told them it didn't specify a
` 9 time period.
` 10 And I have an interrogatory response that
` 11 lays that out when we first became aware. So I have a
` 12 couple of alternative suggestions that I would prefer
` 13 that we go with, instead of what they are suggesting.
` 14 One is that if they want to read the
` 15 request and the admission (sic), that they also be
` 16 required to read that Apple objects to this request for
` 17 admission, because it does not specify a time period.
` 18 And in addition, Your Honor, I would like
` 19 to be able to, at the same time, read our response to
` 20 the interrogatory that asks about our notice, wherein
` 21 Apple says Apple first became aware of these patents
` 22 when we were -- served with the original complaint and
` 23 the date, on or about August 11, 2010, et cetera.
` 24 So I'd like to read our interrogatory
` 25 response to make it a complete picture and truer picture
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)Œ –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)(cid:231)(cid:239)
`
` 16
`
` 1 than what they'd like to present to this jury.
` 2 THE COURT: Response?
` 3 MR. CURRY: We have no problem with him
` 4 making those points on cross. I think the evidence
` 5 should come in.
` 6 THE COURT: All right. You can make them
` 7 on cross then.
` 8 All right. What else?
` 9 MR. RODGERS: Your Honor, one final,
` 10 minor point with respect to a deposition designation.
` 11 This is -- I tried to work this out; but
` 12 at some point, you just have to say enough is enough.
` 13 MR. CASSADY: Is it Mr. Munger?
` 14 MR. RODGERS: Yes.
` 15 MR. CASSADY: That's okay. You can play
` 16 it.
` 17 MR. RODGERS: Okay. Thank you.
` 18 THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
` 19 MR. CURRY: They still have a number of
` 20 objections to documents that we're going to show today
` 21 with Dr. Jones. I don't know if they are dropping them
` 22 or plan on objecting at trial.
` 23 THE COURT: All right, Gentlemen. It is
` 24 now 10 after 9:00. The jury has been sitting there
` 25 waiting while we're going over all this stuff.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1014
`
`

`

`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:239)(cid:239) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)Ø –” (cid:239)(cid:236)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)(cid:231)(cid:238)
`
` 17
`
` 1 How much more do we have?
` 2 MR. CURRY: I don't know what objections
` 3 they're going forward o

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket