(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