3
`
`4
`
` BY: CLEMENT S. NAPLES, ESQ
`
` BY: CASSIUS K. SIMS, ESQ
`
` For Defendant Jaguar Land Rover
`
` MORRIS JAMES LLP
`
` BY: MARY MATTERER, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
` BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
` BY: THOMAS A. LEWRY, ESQ
`
` BY: REBECCA J. CANTOR, ESQ
`
` For Defendant Ford
`
`Court Reporter: LEONARD A. DIBBS
`
` Official Court Reporter
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`10:01:44 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:02:12 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:02:28 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:02:44 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:02:54 25
`Page 1 to 4 of 91
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Please be seated.
`
`This is Vehicle Interface Tech, LLC vs. Ferrari North
`
`America, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1283, plus three other cases,
`
`1284, 1285 and 1286.
`
`I'd like to have the appearances. I know at least Mr.
`
`Giza is in from California, and I assume probably some of the
`
`rest of you have come quite a distance, too. I do appreciate
`
`it.
`
`The weather -- you know, part of the reason that I went
`
`ahead is I assumed some of you probably had traveled a long
`
`distance to be here. For those of you, particularly the
`
`Delaware attorneys who didn't have to travel very far, have
`
`found it more unpleasant, sorry.
`
`But, in any event, we're here and I'm certainly ready
`
`to go.
`
`Mr. Farnan?
`
`MR. B. FARNAN: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Brian Farnan on behalf of the plaintiff.
`
`With me is Alex Giza and Power Hely from Russ August &
`
`Kabat in Los Angeles, and Michael Farnan as well.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Welcome to you all.
`
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
` CA NO. 12-1283,
` 12-1284, 12-1285,
` 12-1286
` January 3, 2014
`
` 10:00 o'clock a.m.
`
`
`
`: : : : : : : : : :
`
`VEHICLE INTERFACE TECH, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FERRARI
`NORTH AMERICA INC, JAGUAR
`LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA,
`LLC & PORSCHE CARS NORTH
`AMERICA INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`.............................
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`1 2
`
`For Plaintiff: FARNAN LLP
`
` BY: BRIAN E. FARNAN, ESQ
`
` BY: MICHAEL J. FARNAN, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
` BY: ALEXANDER C. D. GIZA, ESQ
`
` BY: JOHN POWER HELY, ESQ.
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
` LATHAM & WATKINS
`1 of 35 sheets
`
`For Defendants: RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
`
` BY: JASON J. RAWNSLEY, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
` FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP
`
` BY: EDGAR HAUG, ESQ
`
` BY: EUGENE LEDONNE, ESQ
`
` BY: KYLE HAUG, ESQ
`
` BY: CHRISTOPHER GOSSELIN, ESQ
`
` For Defendants Ferrari & Porsche
`
` SHAW KELLER LLP
`
` BY: JOHN W. SHAW, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
`

`

`3
`
`4
`
` BY: CLEMENT S. NAPLES, ESQ
`
` BY: CASSIUS K. SIMS, ESQ
`
` For Defendant Jaguar Land Rover
`
` MORRIS JAMES LLP
`
` BY: MARY MATTERER, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
` BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
` BY: THOMAS A. LEWRY, ESQ
`
` BY: REBECCA J. CANTOR, ESQ
`
` For Defendant Ford
`
`Court Reporter: LEONARD A. DIBBS
`
` Official Court Reporter
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`10:01:44 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:02:12 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:02:28 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:02:44 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:02:54 25
`Page 1 to 4 of 91
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Please be seated.
`
`This is Vehicle Interface Tech, LLC vs. Ferrari North
`
`America, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1283, plus three other cases,
`
`1284, 1285 and 1286.
`
`I'd like to have the appearances. I know at least Mr.
`
`Giza is in from California, and I assume probably some of the
`
`rest of you have come quite a distance, too. I do appreciate
`
`it.
`
`The weather -- you know, part of the reason that I went
`
`ahead is I assumed some of you probably had traveled a long
`
`distance to be here. For those of you, particularly the
`
`Delaware attorneys who didn't have to travel very far, have
`
`found it more unpleasant, sorry.
`
`But, in any event, we're here and I'm certainly ready
`
`to go.
`
`Mr. Farnan?
`
`MR. B. FARNAN: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Brian Farnan on behalf of the plaintiff.
`
`With me is Alex Giza and Power Hely from Russ August &
`
`Kabat in Los Angeles, and Michael Farnan as well.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Welcome to you all.
`
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
` CA NO. 12-1283,
` 12-1284, 12-1285,
` 12-1286
` January 3, 2014
`
` 10:00 o'clock a.m.
`
`
`
`: : : : : : : : : :
`
`VEHICLE INTERFACE TECH, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FERRARI
`NORTH AMERICA INC, JAGUAR
`LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA,
`LLC & PORSCHE CARS NORTH
`AMERICA INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`.............................
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`1 2
`
`For Plaintiff: FARNAN LLP
`
` BY: BRIAN E. FARNAN, ESQ
`
` BY: MICHAEL J. FARNAN, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
` BY: ALEXANDER C. D. GIZA, ESQ
`
` BY: JOHN POWER HELY, ESQ.
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
` LATHAM & WATKINS
`1 of 35 sheets
`
`For Defendants: RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
`
` BY: JASON J. RAWNSLEY, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
` FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP
`
` BY: EDGAR HAUG, ESQ
`
` BY: EUGENE LEDONNE, ESQ
`
` BY: KYLE HAUG, ESQ
`
` BY: CHRISTOPHER GOSSELIN, ESQ
`
` For Defendants Ferrari & Porsche
`
` SHAW KELLER LLP
`
` BY: JOHN W. SHAW, ESQ
`
` -and-
`
`

`

`5
`
`7
`
`All right.
`
`MR. RAWNSLEY: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Jason Rawnsley from Richards Layton & Finger for
`
`Ferrari North America and Porsche Cars North America.
`
`And from the law firm of Frommer Lawrence & Haug is Ed
`
`Haug, Eugene LeDonne, Kyle Haug and Christopher Gosselin.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Thank you all.
`
`And, Mr. Haug, as I recall, you're from Washington,
`
`D.C., right?
`
`MR. HAUG: New York City.
`
`THE COURT: New York City. Okay. I'm sorry.
`
`Did you come yesterday.
`
`MR. HAUG: I did come yesterday.
`
`THE COURT: Well, it's good to see you.
`
`MR. HAUG: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Matterer?
`
` MS. MATTERER: Good morning, your Honor.
`
` Thank you for accommodating counsel this morning.
`
` I'm here on behalf of Ford Motor Company and I have
`
`with me John Lewry and Rebecca Cantor from the Brooks Kushman
`
`law firm.
`
` THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`
` Where did you all come from?
`
` MR. LEWRY: Detroit.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:05:12 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:05:38 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:06:04 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:06:26 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:07:08 25
`
`the construction regarding, "wherein the fixed area and separate
`
`area each compromise a unique and static portion of the
`
`display."
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR. GIZA: Okay. The Pathare patent describes and
`
`claims a novel user interface for automobiles that addresses the
`
`problem of organizing vehicle information, so that the driver
`
`can access it with minimal distraction without having to take
`
`his eyes from the road very long.
`
`One key aspect is a two-part display. It has a fixed
`
`part and a selectable part.
`
`Important vehicle information is on the fixed area and
`
`is always available to the driver. Other vehicle information is
`
`presented on the selectable area, on a plurality of pages, which
`
`can be used to set system parameters.
`
`So the construction that we're focused on, the claim
`
`term is, wherein the fixed area and the selectable area each
`
`comprise a unique and static portion of the display.
`
`This portion was added in the prosecution to clarify a
`
`distinction over the prior art, the Hartman patent.
`
`And I have that for the Court.
`
`(Pause)
`
`So, in particular, the examiner in the prosecution
`
`brought up the Hartman patent and the applicant distinguished
`
`it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:03:06 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:03:16 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:03:26 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:03:36 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:03:50 25
`
`6
`
`8
`
`THE COURT: I guess you came in yesterday, too, because
`
`you probably --
`
`MR. LEWRY: We had to beat the snow.
`
`THE COURT: I think Judge Stark had some people from
`
`coming from Chicago and I don't think they were able to make it.
`
` So, welcome.
`
`THE COURT: And Mr. Shaw?
`
`MR. SHAW: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`John Shaw from Shaw Keller LLP for Jaguar Land Rover
`
`Joining me from Latham & Watkins, the New York office
`
`is Clem Naples and Cass Sims.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Well, welcome to you all, and thank you for coming from
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`10:07:28 5
`10:03:58 5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10:07:48 10
`10:04:10 10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`10:08:04 15
`10:04:26 15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`10:08:22 20
`10:04:44 20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`10:08:46 25
`10:04:58 25
`put them up with my colleague, Power Hely. I'd like to address
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`Page 5 to 8 of 91
`
`New York. I'm sure that was an effort.
`
`THE COURT: Is that everybody?
`
`All right.
`
`I know there are three terms left now. I do appreciate
`
`that and I assume that you, Mr. Giza, will probably go first,
`
`and we'll do the three terms one-by-one, right?
`
`MR. GIZA: Yes, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Well, let's go then.
`
`MR. GIZA: Good morning, your Honor. May it please the
`
`Court.
`
`There are three terms for construction here, and I've
`
`The applicant said, The invention is not the Hartman
`
`patent. Hartman's display does not have two areas. A fixed
`
`area for simply vehicle information and a selectable area for
`
`delaying one of a plurality of pages.
`
`It goes on to explain that the examiner indicated that
`
`the fixed and selectable areas could compromise the same area.
`
` And the applicant said, No, it can't.
`
`That's the difference. And the applicant then
`
`clarified, through an amendment, that the fixed and selectable
`
`areas each compromise a unique and static portion of the
`
`display.
`
`So this is where the language of unique and static is
`
`first introduced into the claim language.
`
`The applicant further explained in sharp contrast the
`
`vehicle information in Hartman is relocated and/or resized to
`
`different portions of the display.
`
`The applicant is clearly distinguishing what it is not.
`
`What the invention is not. It's saying Hartman does this. We
`
`do not. This is a clear distinction. This is the proper
`
`understanding of unique and static.
`
`This is consistent --
`
`THE COURT: And the fact that it says, We don't do
`
`this, doesn't it necessarily follow, when they say, it's unique
`
`and static, it means all unique and static is, is we don't do
`
`this. Unique and static are words that I have their own
`2 of 35 sheets
`
`

`

`9
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:09:00 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:09:16 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:09:38 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:09:56 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:10:16 25
`
`meaning.
`
`MR. GIZA: I think that's partially correct.
`
`Now, here we have a situation where we have a
`
`prosecution history disclaimer, right?
`
`We have a prior art that has been raised. The claims
`
`were amended to overcome that rejection.
`
`THE COURT: Is there any difference between the
`
`prosecution history disclaimer where you don't change the words,
`
`but you say that it's not something, and one where you add the
`
`words saying that was not something?
`
`MR. GIZA: That's good question, your Honor.
`
`I don't think there is a distinction. I don't recall a
`
`distinction from the case law that changes the meaning based
`
`upon how the change is made.
`
`THE COURT: But doesn't it actually make sense there
`
`are two different things, because in one you have some term
`
`that's already there and you're sort of carving out something
`
`saying it doesn't mean -- you know, examiner, you say it means,
`
`it includes this, and, therefore, it's obvious.
`
`I'd say it does not include this. And then you kind of
`
`altered the meaning of the word.
`
`Here you've added some other words and you said, So now
`
`this problem you've raised is gone, but you're not -- you know,
`
`and if the words had been raised is, you know, they're not
`
`relocated and/or resized to different portions of the display,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:12:06 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:12:18 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:12:36 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:12:58 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:13:32 25
`
`evidence of the disclaimer. And, so, the scope of disclaimer
`
`that is clear and unmistakable is what the applicant says is in
`
`sharp contrast. That the vehicle information in Hartman is
`
`relocated and/or revised.
`
`THE COURT: Isn't really -- aren't the roles almost
`
`reversed here?
`
`You're the one who is arguing for the disclaimer. They
`
`don't want the disclaimer.
`
`MR. GIZA: I guess in a sense, your Honor, that's true.
`
`And, you know, if you look at the file history, there's
`
`obviously a reference that was brought up by the examiner,
`
`Hartman, and there was a rejection based upon it, and there was
`
`an amendment to clarify the distinction. So I think there's
`
`some disclaimer there.
`
`And then the question that goes to what is the clear
`
`and unmistakable disclaimer from that change?
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`
`MR. GIZA: The understanding of unique and static to
`
`mean something that's neither relocated or resized to different
`
`portions of the display is entirely consistent with the claim
`
`language as it exists and the specification.
`
`The specification -- I'll point the Court to Column 1,
`
`Lines 32 to 35.
`
`(Pause)
`
`And the applicant expressly described previous
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:10:36 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:10:56 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:11:08 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:11:28 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:11:50 25
`history disclaimer, there has to be clear and unmistakable
`3 of 35 sheets
`
`It's not --
`
`THE COURT: So would that makes sense when you have
`
`language and you're not changing it, then you have to, if you
`
`are going to change the normal meaning of the words, then you do
`
`have to have clear and unmistakable disclaimer, but here the
`
`unique and static language is added at the same time as you're
`
`saying, Well, it doesn't mean this.
`
`So I'm not really sure how much you're in the
`
`disclaimer world and you're -- clearly when you say, It doesn't
`
`mean this, well, okay, you're saying it doesn't mean this.
`
`You know, you can add something that's not just the
`
`opposite of, It doesn't mean this, and you've got to live with
`
`whatever stuff you've added in?
`
`MR. GIZA: Again, I believe that for prosecution
`
`10
`
`12
`
`well, that would be pretty clear what those words mean, but
`
`instead they added something else that is unique and static,
`
`which is not necessarily the same thing as not relocated or
`
`resized.
`
`MR. GIZA: So I think the difference, your Honor, is
`
`that when there is a prosecution history disclaimer, there has
`
`to be clear and unmistakable evidence of that disclaimer. And,
`
`so, looking at unique and static, and looking at the immediately
`
`following sentence where the applicant describes in sharp
`
`contrast what that means, that's the scope of the disclaimer.
`
`solutions. The prior art suggests altering the size and/or
`
`location of the displayed information.
`
`So I think clearly the specification is saying this is
`
`not what our invention is. That's consistent with what was said
`
`in the prosecution history and for that it should be the
`
`appropriate scope of unique and static.
`
`THE COURT: So... yes, okay.
`
`I take it, leaving aside some of these words we're
`
`talking about, let's see if we can just fix, what do you think
`
`the disagreement is between you and the defendants?
`
`Because it seems to me -- and I may have misunderstood
`
`this -- but it seems to me that basically you're both
`
`agreeing -- think of this as a rectangle with, you know, made up
`
`of two squares, and one square has got vehicle information, and
`
`I think you're both in agreement -- and tell me if I'm wrong --
`
`that the square with the vehicle information is always a square
`
`that has vehicle information and it doesn't have the selectable
`
`pages, you know, music, tools, and whatever. And the other
`
`one -- and this seems to be where the disagreement is -- the
`
`other one is the selectable area.
`
`It seems to me like the disagreement is whether the
`
`selectable area could have stuff in it that was -- that could be
`
`called vehicle information.
`
`MR. GIZA: I think you have it exactly right, your
`
`Honor.
`
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:14:02 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:14:28 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:14:50 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:15:10 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:15:28 25
`Page 9 to 12 of 91
`
`

`

`13
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:15:36 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:15:58 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:16:14 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:16:26 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:16:52 25
`
`So the defendants' proposed construction is wrong,
`
`because it adds a limitation that's based on a fault
`
`distinction.
`
`THE COURT: Well, so what exactly is the limitation
`
`that they've added, that it cannot have vehicle information?
`
`MR. GIZA: Right.
`
`THE COURT: Leaving aside the language, do you think
`
`that is actually the only point of dispute here is whether the
`
`selectable area can have vehicle information in it?
`
`MR. GIZA: I know that's probably the main dispute. I
`
`think that's the only dispute.
`
`THE COURT: I'm just asking for your opinion. I'm not
`
`asking you to speak for them.
`
`MR. GIZA: No. That's my understanding is that the
`
`fixed area shows vehicle information and they want to import a
`
`limitation, but the selectable area cannot show vehicle
`
`information.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`So there seems to be a further point of dispute maybe
`
`as to what exactly was meant by vehicle information, because I
`
`think they said some of the things -- in essence, I don't think
`
`they used this language, but their definition of vehicle
`
`information was a fairly narrow scope.
`
`And, so, that some of the things that you would say is,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:18:10 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:18:30 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:18:54 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:19:12 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:19:36 25
`
`MR. GIZA: That's right. It's based on a false
`
`distinction, your Honor.
`
`The distinction that they're trying to argue for is
`
`that the vehicle information is distinct from information on the
`
`selectable pages. That's not the distinction that is described
`
`in the patent, in the file history anywhere.
`
`The distinction in the patent, in the file history, is
`
`between a fixed and selectable page. Between the selectable
`
`area that has a plurality of pages, a lot of information, and a
`
`fixed area, essentially, a place that has one page, one display.
`
` Again, the goal of the patent is to organize
`
`information for the driver, so as to minimize distraction. The
`
`point is that you have a fixed area that is constant, at least
`
`while the car is in operation, and you have a selectable area
`
`that has a plurality of pages, and you can select through the
`
`pages to find the information that you want. That's an option
`
`on some of the systems. That's the distinction.
`
`There is no distinction in the claim or in the file
`
`history about what the content of that information is. It's all
`
`vehicle information.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. GIZA: So defendants' attempted distinction here
`
`between vehicle information, supposedly that can only be on a
`
`fixed display and information on the selectable pages doesn't
`
`make sense, and I will show you why.
`
`16
`
`Well, you can't exclude that, and they would say, Well, that is
`14
`
`not actually vehicle information?
`
`MR. GIZA: So that's a little bit unclear to me.
`
`Vehicle information is not a term that has been raised for
`
`construction to the Court. So my understanding is that the
`
`plain and ordinary mean meaning would apply.
`
`If the defendants wants to have a narrower construction
`
`of vehicle information, they could have requested it, and argued
`
`it, but they haven't.
`
`THE COURT: So, in other words, you wouldn't like --
`
`what you're saying, I think -- and I think I understand this --
`
`is vehicle information is -- I think they referred me to
`
`somewhere in the specification to figure out what it means.
`
`Your point is, No, you really can't do that, because
`
`you just take the plain and ordinary meaning of the words since
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:20:16 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:20:30 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:20:48 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:21:12 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:21:32 25
`Page 13 to 16 of 91
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:17:04 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:17:16 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:17:32 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:17:42 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:17:56 25
`reporting a limitation is not there.
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`
`it is not up for construction?
`
`MR. GIZA: That's correct, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. GIZA: The specification informs the meaning of it
`
`and the specification has a number of examples. So I'm sure
`
`that's helpful in understanding what the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of vehicle information is. But other than that, there
`
`is not -- it hasn't been argued, some sort of limiting
`
`construction for vehicle information.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So you were saying -- so they're
`
`First, let's look at the claim.
`
`So the selectable area has a plurality of pages, and
`
`the plurality of pages includes at least one parameter of
`
`optional subsystems for the vehicle. That's vehicle
`
`information.
`
`How can a parameter of a vehicle subsystem not be
`
`vehicle information?
`
`There is vehicle information certainly on the
`
`selectable pages, selectable area.
`
`In addition the specification describes warning
`
`conditions. And in its description of the warning condition --
`
`this is at Column 4 --
`
`THE COURT: Well, wait, wait, wait.
`
`Go back to Claim 1.
`
`The optional subsystems for the vehicle, it doesn't
`
`mean vehicle information. That's talking about, isn't it, the
`
`music and all the other things that are listed? Does it say
`
`that each page is vehicle information? That doesn't make any
`
`sense, does it?
`
`MR. GIZA: Certainly it does, your Honor.
`
`So the information used by the vehicle is vehicle
`
`information. Let's say -- one of the examples is door locks.
`
`One of the parameters would be locked or unlocked. And I would
`
`normally expect it to display whether it was locked or unlocked
`
`on that selectable page. That's vehicle information.
`
`4 of 35 sheets
`
`

`

`17
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:21:58 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:22:18 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:22:46 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:23:08 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:23:34 25
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
`
`MR. GIZA: All of that information may not be vehicle
`
`information, but it is certainly -- I think it is sensible to
`
`understand that if you are selecting options for vehicle
`
`subsystems, that is including information, vehicle information.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not a hundred percent convinced, but go
`
`ahead.
`
`MR. GIZA: There's another example. The example of the
`
`warning conditions from Column 4, Lines 55 through 60.
`
`So the specification describes a warning condition and
`
`it gives an example of low voltage from the battery.
`
`And it does that while the -- the warning conditions
`
`can be displayed in warning areas. It can also be understood
`
`that it can be displayed in the fixed area or the selectable
`
`area.
`
`THE COURT: Right. I thought the defendants had a
`
`pretty decent point that, essentially, warning conditions are,
`
`if you will, sort of described in the patent in such a way to
`
`indicate that they're really outside the vehicle information and
`
`subsystems thing. You know, I keep thinking music, but I
`
`remember lots of other things like maps.
`
`And that -- and I guess that really gets down to their
`
`-- the earlier point that we discussed about whether vehicle
`
`information really just means anything that you can conceivably
`
`describe as vehicle information, which would certainly include
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:25:22 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:25:32 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:25:44 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:25:58 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:26:16 25
`
`THE COURT: I thought you were in agreement with that?
`
`MR. GIZA: We agreed that the fixed area shows vehicle
`
`information, but it's not limited to vehicle information.
`
`THE COURT: So you can put the selectable pages there,
`
`too?
`
`MR. GIZA: Not selectable pages. That's the
`
`distinction.
`
`THE COURT: Well, it seems to me that you are now
`
`arguing the -- so besides the vehicle information and the
`
`selectable pages, what else is there that you can display there?
`
`MR. GIZA: Well, there is information that can be
`
`described as vehicle information and then there is other
`
`information.
`
`THE COURT: Like what?
`
`MR. GIZA: The specification describes other
`
`information. This is at the top of Column 4, Lines 10 through
`
`12, 9 through 12.
`
`And it describes vehicle information and says it's a
`
`number of different things; the current speed, current mileage,
`
`temperature, amount of gas remaining.
`
`Then you go down to Line 9, and there is other
`
`information that can also be included in the fixed area, such as
`
`an interior/exterior temperature, direction of the vehicle
`
`facing, time, the maintain indicator, et cetera.
`
`18
`
`So the specification expressly describes the fixed area
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:23:58 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:24:14 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:24:28 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:24:42 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:25:08 25
`show vehicle information.
`5 of 35 sheets
`
`or not?
`
`MR. GIZA: Well, okay. I propose to you, your Honor,
`
`that if there is no construction for vehicle information
`
`limiting it, then it can't be a warning condition, then it
`
`should include certainly the voltage, a low voltage from the
`
`battery. That's an aspect of the vehicle. It's information
`
`about the vehicle.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I understand your point.
`
`MR. GIZA: So another problem with the defendants'
`
`construction is, they're arguing that the fixed area can only
`
`warning conditions, or whether, you know, the patent draws a
`
`distinction between vehicle information and warning conditions.
`
`MR. GIZA: So, your Honor, I believe that there is no
`
`argument for construction of vehicle information. So, again,
`
`it's appropriate to apply the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`There are many examples of what vehicle information is
`
`in the specification. This kind of a warning condition, low
`
`voltage from the battery, that is vehicle information --
`
`THE COURT: Well, I mean --
`
`MR. GIZA: -- is under the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`THE COURT: -- certainly the specification says it can
`
`be displayed anywhere. So if it is the vehicle information,
`
`then I think you're right.
`
`So then the next question is, Is it vehicle information
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:26:40 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:26:56 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:27:14 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:27:42 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:28:04 25
`Page 17 to 20 of 91
`
`as including information that's other information.
`
`THE COURT: Right. But that's a lot different than the
`
`selectable page. I guess that's what you said, too, is -- I
`
`mean, that, you know, it's probably not a long stretch to
`
`describe saying that the interior temperature of the vehicle is
`
`being vehicle information?
`
`MR. GIZA: I don't believe it would be, but if it is,
`
`if it isn't, then it's other information, and that certainly is
`
`expressly described as being part of the fixed area. It could
`
`be in the fixed area.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. GIZA: So this information -- for example, you're
`
`saying the temperature. Another example is time. It expressly
`
`says that can be in the fixed area. It also expressly says that
`
`information can be in the selectable pages.
`
`THE COURT: Where does it say that?
`
`MR. GIZA: If we look at Column 7.
`
`(Pause)
`
`Column 7, Lines 45 and 46, it's talking about
`
`temperature subsystem, and it says it can be used to monitor an
`
`outdoor temperature, et cetera.
`
`There's an example of vehicle information or
`
`information that can be shown both on the fixed or the
`
`selectable pages.
`
`There's an example of time. That's at Line 52.
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`
`

`

`21
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:28:22 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:29:20 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:29:36 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:30:06 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:30:26 25
`
`There's a time subsystem. It can be used to display the time,
`
`date, et cetera.
`
`THE COURT: Hold on just a second.
`
`(Pause)
`
`All right. Go ahead.
`
`MR. GIZA: So the distinction here is not on the
`
`content of the information. This information, the temperature,
`
`the time, expressly disclosed as being able to be shown both on
`
`the fixed and on the selectable pages. So there is no
`
`distinction based upon the content of the information.
`
`It is true, and the claims do require, that the fixed
`
`area display vehicle information, but it is not limited to
`
`displaying only vehicle information, and the selectable pages
`
`aren't limited to not displaying vehicle information.
`
`THE COURT: The claim term -- what does unique mean?
`
`MR. GIZA: That's a good question, your Honor.
`
`That brings me to what I think the parties do agree on.
`
`The parties appear to agree on two things that the fixed and
`
`selectable areas have to be non-overlapping or separate.
`
`I think that's a fair description of unique.
`
`And that's in the combined brief at 17 in the
`
`defendants' portion. They say that and we appear not to
`
`disagree on that point.
`
`There's also the aspect of a non-moving boundary.
`
`THE COURT: Isn't that -- wouldn't that be sort of be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:32:28 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:32:42 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:32:54 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:33:06 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:33:44 25
`
`Basically what you're suggesting is, wherein the fixed
`
`area and the selectable area have non-overlapping and non-moving
`
`boundaries.
`
`All right.
`
`Anything else?
`
`MR. GIZA: With that construction, your Honor, I
`
`believe that, again, that's agreed between the parties to be
`
`appropriate for unique and static. There is no reason to go
`
`beyond that and add additional limitations, the additional
`
`limitations that the defendants are proposing in their
`
`construction.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Giza.
`
`All right.
`
`Mr. Haug, good morning.
`
`MR. HAUG: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Good to be back.
`
`I have some slides that I'd like to hand up to the
`
`Court?
`
`THE COURT: Sure, yes.
`
`MR. HAUG: We -- we represent Ferrari and Porsche in
`
`this case.
`
`The defendants, of course, have also put in a joint
`
`brief, and we've been doing this jointly, so I will be
`
`addressing at least two of the terms that we have here today,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:30:42 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:30:56 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:31:14 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:31:36 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:32:02 25
`Fortunately we have a court reporter here.
`01/07/2014 05:34:27 PM
`
`content of the information that is being displayed. There
`
`simply isn't that limitation.
`
`So this morning I looked at the information, and I
`
`spoke with opposing counsel, and I wanted to propose an
`
`alternative construction. It's based upon the first part of
`
`defendants' proposed construction.
`
`What we would propose is, wherein the fixed area and
`
`the selectable area have non-overlapping and non-moving
`
`boundaries. That puts together the agreed concept between the
`
`parties and it fully explains both unique and static.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`10:33:58 5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10:34:18 10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`10:34:36 15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`10:34:52 20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`10:35:08 25
`Page 21 to 24 of 91
`
`-- you mean the non-moving boundary is kind of the static part,
`
`right?
`
`MR. GIZA: Yes, your Honor. I think that's accurate.
`
`And, again, that's a point where the parties don't appear to
`
`have a disagreement. That's in the combined brief at Page 19.
`
`The defendants mention that.
`
`If we look at that as being the proper understanding of
`
`unique and static, that fully explains unique and static,
`
`doesn