throbber
1
`
`- VOLUME A -
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`: CIVIL ACTION
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`:::
`
`:::
`
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`:
`: NO. 13-00009-RGA
`
`INTERDIGITAL
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, IPR
`LICENSING, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`and INTERDIGITAL
`HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE
`(USA) INC.,
`Defendants
`and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs,
`
`- - -
`Wilmington, Delaware
`Monday, October 20, 2014
`9:02 o'clock, a.m.
`- - -
`BEFORE: HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS,
`U.S.D.C.J., and a jury
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`- - -
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 2015
`
` Ex. 2015-0001
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc.
`Exhibit .
`ZTE Corp v. IPR Licensing, Inc.
`IPR2014-00525 
`
`

`

`2
`
`SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS
`BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: RON E. SHULMAN, ESQ.
`(Menlo Park, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: JONATHAN D. LINK, ESQ. And
`JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, ESQ.
`(San Francisco, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, ESQ. And
`BERT C. REISER, ESQ.
`(Washington, D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`InterDigital Communications, Inc.,
`InterDigital Technology Corporation,
`IPR Licensing, Inc., and
`InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
`
`FARNAN LLP
`BY: KELLEY E. FARNAN, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0002
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`3
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: RALPH J. GABRIC, ESQ. And
`CHARLES M. McMAHON, ESQ.
`(Chicago, Illinois)
`
`-and-
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: JAY H. REIZISS, ESQ.
`(Washington D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`ZTE Corp. And ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`- - -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0003
`
`

`

`155
`
`THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gabric,
`I'll recognize you for the opening on behalf of
`ZTE.
`
`MR. GABRIC: Thank you very much,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`Good afternoon. My name is Ralph
`Gabric and I represent ZTE Corporation and ZTE
`U.S.A.
`
`And the evidence is going to tell a
`different story than the one you just heard. The
`evidence is going to show that ZTE does not and
`has not infringed InterDigital's patents.
`I'll get to that in a little bit,
`but I'd like to introduce a few folks. With me
`is ZTE's rep, Mr. Waiman Lam who's the senior
`director. Can you stand, please?
`And also with me are my colleagues
`who are going to assist me in presenting ZTE's
`case. With me, Charles McMahon, Kelly Farnan and
`Jay Reiziss.
`
`Now, who is ZTE?
`ZTE was started in China in 1985. And through
`innovation and plain old-fashioned hard work has
`quietly grown to one of the largest cellphone
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0004
`
`

`

`156
`
`manufacturers in the world.
`ZTE has facilities all over the
`world, including here in the United States. ZTE
`spends billions of dollars on research and
`development. It spends extraordinary resources
`on developing technology.
`And ZTE is one of the largest patent
`filers in the world. Over the last couple of
`years, ZTE has ranked either number one or two in
`worldwide patent filings.
`ZTE also sells products all over the
`world. So if you want to talk about who the
`innovators are, ZTE has the products to prove
`that.
`
`Some of you -- I don't think many of
`you have heard of ZTE before, but many of our
`cellphones are sold by companies like Verizon,
`AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile. They sold under their
`own brands under their carrier brand, but we
`often times manufacture those phones.
`Let me be very clear and direct.
`ZTE does not take other people's patents. We
`don't take other people's technology without
`permission.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0005
`
`

`

`157
`
`We have thousands of hard working
`employees, engineers who work very hard in
`developing our products, products that we sell
`all over the world including here in the United
`States.
`
`And we take InterDigital'
`allegations very seriously, extremely seriously.
`InterDigital is accusing us of theft, of stealing
`their technology, of stealing their patents. The
`evidence will show that those allegations are
`false. We have done nothing wrong. We have not
`taken InterDigital's technology.
`So what is this case really all
`about? This case is about InterDigital taking
`some very narrow patents, very narrow patents
`that ZTE does not infringe and stretching them to
`cover things that InterDigital did not invent.
`Can you put up the '151 patent,
`
`please?
`
`This is one of the patents-in-suit,
`the '151 patent. We call this the same channel
`patent. And you will be hearing a lot about this
`patent during this case.
`And what the evidence will show is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0006
`
`

`

`677
`
`- VOLUME C -
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`: CIVIL ACTION
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`:::
`
`:::
`
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`:
`: NO. 13-00009-RGA
`
`INTERDIGITAL
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, IPR
`LICENSING, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`and INTERDIGITAL
`HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE
`(USA) INC.,
`Defendants
`and
`Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs,
`
`- - -
`Wilmington, Delaware
`Wednesday, October 22, 2014
`8:33 o'clock, a.m.
`- - -
`BEFORE: HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS,
`U.S.D.C.J., and a jury
`
`- - -
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0007
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`APPEARANCES:
`
`678
`
`SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS
`BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: RON E. SHULMAN, ESQ.
`(Menlo Park, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: JONATHAN D. LINK, ESQ. And
`JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, ESQ.
`(San Francisco, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, ESQ. And
`BERT C. REISER, ESQ.
`(Washington, D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`InterDigital Communications, Inc.,
`InterDigital Technology Corporation,
`IPR Licensing, Inc., and
`InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`BY: KELLY E. FARNAN, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0008
`
`

`

`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
`679
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: RALPH J. GABRIC, ESQ. And
`CHARLES M. McMAHON, ESQ.
`(Chicago, Illinois)
`
`-and-
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: JAY H. REIZISS, ESQ.
`(Washington D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`ZTE Corp. And ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`- - -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0009
`
`

`

`880
`
`network equipment gear to consumer electronic
`products, like smartphones or feature phones, or
`what we call basic phones, they're
`non-smartphones, as well as mobile broadband
`products like mobile hotspots.
`Q. Do you know how ZTE compares to other
`cellphone manufacturers in terms of worldwide
`sales?
`A. Yes. From the data I've seen, we're a top
`five global manufacturer of devices in terms of
`market share.
`Q. Does ZTE have any facilities in the United
`States?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Where are those facilities?
`A. We have many facilities in the U.S. The
`corporate headquarters is in Richardson, Texas,
`and we have regional offices throughout the U.S.
`in places like San Diego, San Jose, Seattle,
`Kansas City, Atlanta, Miami, New Jersey.
`Q. Do you know about how many employees ZTE
`USA has?
`A. Yes. We have about 300 or so employees in
`the U.S.
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0010
`
`

`

`1015
`
`- VOLUME D -
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`: CIVIL ACTION
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`:::
`
`:::
`
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`:
`: NO. 13-00009-RGA
`
`INTERDIGITAL
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, IPR
`LICENSING, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`and INTERDIGITAL
`HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE
`(USA) INC.,
`Defendants
`and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs,
`
`- - -
`Wilmington, Delaware
`Thursday, October 23, 2014
`9:00 o'clock, a.m.
`- - -
`BEFORE: HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS,
`U.S.D.C.J., and a jury
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`- - -
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0011
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`1016
`
`SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS
`BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: RON E. SHULMAN, ESQ.
`(Menlo Park, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: JONATHAN D. LINK, ESQ. And
`JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, ESQ.
`(San Francisco, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, ESQ. And
`BERT C. REISER, ESQ.
`(Washington, D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`InterDigital Communications, Inc.,
`InterDigital Technology Corporation,
`IPR Licensing, Inc., and
`InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`BY: KELLY E. FARNAN, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0012
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`1017
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: RALPH J. GABRIC, ESQ. And
`CHARLES M. McMAHON, ESQ.
`(Chicago, Illinois)
`
`-and-
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: JAY H. REIZISS, ESQ.
`(Washington D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`ZTE Corp. And ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`- - -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0013
`
`

`

`1074
`
`Q. Yes.
`A. You not talk too fast.
`Q. I will do my best.
`A. It's sometimes hard to follow.
`Q. Okay.
`A. Okay.
`Q. I get that a lot.
`Okay. And it's your opinion,
`Doctor, that PDP context and CDMA session are not
`logical connections; right?
`A. That's right.
`Q. All right. Now, the term logical
`connection, logical connection has meaning to
`persons of ordinary skill in the field of
`cellular communication; is that right?
`A. It's a -- it's a general term.
`Q. Okay.
`A. Yes.
`Q. And, of course, in performing your
`analysis of infringement and invalidity, you have
`to use that meaning; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. All right. Now, Doctor, people in the
`field of cellular communication refer to PDP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0014
`
`

`

`1081
`
`A. No. It is what it says. I think you
`asked me before, everybody in the field knows PDP
`context is a logical connection. I answered no
`to that, but I can't dispute with what he's
`saying there.
`Q. Just to quibble a tiny bit, Doctor, I said
`people in the field, not everybody.
`A. Okay. That's fine.
`Q. All right. Okay. So you agree with what
`this treatise says, that PDP context is in
`essence a logical connection set up between
`mobile station MS and gateway GPRS support node
`GGSN?
`A. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's
`what it says.
`Q. You agree or disagree with it, Doctor?
`Which one is it?
`A. I would disagree for the reasons I gave.
`Q. All right. Could you turn to tab 3 in
`your binder? That should be three tabs after the
`one that you are looking at.
`A. Tab 3?
`Q. Are you there, sir?
`A. Yes.
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0015
`
`

`

`1083
`
`Q. Please turn to 188 of this document and
`focus your attention on the second full
`paragraph. Okay?
`A. Second full paragraph?
`Q. Yes.
`A. Okay.
`Q. If you look at the last sentence of this
`second full paragraph, you'll see a parenthetical
`statement that says, "PDP context is a logical
`connection between a terminal and the target
`network."
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. And I take it you disagree with Nokia
`Siemens Network, that the PDP context is a logical
`connection?
`A. That's what this document says, and, yes,
`I disagree that it's a logical connection of the
`patent.
`Q. All right. Let's look at the next tab in
`your binder, tab 4.
`A. Yes. There.
`Q. Do you see that this is a patent
`application filed by Motorola?
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0016
`
`

`

`1086
`
`patent was filed in January of 2001; is that
`correct? That's absolutely incorrect, Doctor.
`It was filed in May of 2006?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. I don't know where that came from.
`Now, you'll agree that in May 2006,
`Nokia was a well-known cellphone company?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. Please look at the second column.
`You skip past the pictures and get to the text.
`And I'm focusing on the paragraph at
`line 45. The third sentence says -- no, the
`second sentence.
`The second sentence says, "The
`terminal 11 has only one logical connection, that
`is only one context such as a protocol context
`e.g. IP context or PDP context."
`Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. So here Nokia is saying that PDP context
`is an example of a logical connection; right?
`A. That appears what it's doing, yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0017
`
`

`

`1087
`
`Q. All right. I think you still disagree?
`A. Again, yes, I disagree. It's not the
`logical connection in the patent.
`Q. All right. Now, we've looked at the
`treatise, the Nokia Siemens network book, the
`Motorola application and the Nokia application,
`all of which say that PDP context is a logical
`connection.
`
`Is it fair to say, Doctor, you
`didn't show the jury a single document which says
`that PDP context is not a logical connection?
`A. I think there are two negatives in there.
`Sorry.
`Q. Well, we --
`A. I'm sorry. Could you please ask it again?
`Q. We can move on, Doctor. Thank you.
`A. Okay.
`Q. Let's turn now to a CDMA 2000 session.
`Can you please turn to tab 6 in your binder?
`Now, this is a patent application
`filed by LG Electronics, or LGE.
`Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. And it was filed in December of 2002.
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0018
`
`

`

`1101
`
`whether it discloses assigned physical channels.
`Let's take a look, please, at the
`Judge's claim construction for assigned physical
`channels.
`
`Now, the judge construed this term
`to mean physical channels available for the
`subscriber unit to select for use.
`Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. So let's talk about how physical
`channels are selected in GPRS.
`GPRS stands for general packet radio
`service; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And that's because in GPRS it is sent in
`packets; right?
`A. Yeah.
`Q. Okay. And in GPRS, the packet data
`channel is called PDCH; right?
`A. That's right. I think -- oh, yes. Yeah.
`Q. Okay. And packet data channels, PDCHs,
`are physical channels; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And in GPRS, the cellphone sends
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0019
`
`

`

`1103
`
`A. Yeah.
`Q. Okay. So the cellphone sends the network
`a packet channel request message; right?
`A. Yeah.
`Q. And in GPRS, the network tells the
`cellphone which PDCH it has to transmit data on;
`right?
`A. Yes, it assigns. It assigns time slots to
`the cellphone.
`Q. Well, that wasn't what I asked you.
`A. Okay.
`Q. Could we see your deposition testimony,
`please, at Page 132, Lines 2 through 5.
`And you were asked the question:
`"So in GPRS, the network is telling the mobile
`station -- the network tells the mobile station
`which PDCH it has to transmit data on. Right?
`"Answer: Yes."
`Did you give that testimony under
`
`oath?
`A. Yeah.
`Q. Okay. Now, let's talk about CDMA, and
`specifically IS-95 and IS-657.
`Let's look at whether those
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0020
`
`

`

`1104
`
`documents disclose a plurality of assigned
`physical channels.
`Now, I'd like to talk first about
`the plurality. Plurality is one or more. Two or
`more; right?
`A. Yeah.
`Q. Okay. And you told the jury yesterday --
`could we have DDX-0341 up on the screen?
`This is your slide yesterday; right?
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And you told the jury that this
`description of a traffic channel from, I think,
`it's IS-95, discloses a plurality of physical
`channels; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And specifically, you pointed to the
`forward traffic channel and the reverse traffic
`channel as being a plurality; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And it's fair to say a reverse traffic
`channel can also be called an uplink channel;
`right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And a forward traffic channel can also be
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0021
`
`

`

`1105
`
`called a downlink channel; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. So this IS-95, we have an uplink
`channel and a downlink channel; right?
`A. Yeah.
`Q. Okay. Let's keep it on the screen and put
`the first element of Claim 1, so we can make a
`comparison here.
`Now, what the claim says is a
`cellular transceiver, which a subscriber unit
`includes a cellular transceiver, configured to
`communicate with a cellular wireless network via
`a plurality of assigned physical channels.
`Right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And that means the subscriber unit
`has to communicate with the cellular wireless
`network via a plurality of assigned physical
`channels using this transceiver?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. But you'll agree, Doctor, that a
`subscriber unit communicates with a cellular
`wireless network using uplink channels; right?
`A. And it communicates using both uplink and
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0022
`
`

`

`1106
`
`downlink communication. Two ways.
`Q. Let's look at your deposition testimony,
`Doctor. Could we have 17, 4 through 10 and 16.
`18 through 24 on the screen?
`Let's start with this, you were
`asked: "A subscriber unit communicates with a
`cellular network using uplink channels. Correct?
`And you replied: "Again, in broad
`-- in broad strokes, I'm comfortable with that,
`that the communication and the direction from the
`subscriber unit to the base station is a -- is an
`uplink."
`
`Did you give that testimony?
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. And let's look at Page 16, Lines 18
`through 24.
`
`"A base station communicates with a
`subscriber unit using downlink channels.
`Correct?
`
`"Answer: Yeah, I believe it's
`common to -- to refer to that, that link from the
`base station to the subscriber unit, as the down
`-- downward link, downlink."
`Did you give that testimony?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0023
`
`

`

`1107
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. So let's return to the slide, please.
`Okay. And what the claim language
`says is that the subscriber unit is communicating
`with the cellular wireless network, not the
`reverse; right, Doctor?
`A. No, I wouldn't agree with that.
`Q. I'm just reading the words, Doctor.
`A. Communication with a cellular wireless
`network, doesn't make any sense unless it's going
`in both directions.
`Q. If you say so, Doctor, but I'm just
`looking at what the language actually says. The
`subscriber unit comprising a transceiver
`configured to communicate with a cellular
`wireless network via a plurality of assigned
`physical channels.
`So let's look at how this traffic
`channel, including the one uplink channel, is
`selected. The base station tells the mobile
`station which traffic channel to use; correct?
`A. I'm sorry. You're going to need to ask
`the question again.
`You're moving a little fast. If
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0024
`
`

`

`1108
`
`you're going to be technical now, so I just want
`to follow it.
`Q. Sure. The base station in IS-95, IS-657,
`the base station tells the mobile station which
`traffic channels to use; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And specifically the base station tells
`the mobile station which traffic channel to use
`by sending it a channel assignment message;
`right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And that message direct the mobile station
`to the traffic channel; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. So let's look at draft UMTS.
`Now, you've already agreed UMTS is
`not mentioned in Jawanda; right?
`A. Right. Does not use those letters, UMTS,
`but it does talk about future wireless standards,
`does talk about CDMA. But you're correct, it
`does not use UMTS, does not mention UMTS.
`Q. We're clear on that; right?
`A. That's correct.
`Q. We agree. Okay.
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0025
`
`

`

`1109
`
`Now, you told the jury yesterday
`that Jawanda describes conforming to a
`standard; right?
`A. That makes sense. I can't -- yes,
`probably.
`Q. Okay.
`A. I probably used those words.
`Q. I can show you your testimony if you're
`not sure.
`A. I haven't looked at them, but it makes
`sense. Yeah.
`Q. So let's explore what these draft UMTS
`documents were in 1999. Now, the draft UMTS
`standards were in development in 1999?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And you weren't involved in the
`development of these draft UMTS standards in
`1999, were you?
`A. No, I was not.
`Q. The draft UMTS standards changed over
`time; right?
`A. I assume so. That makes sense.
`Q. Well, you've testified about that, haven't
`you, Doctor?
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0026
`
`

`

`1118
`
`yesterday; is that right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And let's just add to that slide
`how the Judge construed the term at issue,
`maintain a communications session in the absence
`of a physical channel.
`Okay. Can we have that next slide?
`There we go. All right.
`So what the Judge's construction
`requires is that the logical connection is
`maintained and the physical channels are not in
`use; right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And you told the jury this morning
`that this discloses maintaining a PDP context;
`right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. All right. And you told me something a
`little different at your deposition, didn't you?
`A. I don't remember.
`Q. Okay. Well, let me see if I can refresh
`your recollection.
`MS. HOLLOWAY: Can we see Dr.
`McLaughlin's deposition at 65, lines 15 through
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0027
`
`

`

`1119
`
`19?
`BY MS. HOLLOWAY:
`Q. Okay. So talking about this figure in
`Jawanda, I said:
`"If the wireless data connection
`with the cellular WWAN is already active in box
`130, that's because it was maintained and
`therefore remained active in box 122. Right?
`"Answer: Yes."
`Did you give that testimony?
`A. I gave that testimony, but I think you are
`talking here about box 130. The question is
`about box 130, not about --
`Q. And about box 122.
`A. Yes.
`Q. But the point is if the cellular WWAN is
`maintained, it is active.
`MS. HOLLOWAY: Can we have that back
`
`up, please?
`BY MS. HOLLOWAY:
`Q. If the cellular connection is maintained,
`it is active. That's what you said?
`A. Yes. Yes.
`Q. Okay.
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Ex. 2015-0028
`
`

`

`1120
`
`A. That's correct, yes.
`Q. And let's return to the slide. So this is
`the next clip.
`This is an active connection, but an
`active connection is one that is being used,
`Doctor; isn't that true?
`A. No. I take that as it's alive, it's hot.
`It's available.
`Q. Let's see what you said, Doctor, at your
`deposition.
`
`MS. HOLLOWAY: Can we have Dr.
`McLaughlin's 2013 deposition, page 189, line 22
`to 190, line 4.
`BY MS. HOLLOWAY:
`Q. "First of all, in general, what is an
`active connection in the context of wireless
`communications?
`"Answer: Again, broad strokes, it
`would be a connection that's active, i.e. being
`used or -- I think of a connection that's being
`used, a wireless link that's being used."
`Did you give that testimony under
`
`oath, Doctor?
`A. Yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 N. King Street - Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0029
`
`

`

`1677
`
`- VOLUME F -
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`: CIVIL ACTION
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`:::
`
`:::
`
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`:
`: NO. 13-00009-RGA
`
`INTERDIGITAL
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, IPR
`LICENSING, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`and INTERDIGITAL
`HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE
`(USA) INC.,
`Defendants
`and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs,
`
`- - -
`Wilmington, Delaware
`Monday, October 27, 2014
`9:30 o'clock, a.m.
`- - -
`BEFORE: HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS, U.S.D.C.J.,
`and a jury
`
`- - -
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0030
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`1678
`
`SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS
`BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: RON E. SHULMAN, ESQ.
`(Menlo Park, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: JONATHAN D. LINK, ESQ. And
`JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, ESQ.
`(San Francisco, California)
`
`-and-
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`BY: MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, ESQ. And
`BERT C. REISER, ESQ.
`(Washington, D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`InterDigital Communications, Inc.,
`InterDigital Technology Corporation,
`IPR Licensing, Inc., and
`InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
`BY: KELLY E. FARNAN, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0031
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`

`1679
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: RALPH J. GABRIC, ESQ. And
`CHARLES M. McMAHON, ESQ.
`(Chicago, Illinois)
`
`-and-
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`BY: JAY H. REIZISS, ESQ.
`(Washington D.C.)
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`ZTE Corp. And ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`- - -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
` Ex. 2015-0032
`
`

`

`1803
`
`dispute about that.
`Dr. Cooklev didn't point to
`anything like that in the ZTE phones. What does
`he point to? He pointed to something called a
`PDP context. Probably heard that word quite a
`few times over the last week.
`And there's only two facts, two
`facts you need to know why a PDP context is not
`the logical connection of the '244 patents.
`Next slide, please.
`That's Dr. Cooklev's definition
`that he gave us. A logical connection is a
`connection between two layers of the protocol
`stack. There's an example of one, that vertical
`connection, the connection between two layers.
`Each of those layers, those colored layers are a
`different layer.
`You also heard Dr. McLaughlin and
`Dr. Cooklev testfy that a PDP context, it sits
`in one layer. It doesn't connect two layers.
`It's not a connection between two layers of
`protocol stack. It's sits in one layer.
`There is no dispute about that.
`Dr. Cooklev and Dr. McMahon agree that a PDP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Hawkins Reporting Service
`715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`

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