`
`
`Ex. PGS 1031
`EX. PGS 1031
`(EXCERPTED)
`(EXCERPTED)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 429 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/12 Page 1 of 176
`
` 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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC, . 4:09-CV-01827
` . HOUSTON, TEXAS
`PLAINTIFF, .
` .
` vs. .
` .
`ION GEOPHYSICAL .
`CORPORATION, FUGRO GEOTEAM, .
`INC., ET AL, .
` .
`DEFENDANTS . JULY 23, 2012
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:15 A.M.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE KEITH P. ELLISON
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`Lee K. Kaplan
`SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA LLP
`Bank of America Center
`700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Gregg F. LoCascio
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`655 Fifteenth Street Northwest
`Washington, DC 20005
`Sarah Tsou
`Timothy K. Gilman
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`Citigroup Center
`153 East 53rd Street
`New York, New York 10022
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
`Ex. PGS 1031
`
`
`
`12:59
`
`12:59
`
`13:00
`
`13:00
`
`13:00
`
`13:01
`
` 142
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 429 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/12 Page 142 of 176
`
` 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
`
`and the patent examiner, including a record of any rejections,
`the applicant's responses and any amendments.
`Once a patent has issued, the inventor, or the
`person or company the inventor has assigned the patent to, can
`enforce the patent against anyone who uses the invention
`without permission. We call such unlawful use "infringement."
`But the PTO and its examiners do not decide infringement
`issues. If there is a dispute about infringement, it is
`brought to the Court to decide. Sometimes in a court case, you
`are also asked to decide about validity; that is, whether the
`patent should have been allowed at all by the PTO.
`A party accused of infringement is entitled to
`challenge whether the asserted patent claims are sufficiently
`new or nonobvious in light of the prior art or whether other
`requirements of patentability have been met. In other words, a
`defense to an infringement lawsuit is that the patent in
`question is invalid.
`You may wonder why it is that you would be asked
`to consider such things when the patent has already been
`reviewed by a government examiner. There are several reasons
`for this. First, there may be facts or arguments that the
`examiner did not consider, such as prior art that was not
`located by the PTO or provided by the applicant.
`Another reason may be the failure by the
`applicant to disclose the best way of making or using the
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
`Ex. PGS 1031
`
`
`
`13:04
`
`13:05
`
`13:05
`
`13:05
`
`13:06
`
`13:06
`
` 145
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 429 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/12 Page 145 of 176
`
` 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
`
`system that WesternGeco argues are covered by its patented
`system claims. WesternGeco further alleges that Fugro-Geoteam
`infringed certain method claims of the Bittleston patents by
`selling or offering for sale within the United States methods
`that WesternGeco argues are covered by its method claim.
`The Court has already made a finding of
`infringement as to Claim 18 of the '520 patent. You will hear
`more about that later.
`ION and Fugro deny WesternGeco's allegations and
`further argue that their method and system claims are invalid.
`I will instruct you later as to the ways in which a patent may
`be invalid. In general, however, a patent is invalid if it is
`not new or it is obvious in view of the state of the art at the
`relevant time or if the description in the patent does not meet
`certain requirements. Your job will be to decide whether ION
`and Fugro infringed the patent claims asserted by WesternGeco
`and whether or not those claims are invalid.
`If you decide that any of the claims is infringed
`and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money
`damages to be awarded WesternGeco to compensate it for the
`infringement. You will also need to make a finding as to
`whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that any
`infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any
`damages award you give. I will take willfulness into account
`later.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
`Ex. PGS 1031
`
`
`
`13:06
`
`13:06
`
`13:07
`
`13:07
`
`13:07
`
`13:08
`
` 146
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 429 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/12 Page 146 of 176
`
` 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
`
`Let's take a moment to look at United States
`Patent Number '520, one of the patents in this case. The cover
`page of the patent identifies the date the patent was granted
`and patent number along the top as well as the inventor's
`names, the filing date and a list of the references considered
`in the PTO. The specification of the patent begins with an
`abstract, also found on the cover page. The abstract is a
`brief statement about the subject matter of the invention.
`Next comes the drawings. These illustrate
`various aspects or features of the invention. The written
`description of the invention appears next and is organized in
`the two columns on the next page. The specification ends with
`numbered paragraphs. These are the patent claims.
`I have already determined the meaning of certain
`terms of the claims of the patents. You have been given a
`document reflecting those meanings. For a claim term for which
`I have not provided you with a definition, you should apply the
`ordinary meaning. You are to apply my definitions of these
`terms throughout this case. However, my interpretation of the
`language of the claims should not be taken as an indication
`that I have a view regarding issues such as infringement and
`validity. Those issues are yours to decide. I will provide
`you with more detailed instructions with the meaning of the
`claims before you retire to deliberate on your verdict.
`After our lunch break, the trial will begin.
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`mayramalone@comcast.net
`
`Ex. PGS 1031
`
`