MS 1026
`
`
`MS 1026MS 1026MS 1026
`
`
`
`
`MS 1026MS 1026MS 1026
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 313 PageID #: 43007
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2919
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`LUFKIN DIVISION
`
`DOCKET 9:09CV111
`
`JULY 7, 2011
`
`8:31 A.M.
`
`BEAUMONT, TEXAS
`
`||||| ||
`
`PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC
`
`VS.
`
`APPLE, INC., ET AL
`
`--------------------------------------------------------
`
`VOLUME 10 OF __, PAGES 2919 THROUGH 3231
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RON CLARK
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY
`
`--------------------------------------------------------
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`RONALD J. SCHUTZ
`JACOB M. HOLDREITH
`CYRUS A. MORTON
`PATRICK M. ARENZ
`ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI - MN
`800 LASALLE AVENUE
`SUITE 2800
`MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
`
`55402
`
`ANNIE HUANG
`ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI - NY
`601 LEXINGTON AVENUE
`SUITE 3400
`NEW YORK, NEW YORK
`
`10022
`
`LAWRENCE LOUIS GERMER
`GERMER GERTZ
`550 FANNIN
`SUITE 400
`BEAUMONT, TEXAS
`
`77701
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`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
`
`MS 1026 - Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 313 PageID #: 43008
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`
`2920
`
`RUFFIN B. CORDELL
`FISH & RICHARDSON - WASHINGTON DC
`1425 K STREET NW
`SUITE 1100
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`20005
`
`GARLAND T. STEPHENS
`BENJAMIN C. ELACQUA
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`1221 MCKINNEY
`28TH FLOOR
`HOUSTON, TEXAS
`
`77010
`
`KELLY C. HUNSAKER
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`500 ARGUELLO STREET
`SUITE 500
`REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
`
`94063
`
`JUSTIN BARNES
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`12390 EL CAMINO REAL
`SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`
`92130
`
`J. THAD HEARTFIELD
`THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
`2195 DOWLEN ROAD
`BEAUMONT, TEXAS
`
`77706
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`CHRISTINA L. BICKHAM, CRR, RMR
`FEDERAL OFFICIAL REPORTER
`300 WILLOW, SUITE 221
`BEAUMONT, TEXAS
`77701
`
`PROCEEDINGS REPORTED USING COMPUTERIZED STENOTYPE;
`TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED VIA COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION.
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`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
`
`MS 1026 - Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 313 PageID #: 43009
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`INDEX
`
`2921
`
`COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
`
`CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. SCHUTZ
`
`CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. CORDELL
`
`REBUTTAL ARGUMENT BY MR. SCHUTZ
`
`COURT FINAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
`
`BENCH TRIAL
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION OF CHARLES CALL
`
`JURY NOTE NUMBER 1
`
`JURY NOTE NUMBER 2
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES CALL
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JAMES LOGAN
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JAMES LOGAN
`
`JURY NOTE NUMBER 3
`
`DEFENDANT RESTS
`
`JURY NOTE NUMBER 4
`
`CONCORDANCE INDEX
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`PAGE
`
`2923
`
`2968
`
`3002
`
`3045
`
`3050
`
`3054
`
`3054
`
`3055
`
`3055
`
`3086
`
`3106
`
`3147
`
`3165
`
`3170
`
`3181
`
`3192
`
`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
`
`MS 1026 - Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 4 of 313 PageID #: 43010
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`2922
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibits 10 through 13
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibits 10 through 13
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibits 226, 227, 228, and 229
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibit 226
`
`DX 62
`
`DX 116
`
`Defendant's Exhibit 1
`
`Defendant's Exhibit 1
`
`Defendant's Exhibit 1
`
`Defendant's Exhibit 153
`
`Defendant's Exhibit 270
`
`DX 87
`
`PAGE
`
`3137
`
`3143
`
`3170
`
`3171
`
`3074
`
`3078
`
`3094
`
`3094
`
`3099
`
`3147
`
`3159
`
`3167
`
`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
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 4
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 5 of 313 PageID #: 43011
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`(REPORTER'S NOTES PERSONAL AUDIO V. APPLE,
`
`2923
`
`JURY TRIAL, VOLUME 10, 8:31 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011,
`
`BEAUMONT, TEXAS, HON. RON CLARK PRESIDING.)
`
`(OPEN COURT, ALL PARTIES PRESENT, JURY
`
`PRESENT.)
`
`THE COURT:
`
`We found, ladies and gentlemen,
`
`just at the last minute, two exhibit numbers that were
`
`incorrect in the jury instructions.
`
`So, what we're going
`
`to do is correct those with a pen correction on the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`copies we're going to be reading and hand them out to you
`
`11
`
`in just a second.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Just so you don't think we were goofing off on
`
`that, we were here until about 9:00 last night getting
`
`this all ready and thought we had it completely
`
`15
`
`proofread.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`All right.
`
`Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard
`
`the evidence in the case; and I'll now instruct you on
`
`18
`
`the law.
`
`I've provided you with a copy; so, you can
`
`19
`
`20
`
`follow along with me or you can just listen.
`
`I've found
`
`that different people listen in different ways, like you
`
`21
`
`sometimes see in church.
`
`Some people follow the
`
`22
`
`readings, and some people just listen.
`
`You've got your
`
`23
`
`choice.
`
`24
`
`It is your duty to follow the law as I give it
`
`25
`
`to you.
`
`On the other hand, you, the jury, are the judges
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 5
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 6 of 313 PageID #: 43012
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2924
`
`of the facts.
`
`Do not consider any statement that I have
`
`made during the course of the trial, or make in these
`
`instructions, as an indication that I have any opinion
`
`about the facts of this case.
`
`After I instruct you on the law, the attorneys
`
`will have an opportunity to make their closing arguments.
`
`Statements and arguments of the attorneys are not
`
`evidence and are not instructions on the law.
`
`They are
`
`intended only to assist the jury in understanding the
`
`evidence and the parties' contentions.
`
`Now, it is my duty as judge to explain what
`
`some of the words used in the patent claims mean.
`
`Attached as Appendix A to this charge -- which you'll get
`
`when you go back to the jury room.
`
`It's the same one
`
`that was in your juror notebook -- are the claims I have
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`defined for you.
`
`These are the same definitions found in
`
`17
`
`18
`
`the "definitions" section of your juror notebooks.
`
`You
`
`must accept as correct the definitions contained in
`
`19
`
`Appendix A.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Attached as Appendix B to this charge is the
`
`definition of a "person of ordinary skill in the art."
`
`22
`
`This is the same definition that is found in the
`
`23
`
`"glossary" section of your juror notebooks.
`
`The words
`
`24
`
`and terms of the patents that I have not defined for you
`
`25
`
`in Appendix A are to be given their ordinary and
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 6
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 7 of 313 PageID #: 43013
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`accustomed meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`2925
`
`skill in the art in the context of the patent
`
`specifications and file history.
`
`Now, when words in these instructions and in
`
`the definitions in Appendix A are used in a sense that
`
`varies from their commonly understood meaning, you are
`
`given a proper legal definition which you are bound to
`
`accept in place of any other meaning.
`
`The other words in
`
`these instructions and in the definitions I have provided
`
`to you have the meaning commonly understood.
`
`Answer each question based on the facts as you
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`find them.
`
`Do not decide who you think should win and
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`then answer the questions accordingly.
`
`Your answers and
`
`your verdict must be unanimous.
`
`Now, you will be instructed to answer some
`
`questions based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`This means you must be persuaded by the evidence that
`
`what the party seeks to prove is more likely true than
`
`19
`
`not true.
`
`You will be instructed to answer other
`
`20
`
`21
`
`questions by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`This is a
`
`higher burden than by a preponderance of the evidence,
`
`22
`
`but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
`
`23
`
`Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that shows what
`
`24
`
`the party seeks to prove is highly probable.
`
`25
`
`In deciding whether any fact has been proved
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 8 of 313 PageID #: 43014
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2926
`
`in the case, you may, unless otherwise instructed,
`
`consider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of
`
`who may have called them, and all exhibits received in
`
`evidence, regardless of who may have produced them, and
`
`the facts to which the parties have stipulated.
`
`Attached as Appendix C to this charge is a
`
`list of facts to which the parties have stipulated.
`
`You
`
`must treat all of the stipulated facts as having been
`
`proved.
`
`Now, in determining the weight to give to the
`
`testimony of a witness, you should ask yourself whether
`
`there was evidence tending to prove that the witness
`
`testified falsely concerning some important fact or
`
`whether there was evidence that at some other time the
`
`witness said or did something, or failed to say or do
`
`something, that was different from the testimony the
`
`witness gave before you during the trial.
`
`You should keep in mind, however, that a
`
`simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean
`
`that the witness was not telling the truth as he or she
`
`remembers it, because people may forget some things or
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`remember other things inaccurately.
`
`So, if a witness has
`
`23
`
`made a misstatement, you need to consider whether that
`
`24
`
`misstatement was an intentional falsehood or simply an
`
`25
`
`innocent lapse of memory; and the significance of that
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 8
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 9 of 313 PageID #: 43015
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact
`
`2927
`
`or only with an unimportant detail.
`
`Now, if scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge may be helpful to the jury, a
`
`witness with special training or experience, sometimes
`
`called an "expert," may testify and state an opinion
`
`concerning such matters.
`
`However, you are not required
`
`to accept that opinion.
`
`You should judge such testimony
`
`like any other testimony.
`
`You may accept it or reject it
`
`and give it as much weight as you think it deserves,
`
`considering the witness' education and experience, the
`
`soundness of the reasons given for the opinion, and all
`
`the other evidence in the case.
`
`In deciding whether to
`
`accept or rely upon the opinion of such a witness, you
`
`may consider any bias of the witness, including any bias
`
`you may infer from evidence that the witness has been or
`
`will be paid for reviewing the case and testifying, or
`
`from evidence that he or she testifies regularly.
`
`In making up your mind and reaching your
`
`verdict, do not make your decisions simply because there
`
`were more witnesses on one side than the other.
`
`Do not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`reach a conclusion on a particular point just because
`
`23
`
`there were more witnesses testifying for one side on that
`
`24
`
`point.
`
`The testimony of a single witness may be
`
`25
`
`sufficient to prove any fact, even if a greater number of
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 9
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 10 of 313 PageID #: 43016
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if after
`
`considering all the other evidence, you believe that
`
`2928
`
`single witness.
`
`While you should consider only the evidence in
`
`this case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable
`
`inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel
`
`are justified in light of common experience.
`
`In other
`
`words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that
`
`reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`that have been established by the testimony and evidence
`
`11
`
`in the case.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`There are two types of evidence that you may
`
`consider in properly finding the truth as to the facts in
`
`14
`
`the case.
`
`One is direct evidence, such as testimony of
`
`15
`
`an eyewitness.
`
`The other is indirect or circumstantial
`
`16
`
`17
`
`evidence, the proof of a chain of circumstances that
`
`indicates the existence or nonexistence of certain other
`
`18
`
`facts.
`
`As a general rule, the law makes no distinction
`
`19
`
`20
`
`between direct and circumstantial evidence but simply
`
`requires that you find the facts from all the evidence,
`
`21
`
`both direct and circumstantial.
`
`22
`
`Now, during the trial, I sustained objections
`
`23
`
`to certain questions.
`
`You must disregard those questions
`
`24
`
`entirely.
`
`Do not speculate as to what the witness would
`
`25
`
`have said if he or she would have been permitted to
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 10
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 11 of 313 PageID #: 43017
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2929
`
`answer the question.
`
`I also sustained objections to
`
`certain exhibits.
`
`You must disregard these exhibits
`
`entirely.
`
`Do not speculate as to what facts or
`
`information may have been supported by the exhibit if it
`
`had been admitted into evidence.
`
`Certain exhibits were admitted for a limited
`
`purpose.
`
`You should not consider these exhibits for any
`
`purpose other than that for which they were admitted.
`
`Now, these exhibits are:
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibits
`
`771A through Plaintiff's Exhibit 781A and Plaintiff's
`
`Exhibit 748A, admitted only for the purpose of
`
`summarizing or listing many of the exhibits upon which
`
`Dr. Almeroth relied for his testimony.
`
`These summary
`
`exhibits are not themselves evidence and are intended
`
`only to provide you with a guide to Dr. Almeroth's
`
`testimony and point you to the relevant underlying
`
`exhibits that have been admitted.
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 through Plaintiff's
`
`Exhibit 13, admitted for the purpose of background
`
`information, but they are not admitted as comparable
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`license agreements.
`
`22
`
`Then we have DDX 608, 610, 611, DDX 616
`
`23
`
`through DDX 626, DDX 629 through DDX 634, DDX 636, 638
`
`24
`
`through 641, DDX 643, DDX 647 through DDX 655, DDX 657,
`
`25
`
`DDX 658, DDX 660 through DDX 663, and DDX 669 through
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 11
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 12 of 313 PageID #: 43018
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2930
`
`DDX 705.
`
`These were admitted only for the purpose of
`
`summarizing or listing many of the exhibits upon which
`
`Dr. Wicker relied for his testimony.
`
`These summary
`
`exhibits are not themselves evidence and are intended
`
`only to provide you with a guide to Dr. Wicker's
`
`testimony and point you to the relevant underlying
`
`exhibits that have been admitted.
`
`And then, finally, DDX 827.
`
`This was admitted
`
`only for the purpose of summarizing or listing many of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`the exhibits upon which Dr. Ugone relied for his
`
`11
`
`testimony.
`
`DDX 827 is not in itself evidence and is
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`intended only to provide you with a guide to Dr. Ugone's
`
`testimony and point you to the relevant underlying
`
`exhibits that have been admitted.
`
`On each of those limitations when I'm talking
`
`about the underlying exhibits, those are in evidence.
`
`You'll have them back there with an exhibit list.
`
`You
`
`can look up those numbers, and you can look at the
`
`19
`
`exact -- the actual exhibit.
`
`And it's the actual exhibit
`
`20
`
`21
`
`that's numbered and in evidence that you are to rely on.
`
`Those summaries are there just to help provide you with a
`
`22
`
`guideline of who said what.
`
`23
`
`Also, do not assume from anything that I may
`
`24
`
`have done or said during the trial that I have any
`
`25
`
`opinion concerning any of the issues in this case.
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 12
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 13 of 313 PageID #: 43019
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2931
`
`Except for the instructions to you on the law, you should
`
`disregard anything I may have said during the trial in
`
`arriving at your own findings as to the facts.
`
`If you've taken notes, they are to be used
`
`only as aids to your memory; and if your memory should be
`
`different from your notes, you should rely on your
`
`memory, not on your notes.
`
`If you did not take notes,
`
`rely on your own independent memory of the testimony.
`
`Do
`
`not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.
`
`A
`
`juror's notes are not entitled to any greater weight than
`
`the recollection of each juror concerning the testimony.
`
`Now, the patents involved in this case are
`
`referred to as the "'076 and the '178 patents."
`
`The
`
`plaintiff, Personal Audio, LLC, ("Personal Audio")
`
`contends that the defendant, Apple, Inc., ("Apple")
`
`infringes claims 1, 3, and 15 of the '076 patent and
`
`claims 1, 6, 13, and 14 of the '178 patent.
`
`Each of the
`
`asserted patent claims is to be considered separately as
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`a separate invention.
`
`Personal Audio contends that the
`
`20
`
`following Apple products infringe the asserted claims of
`
`21
`
`the patents-in-suit:
`
`22
`
`Group 1, iPod classic Generation 3.
`
`There's
`
`23
`
`1,627,691 units sold.
`
`24
`
`And these listings of the numbers sold will
`
`25
`
`become relevant to you when you get the verdict form
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 13
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 14 of 313 PageID #: 43020
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`because you'll be asked to, if you get that far, if you
`
`get that far, to make some damage calculations based on
`
`2932
`
`these numbers.
`
`Group 2, iPod mini Generations 1 and 2 and
`
`iPod classic Generation 4.
`
`11,433,022 units sold.
`
`Group 2, iPod classic Generation 5.
`
`15,219,066 units sold.
`
`Group 4, iPod nano Generation -- 10,673,749
`
`units sold.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Group 5, iPod nano Generation 2.
`
`13,379,878
`
`11
`
`units sold.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Group 6, the iPod nano Generation 3 and iPod
`
`classic Generation 6.
`
`21,872,953 units sold.
`
`Group 7, the iPod nano Generation 4.
`
`15
`
`10,946,988 units sold.
`
`16
`
`And Group 8, iPod nano Generation 5.
`
`17
`
`8,642,082 units sold.
`
`18
`
`Now, Apple denies that it is infringing the
`
`19
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`Apple also contends that the
`
`20
`
`patents-in-suit are invalid because the inventions in the
`
`21
`
`patents are described in one or more prior art
`
`22
`
`references.
`
`23
`
`You have the responsibility of deciding
`
`24
`
`whether Apple has infringed the asserted claims of the
`
`25
`
`patents-in-suit; and even though the PTO examiner has
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 14
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 15 of 313 PageID #: 43021
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`allowed the claims of the patents, you, as the jury, also
`
`have the responsibility for deciding whether the claims
`
`2933
`
`of the patents are invalid [sic].
`
`Now, to decide the questions of infringement
`
`and invalidity, you must first understand what the claims
`
`of the patent cover; that is, what they prevent anyone
`
`else from doing.
`
`This is called "claim interpretation."
`
`You must use the same claim interpretation for both your
`
`decisions on infringement and your decisions on
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`invalidity.
`
`I instructed you earlier on the definitions
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`you must use in interpreting claims.
`
`Now, the patent claims are the numbered
`
`sentences at the end of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Each claim
`
`describes a separate invention.
`
`The claims are word
`
`pictures intended to define, in words, the boundaries of
`
`16
`
`the inventions.
`
`Only the claims of a patent can be
`
`17
`
`infringed.
`
`Neither the written description, sometimes
`
`18
`
`called the "specification," nor the drawings of a patent
`
`19
`
`can be infringed.
`
`Each of the claims must be considered
`
`20
`
`individually.
`
`21
`
`The claims are divided into parts called
`
`22
`
`"limitations."
`
`These limitations are also referred to as
`
`23
`
`"elements."
`
`You shall give your decisions on
`
`24
`
`infringement based only on the asserted claims; namely,
`
`25
`
`claims 1, 3, and 15 of the '076 patent and claims 1, 6,
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 15
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 16 of 313 PageID #: 43022
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2934
`
`13, and 14 of the '178 patent.
`
`Patent claims exist in two forms, referred to
`
`as "independent claims" and "dependent claims."
`
`An
`
`independent claim does not refer to any other claim of
`
`the patent.
`
`Thus, it is not necessary to look at any
`
`other claim to determine what an independent claim
`
`covers.
`
`Claim 1 of the '076 patent and claims 1 and 14
`
`of the '178 patent are independent claims.
`
`Now, a dependent claim refers to at least one
`
`other claim in the patent.
`
`A dependent claim includes
`
`each of the limitations of the other claim or claims to
`
`which it refers as well as the additional limitations
`
`recited in the dependent claim itself.
`
`Therefore, to
`
`determine what is covered by a dependent claim, it is
`
`necessary to look both at the dependent claim itself and
`
`the claim or claims to which it refers.
`
`Claims 3 and 15
`
`of the '076 patent and claims 6 and 13 of the '078 [sic]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`patent are dependent claims.
`
`19
`
`So, claim 3 of the '076 patent depends from
`
`20
`
`claim 2, which depends from claim 1.
`
`21
`
`Claim 15 of the '076 patent depends from
`
`22
`
`claim 14.
`
`23
`
`Claim 6 of the '178 patent depends from
`
`24
`
`claim 5, which depends from claim 4, which depends from
`
`25
`
`claim 3, which depends from claim 2, which depends from
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 16
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 17 of 313 PageID #: 43023
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2935
`
`claim 1.
`
`And claim 13 of the '178 patent depends from
`
`claim 9, which depends from claim 1.
`
`Now, the patent laws give the owner of a valid
`
`patent the right to exclude others from making, using,
`
`selling, or offering to sell the patented invention
`
`within the United States during the term of the patent.
`
`Any person or business entity that engages in any of
`
`those acts without the patent owner's permission
`
`infringes the patent.
`
`Knowledge of the patent or intent to infringe
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`is immaterial.
`
`Someone can infringe a patent without
`
`13
`
`knowing that what they are doing is an infringement of
`
`14
`
`the patent.
`
`Someone may also infringe a patent even
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`though they believe in good faith that what they are
`
`doing is not an infringement of any patent.
`
`Someone can
`
`also infringe a patent even if they have one or more of
`
`their own patents covering parts or components of the
`
`19
`
`accused product.
`
`On the other hand, someone does not
`
`20
`
`21
`
`infringe by inventing a new and different way of
`
`accomplishing the same result; that is, to create a
`
`22
`
`product that does not incorporate all of the limitations
`
`23
`
`of any claim of the patents-in-suit.
`
`24
`
`Now, only the claims of a patent can be
`
`25
`
`infringed.
`
`You must compare the elements of the asserted
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 17
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 18 of 313 PageID #: 43024
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2936
`
`claims to each accused product or product group to
`
`determine whether or not there is infringement.
`
`You
`
`should not compare the accused products with any specific
`
`example set out in the patents' specification.
`
`The only
`
`correct comparison is with the language of the asserted
`
`claims themselves, with the meanings that I have given
`
`you.
`
`You must determine separately for each of the
`
`asserted claims and separately for each accused product
`
`group whether or not there is infringement.
`
`Now, as I
`
`have explained to you, a dependent claim includes all of
`
`the requirements of the claim or claims to which it
`
`refers plus additional requirements of its own.
`
`Therefore, to find a dependent claim is infringed, you
`
`must first find that any claim from which it depends is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`infringed.
`
`For example, to find that dependent claim 3
`
`17
`
`18
`
`of the '076 patent is infringed, you must first find that
`
`independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 of the
`
`19
`
`'076 patent are infringed.
`
`If you find that an
`
`20
`
`21
`
`independent claim is infringed, you must then decide
`
`separately whether the additional requirements of any
`
`22
`
`claims that depend from it have also been infringed.
`
`23
`
`There are two ways in which a patent claim can
`
`24
`
`be infringed:
`
`One, literal infringement and, two,
`
`25
`
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`I'll
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 18
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 19 of 313 PageID #: 43025
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2937
`
`first explain to you the circumstances under which you
`
`may find literal infringement or infringement under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Then I'll explain to you a
`
`particular kind of claim limitation called a
`
`"means-plus-function" limitation and the circumstances
`
`under which you may find infringement of a claim that
`
`contains a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`Now, to show literal infringement of a claim,
`
`Personal Audio must prove by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that during the time the patent is in force,
`
`Apple has made, used, sold, or offered to sell within the
`
`United States a product that incorporates all of the
`
`limitations of that claim and has done so without
`
`Personal Audio's permission.
`
`Personal Audio contends
`
`that claims 1, 3, and 15 of the '076 patent are literally
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`infringed.
`
`You must compare each of the accused products
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`separately with each and every one of the limitations of
`
`each asserted claim to determine whether Personal Audio
`
`has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each
`
`limitation of a claim is found in that product.
`
`A claim limitation is present in an accused
`
`22
`
`product if it exists in the product just as it is
`
`23
`
`described in the claim language, either as I have defined
`
`24
`
`that language for you or, if I did not define it, as that
`
`25
`
`language is commonly understood.
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 19
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 20 of 313 PageID #: 43026
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`In general, a product does not infringe if it
`
`2938
`
`must be altered in order to satisfy all the limitations
`
`of a claim.
`
`However, if a product is sold or packaged
`
`with components that are intended to be attached or
`
`connected before operation and the seller provides
`
`instructions for such attachment or connection, the
`
`product may infringe if, when the components are attached
`
`or connected as instructed, the product includes all the
`
`limitations of the claim.
`
`A claim limitation that describes the
`
`capability for doing something is present in an accused
`
`product if the accused product includes components or
`
`structures capable of operating as described in the
`
`claim, even if a user never actually operates the product
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`in the manner described.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`If an accused product omits even a single
`
`element recited in a claim, then you must find that with
`
`respect to that product, Apple has not literally
`
`19
`
`infringed that claim.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`If during the time a patent is in force
`
`someone made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported
`
`22
`
`within the United States a product that does not
`
`23
`
`incorporate all of the limitations of an asserted claim,
`
`24
`
`there can still be infringement if the product satisfies
`
`25
`
`that claim under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 20
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 21 of 313 PageID #: 43027
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product
`
`2939
`
`satisfies a claim if, for each and every limitation of
`
`the claim that is not literally present in the accused
`
`product, the accused product includes some corresponding
`
`alternative that is equivalent to the unmet claim
`
`requirement.
`
`Personal Audio contends that the "downloading
`
`from one or more server computers" limitations of the
`
`'178 patent, which are limitations number 1A in claim 1
`
`and 14E in claim 14 in your juror notebooks, are not
`
`literally present in the accused product but that the
`
`accused products include an equivalent alternative.
`
`Personal Audio, therefore, contends that claim 1 and the
`
`asserted claims that depend from it, claims 6 and 13, as
`
`well as claim 14 of the '178 patent are infringed under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`As with literal
`
`infringement, Personal Audio must prove infringement
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents by a preponderance of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`the evidence.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`In making your decision as to whether or not
`
`an accused product is equivalent under the doctrine of
`
`22
`
`equivalents, you must look at each and every limitation
`
`23
`
`of a claim and decide whether or not the accused product
`
`24
`
`includes that limitation or includes an alternative that
`
`25
`
`is equivalent to the unmet limitation.
`
`If it does, the
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 21
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 22 of 313 PageID #: 43028
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`2940
`
`product satisfies the claim under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`If instead, one, the product includes an
`
`alternative to the unmet limitation but the alternative
`
`is not equivalent to the unmet limitation or, two, the
`
`product includes no corresponding alternative to the
`
`unmet limitation, you must find that the limitation is
`
`not satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents and there
`
`is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Under the doctrine of equivalents, an
`
`alternative is considered to be equivalent to an unmet
`
`claim limitation if a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, as I have defined that person for you, would have
`
`considered the differences between the unmet limitation
`
`and the alternative to be insubstantial at the time of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`the alleged infringement.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`In deciding whether an alternative in an
`
`accused product is insubstantially different from an
`
`unmet claim limitation, you may consider whether the
`
`alternative and the unmet limitation, one, perform
`
`substantially the same function and, two, work in
`
`21
`
`substantially the same way, three, to achieve
`
`22
`
`substantially the same result.
`
`23
`
`You may also consider whether, at the time of
`
`24
`
`the alleged infringement, a person having ordinary skill
`
`25
`
`in the art would have known of the interchangeability of
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 22
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 23 of 313 PageID #: 43029
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`the alternative and the unmet claim limitation.
`
`Interchangeability at the present time is not sufficient.
`
`2941
`
`Rather, in order for the alternative to be considered
`
`interchangeable with the unmet limitation, the
`
`interchangeability must have been known to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the infringement
`
`and be only insubstantially different.
`
`The doctrine of equivalents must be applied to
`
`the individual limitations of a claim, not to the
`
`invention as a whole, because each limitation in a patent
`
`claim is deemed material in defining the scope and limits
`
`of the patented invention.
`
`The public is entitled to
`
`rely on the limitations of the claims in order to avoid
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`infringement.
`
`Therefore, the doctrine of equivalents
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`cannot be used to eliminate a claim limitation or render
`
`any claim limitation unnecessary.
`
`Means-plus-function limitations.
`
`The claims
`
`of the patents-in-suit contain what are called
`
`"means-plus-function" limitations.
`
`For each
`
`means-plus-function limitation in issue, I have defined
`
`21
`
`for you the function to be performed.
`
`Now, these are set
`
`22
`
`out in Appendix A.
`
`For each means-plus-function
`
`23
`
`limitation in issue, I have also defined for you the
`
`24
`
`corresponding means or structures that were described in
`
`25
`
`the patents' specification for performing the claimed
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`MS 1026 - Page 23
`
`
`
`Case 9:09-cv-00111-RC Document 543 Filed 09/13/11 Page 24 of 313 PageID #: 43030
`Jury Trial, Volume 10
`
`functions.
`
`You will also find these in Appendix A.
`
`You
`
`must use my defin
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
