`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`1
`
`DOCKET 2:14CV59
`
`FEBRUARY 18, 2015
`
`9:00 A.M.
`
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
`|||||||
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC
`
`VS.
`
`TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.,
`ET AL
`
`--------------------------------------------------------
`
`VOLUME 1 OF 1, PAGES 1 THROUGH 141
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`--------------------------------------------------------
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`LUPCO (LEWIS) V. POPOVSKI
`DAVID J. KAPLAN
`DAVID JEFFREY COOPERBERG
`JEFFREY S. GINSBERG
`KENYON & KENYON LLP - NEW YORK
`ONE BROADWAY
`NEW YORK, NY 10004
`
`SAMUEL FRANKLIN BAXTER
`MCKOOL SMITH - MARSHALL
`P O BOX O
`104 EAST HOUSTON ST., SUITE 300
`MARSHALL, TX 75670
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`
`CHARLES KRAMER VERHOEVEN
`QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP - SAN FRANCISCO
`50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 22ND FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`2
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS (CONTINUED):
`
`EDWARD J. DEFRANCO
`MATTHEW A. TRAUPMAN
`QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP - NY
`51 MADISON AVE, 22ND FLOOR
`NEW YORK, NY 10010
`
`JAMES MARK MANN
`MANN TINDEL & THOMPSON
`300 W. MAIN
`HENDERSON, TX 75652
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`CHRISTINA L. BICKHAM, CRR, RMR
`FEDERAL OFFICIAL REPORTER
`300 WILLOW, SUITE 221
`BEAUMONT, TEXAS
`77701
`
`PROCEEDINGS RECORDED USING COMPUTERIZED STENOTYPE;
`TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED VIA COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`INDEX
`
`3
`
`USABILITY OF SAID SIGNALLING DATA CHANNELS
`
`NEEDS TO BE REASSIGNED
`
`DETERMINING WHETHER A DIFFERENT AND SUITABLE
`SIGNALLING DATA CHANNEL IS AVAILABLE OTHER
`THAN SAID PREDETERMINED CHANNEL
`
`SAID PREDETERMINED SIGNALLING DATA CHANNEL
`
`PREAMBLE IS LIMITING
`
`ESTABLISHING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SAID
`CENTRAL CONTROLLER AND SAID PLURALITY OF
`REMOTE TERMINALS
`
`ORDER OF CLAIM STEPS
`
`COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
`
`PAGE
`
`11
`
`42
`
`61
`
`71
`
`77
`
`98
`
`111
`
`124
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`4
`
`(OPEN COURT, ALL PARTIES PRESENT.)
`
`THE COURT:
`
`For the record, we're here for the
`
`claim construction hearing in C-Cation Technologies
`
`versus Time Warner Cable, et al, Case Number 2:14-59 on
`
`our docket.
`
`Would counsel state their appearances for the
`
`record.
`
`MR. BAXTER:
`
`Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Sam
`
`Baxter, McKool Smith, along with Lew Popovski and Jeff
`
`Ginsberg who you've seen before in these cases, your
`
`Honor, from Kenyon & Kenyon, along with their partners
`
`David Kaplan and David Cooperberg, your Honor; and we' re
`
`ready.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Baxter.
`
`MR. MANN:
`
`Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Mark
`
`Mann here for Cisco, Arris, Time Warner Cable, and CASA,
`
`the four defendants in the case.
`
`And along with me
`
`today, Charles Verhoeven and Ed DeFranco and Matt
`
`Traupman.
`
`And Bill Silverio is here for Cisco as
`
`corporate representative, your Honor, from corporate
`
`counsel's office.
`
`We're ready to proceed.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Mann.
`
`I'll state for the record that --
`
`Mr. Popovski, do you --
`
`MR. POPOVSKI:
`
`I was going to start off by --
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`5
`
`given your Honor's preliminary construction, I think we
`
`have maybe a suggestion for organizing the rest of the
`
`hearing.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Well, let me just make
`
`a statement about that; and then I'll give you the floor.
`
`I was just going to note that a preliminary
`
`construction has been distributed to counsel earlier this
`
`morning, and I wanted to make sure that I do state for
`
`the record that the intent of that construction is not to
`
`limit the arguments in any way but simply to let both
`
`sides know where the court is after an initial review of
`
`the briefs and the record.
`
`I do certainly occasionally reconsider the
`
`preliminary constructions based on the arguments, and the
`
`goal is to allow you to focus the arguments where you
`
`think the court has gone wrong rather than to prevent you
`
`from making any arguments that you think are appropriate.
`
`I would also like to hear argument on a
`
`term-by-term basis but -- you may have suggestions about
`
`the order in which that's done, and I'm certainly
`
`amenable to those.
`
`And I also want to state that if either side
`
`has any opening remarks they want to make about the
`
`technology or the patents, I'm happy to hear those as
`
`well.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`6
`
`So, Mr. Popovski, what do you have to offer?
`
`MR. POPOVSKI:
`
`Well, your Honor, we read the
`
`court's preliminary claim constructions; and not
`
`surprisingly, I think we're very comfortable with it.
`
`We
`
`think it's well supported.
`
`We think it is correct.
`
`With that, we really don't have anything to
`
`present to you in our case-in- chief except maybe a little
`
`bit of background on the patent itself.
`
`But we would
`
`suggest that we let the defendants go and pick the claims
`
`that they would like to do and reserve our -- any
`
`statements in case your Honor has any questions or in
`
`rebuttal.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Well, I'm happy to hear from the
`
`defendants first on any terms where they want to present
`
`argument; and then we can give you a chance to respond.
`
`That's fine.
`
`MR. POPOVSKI:
`
`Thank you, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Mr. Verhoeven, if you want to
`
`proceed, go ahead.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Thank you, your Honor.
`
`Good morning, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Good morning.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`We have some slides, your
`
`Honor, that I would like to pass out if that's okay.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Yes, sir.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`7
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Your Honor, I know that this is your second Markman on
`
`the same patent and I have no doubt that the court put a
`
`lot of effort and work into the first time it considered
`
`all of these terms and it's now done the same a second
`
`time and I appreciate that, your Honor.
`
`And I also
`
`appreciate getting the tentative order so that we can
`
`focus ourselves.
`
`The last Markman was about a year and a half
`
`ago, your Honor; and since that time there's been changes
`
`in the law, most specifically with respect to the law of
`
`indefiniteness.
`
`We also have different defendants now,
`
`your Honor; and they have presented some arguments that
`
`weren't presented before as to some of these terms.
`
`And, so, what we propose to do, your Honor,
`
`with your indulgence, is to focus on some of the new
`
`things that weren't raised at the last hearing in the
`
`Comcast -- I'll just call it the "Comcast matter," the
`
`first one.
`
`And taking your invitation on focusing where
`
`we think our time is most wisely spent, I think, your
`
`Honor, that we would like to start, if it's okay with
`
`you, with the indefiniteness arguments and the
`
`indefiniteness terms.
`
`I could argue -- we have four in this case.
`
`Three are highly similar to each other.
`
`I could argue
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`8
`
`them all together; but I could also argue them one at a
`
`time, your Honor.
`
`It's up to you.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I'm happy to take the related ones
`
`together.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Okay.
`
`So, stop me if you
`
`think it's not related enough; but I think in the
`
`interest of time, I'll just hit all four because they all
`
`concern the same doctrine and then -- if that's okay with
`
`plaintiff's counsel --
`
`MR. POPOVSKI:
`
`Sure.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Okay.
`
`And then plaintiff's
`
`counsel can respond.
`
`So, if we could go to Slide 14.
`
`I'd like to start first with the change in the
`
`law of indefiniteness, your Honor.
`
`And, again, I'm sure
`
`you're very familiar with the Nautilus case but --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I've heard a little about it.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Yeah.
`
`Well, I'm just going to
`
`review, just for the record.
`
`Eleven months after
`
`your Honor's initial construction on the indefiniteness
`
`terms, there was a pretty major change in the law.
`
`In
`
`the Nautilus case the United States Supreme Court held
`
`that a "patent must be precise enough to afford clear
`
`notice of what is claimed...otherwise there would be a
`
`zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`9
`
`may enter only at the risk of infringement claims."
`
`And the Supreme Court said this next
`
`sentence -- I think this is important.
`
`It said, "And
`
`absent a meaningful definiteness check, we are told,
`
`patent applicants face powerful incentives to inject
`
`ambiguity into their claims.
`
`Eliminating that temptation
`
`is in order."
`
`And I think that's important, your Honor,
`
`because when you look at patents -- and I know your Honor
`
`has over and over again -- a lot of times at least I get
`
`the impression that, hey, they could have made this
`
`clearer.
`
`Why didn't they try?
`
`And I've come to the
`
`conclusion because it leaves ambiguity as to whether
`
`you're infringing or not, which is advantageous to the
`
`patentee.
`
`But it certainly hurts the policy, your Honor,
`
`of good-faith people, good-faith corporate entities who
`
`don't want to infringe anybody's patent being able to
`
`make sure they don't or, if they do, taking the
`
`appropriate steps so they don't have to face an expensive
`
`lawsuit.
`
`So, the policy is a good one behind Nautilus.
`
`And the question I think everyone should be asking when
`
`you look at these issues under Nautilus is if I was a
`
`good corporate citizen and I didn't want to infringe this
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`patent, would I be able to figure out how not to?
`
`10
`And I
`
`would submit with these terms we' re going to go into,
`
`your Honor, the answer is no.
`
`Next slide, please.
`
`There is no doubt, as I am sure your Honor
`
`knows, that the Nautilus case rejected the standard
`
`before the court in the old Comcast case, which was the
`
`"insolubly ambiguous" standard.
`
`That is no longer the
`
`law.
`
`It is also no longer the law that you can fix
`
`something that's indefinite by narrowing construction.
`
`Under Nautilus and its progeny, they said you're not
`
`allowed to do that either.
`
`So, there is definitely
`
`different law to be applied to these same terms than was
`
`applied the first time, your Honor; and the test --
`
`Slide 16, please.
`
`-- as your Honor knows is this "reasonable
`
`certainty" test that is now the test, not "insoluble
`
`ambiguity."
`
`Slide 17, please.
`
`Now, here what we' re going to go into, I
`
`believe -- well, at least certainly I believe and I'd
`
`like to argue, your Honor, is we have subjective terms,
`
`terms that depend on the intent of a person, instead of
`
`objective terms.
`
`And, so, I just want to cover -- it 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
`
`25
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`11
`very clear under Federal Circuit case law after Nautilus
`
`that if you have purely subjective claim phrases, that
`
`they violate this principal of reasonable certainty.
`
`And, so, "A term of degree fails" -- this is
`
`the Interval Licensing case.
`
`Quoting Datamize, "A term
`
`of degree fails to provide sufficient notice of its scope
`
`if it depends 'on the unpredictable vagaries of any one
`
`person's opinion.'
`
`Where...faced with a 'purely
`
`subjective' claim phrase, we must look to the written
`
`description for guidance."
`
`So, with that, your Honor, I'd like to move on
`
`to the terms.
`
`If we could go to Slide 19.
`
`And the first term, your Honor, that I would
`
`like to present argument on is this phrase "the usability
`
`of said signalling data channels."
`
`Your Honor, I haven't gone into the background
`
`of the invention because I guess I have assumed that
`
`since this is your second time doing the Markman on this,
`
`that you are reasonably familiar with it.
`
`If you would
`
`like some of that, I could do that; or I could just head
`
`right into the terms.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`You can head into the terms.
`
`That's fine.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Okay.
`
`Thank you, your Honor.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`12
`
`So, here we' ve got the usual chart where we
`
`put each side's construction at the top.
`
`The claim
`
`phrase in the context -- element (b) is right here on the
`
`slide, and it is "monitoring the status of a plurality of
`
`the signalling data channels in use between said central
`
`controller and said plurality of remote terminals."
`
`Your
`
`monitoring for what?
`
`"For the usability of said
`
`signalling data channels."
`
`So, here our contention, your Honor, is
`
`"usability" is one of these subjective phrases.
`
`It's not
`
`like some objective phrase that the person who didn't
`
`want to infringe could look at and say, "I am monitoring
`
`for usability" or "I'm not monitoring for usability."
`
`And I'll go into why, but that's our contention.
`
`And,
`
`so, the key issue here is whether there is
`
`indefiniteness.
`
`Now, in the briefing, the plaintiff suggested
`
`that the court already found that "usability" was
`
`definite; and it cites their brief at page 8, your Honor.
`
`But as your Honor knows, that indefiniteness wasn't even
`
`raised in the initial case.
`
`And we' ve just cited from
`
`your Markman order here down at the bottom where you can
`
`see the defendants' proposed construction was not
`
`indefiniteness.
`
`They proposed an actual construction and
`
`never argued to your Honor that this phrase was
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`13
`
`indefinite.
`
`So, this is an argument that wasn't made
`
`before.
`
`It's an argument that this is the first time
`
`your Honor has heard, and the law is different from back
`
`then as well.
`
`So, we think it's worth taking a second
`
`look at, your Honor.
`
`We believe that "usability" does not have any
`
`accepted meaning in the field.
`
`It is not a technical
`
`term.
`
`It is not a term of art.
`
`There is no contention
`
`from the plaintiff that it is.
`
`They are just saying it
`
`is the usual layperson's meaning of "usability."
`
`Your Honor, we would submit that that depends
`
`on the opinion of the person that's making the system,
`
`whether it's usable or not; and, so, someone on the
`
`outside is not going to be able to make that
`
`determination.
`
`One person may think a channel is usable
`
`based on a system they set up with certain parameters.
`
`Another person could have a completely different set of
`
`parameters with a different system and have their own
`
`opinion about whether it's usable or not.
`
`And, so, when
`
`a person is sitting there looking at the actual written
`
`claim language saying "I don't want to infringe this
`
`thing," they're not going to be able to figure out how.
`
`The plaintiffs have alleged that "usability"
`
`is not a subjective term, but it plainly is.
`
`And if you
`
`look at the law, you see that subjective terms, just like
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`14
`
`this one, have repeatedly been found to be indefinite,
`
`your Honor.
`
`In their briefs C-Cation contends that you
`
`just need to look at the context and if you look at the
`
`context instead of just the word "usability," then it
`
`provides an objective boundary.
`
`But in your last Markman order at page 27,
`
`your Honor, you did look at it in context; and you said,
`
`your Honor -- as I'm sure you know this.
`
`But you said,
`
`"In the context of the claim steps and the specification,
`
`it is clear that the monitoring may include monitoring a
`
`variety of factors."
`
`And your Honor went on to say, "However, in
`
`the context of the intrinsic record as a whole" -- the
`
`context as a whole -- "the monitoring of the channels
`
`appears to also include more complex determinations that
`
`may weigh on a number of factors."
`
`So, there is not just
`
`one factor or two factors that you can objectively look
`
`at, your Honor.
`
`It could be any number of factors.
`
`Next slide, 25.
`
`C- Cation argues in its
`
`Markman brief that this claim is not qualitative.
`
`But
`
`all you need to do is look at it and exercise your own
`
`judgment of the English language, your Honor.
`
`Usability
`
`is in the eye of the beholder.
`
`It depends on the
`
`particular individual involved whether something 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
`
`25
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`15
`
`usable, the technical system they set up.
`
`It is not
`
`something you can look at and say is it or isn't it.
`
`And the court noted in its previous Markman,
`
`"Usability would imply more of a continuum of
`
`determinations of usability."
`
`But that violates
`
`Nautilus.
`
`We're not talking about a continuum.
`
`We're
`
`talking about objective boundaries that we need.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Isn't what we're talking about
`
`here in this limitation -- it's a monitoring step in this
`
`method, and the question is whether or not someone -- an
`
`accused infringer -- has a step where they are monitoring
`
`this usability.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Correct.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Are you suggesting that a person
`
`would not be able to tell whether or not they are
`
`performing that?
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Yes, your Honor.
`
`I am saying
`
`the person wouldn't be able to tell -- wouldn't know
`
`objectively what "usability" is.
`
`You could say, "Oh,
`
`yeah, you're monitoring X.
`
`You're monitoring Y."
`
`You
`
`could look at those things.
`
`But is that usability?
`
`And,
`
`so, the question is what does "usability" mean?
`
`It's
`
`claim --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Give me an example of what you
`
`could be monitoring that might be usability of the
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`16
`
`channel and might not be.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Well, your Honor, I'll give
`
`you an example of what the defendants say -- let me just
`
`find the -- bear with me, your Honor.
`
`Well, I'm having trouble finding the slide.
`
`But I will represent to your Honor the defendants [sic]
`
`say that to meet this, you just set any threshold; and if
`
`the threshold is met --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`You mean the plaintiffs say?
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`I'm sorry.
`
`The plaintiffs,
`
`your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`That if any threshold is met,
`
`that that meets that.
`
`So, I could pick anything.
`
`So, I
`
`could pick something -- under their contention, your
`
`Honor, I could pick a factor -- first of all, the patent
`
`lists five, I believe, factors that it says deal with
`
`availability, not usability.
`
`And we'll get to that.
`
`But even the plaintiff says usability is not
`
`limited to those five factors; it could be anything.
`
`And
`
`they say in their brief, your Honor, that all that's
`
`required is that if the person sets a threshold, any
`
`threshold, whether it improves the system or not, your
`
`Honor, and if that threshold is met, that meets
`
`usability.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`17
`
`So, I could pick anything.
`
`I could pick if
`
`there's a hundred remote terminals on the line, it's
`
`still usable.
`
`Or I could pick if there is a thousand,
`
`it's not usable -- or still usable, regardless of its
`
`effect on the system.
`
`That is the position the plaintiff
`
`has repeatedly taken, both as to "usability"; as to the
`
`other phrase, "needs to be reassigned"; and as to the
`
`third phrase, "suitability."
`
`All three of those, they say the same thing,
`
`your Honor, that I would infringe -- I, sitting back --
`
`so, the question again, your Honor, is I am outside.
`
`I
`
`am a corporate citizen.
`
`I don't want to practice this
`
`patent.
`
`Okay?
`
`And I don't want to -- I wish I had a
`
`definition of "usability," "suitability," "needs to be
`
`reassigned," these three in my opinion subjective terms,
`
`your Honor.
`
`This is the first one.
`
`But the plaintiff's position is if you set a
`
`threshold in your system to determine whether to change
`
`channels or to monitor based on a threshold, any
`
`threshold, and that threshold is met, then you are
`
`practicing usability.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Well, under your example, the
`
`accused infringer is monitoring the number of terminals
`
`in use on the channel.
`
`Is that --
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Sure.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`18
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`So, that would be --
`
`the number of terminals relates to the usability of the
`
`channel?
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`In the example.
`
`You could
`
`pick anything.
`
`So, let's pick that as an example.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`What you're really arguing to me,
`
`it sounds like, is what is the test for determining
`
`whether or not it is usable, which would be different
`
`than monitoring the factors that go into that.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Well, then the question is
`
`when are you not infringing monitoring factors.
`
`Anytime
`
`you have a system where you monitor anything, your Honor,
`
`that has remote terminals, they would say you are
`
`monitoring for usability.
`
`Any threshold you set, any
`
`parameters you set in your system and then you monitor
`
`them -- ask them.
`
`They'll say that will infringe this
`
`step.
`
`And what that means, your Honor, is
`
`"usability" has no meaning.
`
`They have -- they are
`
`construing "usability," which is a subjective term, to
`
`mean anything.
`
`As long as you set a threshold and you
`
`monitor it, you're monitoring "usability."
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I think that -- I mean, the way I
`
`am looking at this is that -- the question is would a
`
`reasonable person understand what "usability" means, 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
`
`25
`
`Christina L. Bickham, RMR, CRR
`409/654-2891
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`19
`
`then it's a question of fact as to whether or not that
`
`condition for which someone is monitoring relates to
`
`usability or not.
`
`But you have not -- I haven't heard anything
`
`from you yet to tell me that people can't -- a reasonable
`
`person cannot tell, with reasonable certainty, what
`
`factors relate to the usability of a channel and what
`
`don't.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Well, let me see if I can go
`
`to Slide 40 to show you how extreme -- so, this is an
`
`excerpt from the transcript of the deposition of
`
`plaintiff's expert on this subject, your Honor.
`
`And he
`
`was asked a hypothetical that suppose you chose to
`
`monitor whether there is a dog in the room or not, would
`
`that meet this "monitoring" step; and he said yes.
`
`He said anything you set that you decide and
`
`then you monitor would meet this step regardless if it
`
`improves the system, hurts the system, is related to the
`
`system in any way -- you could pick a random factor,
`
`according to them; and if you monitored it, then you are
`
`practicing the step.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`If that's true, that's a good
`
`example of why I don't rely on experts for claim
`
`construction.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`I guess the way I try to
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`20
`explain it, your Honor, is when you were describing that,
`
`the second part of what you said was, "And that factor,
`
`does it relate to usability."
`
`That's the part we don't
`
`know because we don't know the boundaries of what we mean
`
`when we say "usability."
`
`THE COURT:
`
`"Useable" is a broad term, but I
`
`don't think that it's an indefinite term.
`
`I think that
`
`people can determine with reasonable certainty whether or
`
`not something has an effect on the usability of these
`
`channels, and I think then it becomes just a question of
`
`fact as to whether or not this condition for which the
`
`monitoring is being done affects the usability.
`
`A dog in
`
`the room clearly does not.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`So, I guess if I go back to --
`
`I almost hate to say this -- to 02 Micro, your Honor.
`appreciate what you're saying, your Honor, which is you
`
`I
`
`believe that a person could understand what "usability"
`
`means.
`
`But we have a disagreement with the plaintiff
`
`about what it means; and the plaintiff is taking a pretty
`
`broad position that it could mean any parameter that you
`
`set on your system, period.
`
`And if you decide that's
`
`what I'm going to monitor, then that, by definition,
`
`relates to usability.
`
`So, regardless of its effect on the system,
`
`your Honor -- and, so, it gets to that second part of
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`21
`
`what you were saying.
`
`Here is a factor that we' re
`
`picking for a system that we're going to monitor.
`
`If we
`
`monitor -- I guess let me back up, your Honor.
`
`Would you agree that you could monitor things
`
`on the systems that don't relate to usability?
`
`I think I
`
`would submit you should have to be able to do that.
`
`There has to be something you could monitor that doesn't
`
`relate to usability; otherwise, usability has no
`
`boundary.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I mean, that would be a question
`
`of fact.
`
`I don't know what conditions a system can
`
`monitor; but, you know, I think I can determine whether
`
`or not a condition relates to whether the channels are
`
`usable or not.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`But then that begs the
`
`question of what does it mean to be "usable."
`
`That's
`
`what I'm trying to say, your Honor.
`
`And we have a
`
`dispute about that, what it means to be "usable."
`
`And even apart from indefiniteness, there is a
`
`dispute about it.
`
`The plaintiff in their brief have
`
`repeatedly said both for "usable," for "needs to be
`
`reassigned" and for "suitability," that you can just pick
`
`any threshold in your system and then if that threshold
`
`is met, then you're meeting these elements.
`
`And that to
`
`me, your Honor, is not tied to these terms.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`22
`
`So, picking the one we're on right now,
`
`usability, that's not tied to usability.
`
`You could pick
`
`a parameter that is completely unrelated to usability in
`
`your system.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Like what?
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`Well, if it's of the channels,
`
`you could have another parameter in your system that
`
`doesn't relate to how efficient the channels worked or
`
`not.
`
`You just pick a threshold, and you decide -- this
`
`is what they are saying in their brief, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I know.
`
`But if you can provide me
`
`an example, then -- but you're just giving me --
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`If the clock in your system
`
`strikes ten, then you need to reassign your channel
`
`because it is no longer usable.
`
`That's their position.
`
`You could pick that even though it has no effect on the
`
`system.
`
`If you read their briefs carefully, your Honor,
`
`that's what they are saying.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Well, I guess I will find out when
`
`they get up whether we have a dispute about that but --
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`But in going back to what I'm
`
`saying, your Honor, "usable" is -- well, let me put it
`
`this way.
`
`If I could go to -- bear with me, your Honor.
`
`Bear with me, your Honor.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`23
`
`THE COURT:
`
`That's fine.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`I've buried myself with
`
`slides.
`
`So, on Slide 37 here we have how the plaintiff
`
`is characterizing "usability" in their own briefs; and
`
`this is citing to the specification, your Honor.
`
`This
`
`isn't divorced from the specification.
`
`This is what the
`
`specification says, that the usability relates to the
`
`desirability of a reassignment.
`
`And you can look at things like "more
`
`intelligent management schemes."
`
`Well, how do you know
`
`if something is desirable or not?
`
`Well, isn't that --
`
`that is, by definition, something inside the head of a
`
`person, whether something is desirable.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`That's not the term we're
`
`construing.
`
`MR. VERHOEVEN:
`
`But these are the portions of
`
`the spec.
`
`If you look at the spec, your Honor, and you
`
`ask yourself where is it described in the spec what
`
`"usability" means, well, there is only one -- "usability"
`
`doesn't appear in the spec at all, your Honor.
`
`"Usable"
`
`appears in the spec once.
`
`This is on Slide 26, please.
`
`There it is right there.
`
`And it's not used at
`
`all in the way that the plaintiffs are saying it is used
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`24
`
`in the claim if you read it.
`
`It says, "If the expected
`
`response is not received at the central controller from
`
`the addressed terminal after the time-out period expires,
`
`the central controller assumes that the channel is not
`
`usable."
`
`Well, that's a very specific use of
`
`"usability."
`
`In fact, C-Cation doesn't even cite this
`
`portion of the specification in connection with the
`
`construction of the word "usability."
`
`And this is the
`
`only antecedent in the specification, your Honor, that
`
`uses the term -- or it doesn't use the exact term -- uses
`
`a term that's related.
`
`So, there is no explanation other than that
`
`one phrase in the specification of what it means for the
`
`system to be -- or to monitor the system for usability.
`
`The plaintiff cites, your Honor -- and
`
`your Honor cited this in your earlier Markman order --
`
`factors in the spec relating to availability.
`
`So, if we could go to the next slide.
`
`This is Slide 28.
`
`As you can see, in the way
`
`the specification describes the system, "availability" is
`
`a different concept from "usability."
`
`They are described
`
`in different paragraphs in the specification.
`
`I'm on
`
`Slide 28 now.
`
`So, for example, "usable" is described in the
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`25
`
`paragraph at Column 8, lines 1 through 10; and the
`
`availability channels are in a different paragraph,
`
`talking about the channel availability.
`
`So, if I could go to Slide 30, your Honor,
`
`just to walk you through.
`
`I'll try to answer your
`
`question about how would you not know if you're a person
`
`standing outside.
`
`Just take the availability factors
`
`that are listed, your Honor.
`
`Those are the number of
`
`remote terminals, the traffic requirements, past
`
`collision count, channel error status, and bandwidth.
`
`If you go to Slide 30, let's take the number
`
`of remote terminals.
`
`So, is there any objective boundary
`
`on that?
`
`No.
`
`In fact, let's skip ahead.
`
`So, here we have five different -- let's go to
`
`35.
`
`We have five different factors that the
`
`plaintiffs point to as to usability; but they don't say
`
`anything about what those factors -- when those factors
`
`are met, how those factors are met, how they mix together
`
`to determine whether something is usable or not usable,
`
`your Honor.
`
`The plaintiffs cite --
`
`Go to the next slide.
`
`-- to dependent claim 3 to suggest that that
`
`somehow supports their argument.
`
`Well, dependent claim 3
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`26
`
`identifies some specific factors that could be the
`
`monitoring; but it is surrounded by a "comprising" claim.
`
`So, it could be any number of other factors.
`
`And if you go to -- and, by the way, the
`
`plaintiff agrees with this.
`
`There could be any factor,
`
`not just the ones that are enumerated.
`
`So, I'd like to end this particular term and
`
`move on to the next just by addressing a couple of cases
`
`cited by the plaintiff.
`
`This is Slide 41.
`
`They cite the
`
`Invensys case, your Honor.
`
`Notably -- I think this was
`
`before Judge Davis, your Honor.
`
`Notably in that case the
`
`plaintiff proposed a construction o