`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`
`( 3:11-CV-00367-O
`
`DALLAS, TEXAS
`
`APRIL 4, 2013
`
`(((
`
`(
`
`((
`
`
`(
`(
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`
`VERSUS
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,
` Defendants.
`
`VOLUME 1
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE REED C. O'CONNOR
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a jury
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: THEODORE STEVENSON, III
`McKool Smith
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214/978-4000
`214/978-4044 FAX (fax)
`tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
`
`PHILLIP M. AURENTZ
`McKool Smith PC
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214/978-4206
`214/978-4044 (fax)
`paurentz@mckoolsmith.com
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 1
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`
`
`ASHLEY N. MOORE
`McKool Smith PC
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214/978-6337
`214/978-4044 (fax)
`amoore@mckoolsmith.com
`
`JOHN B. CAMPBELL
`McKool Smith
`300 W 6th St
`Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`512/692-8730
`512/692-8744 (fax)
`jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com
`
`BRADLEY W. CALDWELL
`Caldwell Cassady Curry, P.C.
`1717 McKinney
`Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75202
`214/593-7129
`214/978-4044 (fax)
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT: JAMES R. NELSON
`DLA Piper US LLP
`1717 Main St
`Suite 4600
`Dallas, TX 75201-4605
`214/743-4512
`214/743-4545 (fax)
`jr.nelson@dlapiper.com
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT: MARK D. FOWLER
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Ave
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`650/833-2048
`650/833-2001 (fax)
`mark.fowler@dlapiper.com
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 2
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`CLAUDIA WILSON FROST
`DLA Piper LLP
`1000 Louisiana
`Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`713/425-8450
`713/300-6050 (fax)
`claudia.frost@dlapiper.com
`
`ANDREW P. VALENTINE
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
`650-833-2000
`650-833-2001 (fax)
`andrew.valentine@DLAPiper.com
`
`ERIK FUEHRER
`DLA Piper US LLP
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`650/833-2045
`650/833-2001 (fax)
`erik.fuehrer@dlapiper.com
`
`TODD S. PATTERSON
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Ave
`Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`512/457-7000
`512/457-7001 (fax)
`todd.patterson@dlapiper.com
`
`COURT REPORTER: PAMELA J. WILSON, RMR, CRR
` 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1535
` Dallas, Texas 75242
`214.662.1557
`pam_wilson@txnd.uscourts.gov
`
`
`
`Proceedings reported by mechanical stenography,
`
`transcript produced by computer.
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 3
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 65
`
`
`Mr. Nelson, did you rest in front of the jury?
`
`MR. NELSON: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: You did. Very good.
`
`Samsung has rested and now we're in the rebuttal portion
`
`of the trial. And Summit 6 is calling Dr. Jones in the
`
`rebuttal phase of the trial.
`
`And that -- that just means his testimony is limited to
`
`issues that Samsung raised in their portion of the trial that
`
`were not already addressed in Summit 6's case in chief.
`
`So that -- it's just a technical way the process goes.
`
`We don't just keep it wide open, then we'd never end. It's --
`
`the trial narrows. And so he's only permitted to talk about
`
`things that were raised by Samsung in Samsung's defense. So
`
`it won't be a rehash of the earlier testimony.
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. MOORE:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Dr. Jones.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Good to have you back.
`
`I'd like to ask you about Samsung's validity challenge to
`
`the Summit 6 patent, the '482 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`What does Samsung have to show to prove invalidity of
`
`Summit 6's patent?
`
`A.
`
`Well, they have to show by clear and convincing evidence
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 4
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 93
`
`
`about.
`
`Is there something in claim 38 that the Mattes patent
`
`just does not teach?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`In the Mattes patent what's -- what's really going on is
`
`the client, as I said, is shipping these photographs up. And
`
`this is over a -- at least portions of it, over a wireless
`
`network.
`
`And what -- what happens is the server up at the -- the
`
`top end, it's looking at those images and -- and it describes
`
`them as analyzing the images.
`
`So it get an image, it looks at it, it decides whether
`
`it's good enough, or too good, and then sends a message back
`
`something saying give me another one if it doesn't like what
`
`it's got
`
`Q.
`
`So the server is controlling giving a thumbs-up or
`
`thumbs-down and then the server -- the phone just keeps
`
`retrying?
`
`A.
`
`That's right.
`
`What the server is doing it -- the server is looking at
`
`-- analyzing the image to see -- according to the
`
`specification it says, it's analyzing it to see if the image
`
`is of high enough quality and looking for things like noise in
`
`the image.
`
`That's not something that is -- is -- well, that's a very
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 5
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 94
`
`
`complicated analysis, particularly in that time frame. So
`
`that's something that they're doing on the server.
`
`Q.
`
`Is there a particular portion of the Mattes patent that
`
`you thought made that clear to you?
`
`A.
`
`Well, I think maybe the -- the best place is in column
`
`8 --
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Let's take --
`
`--of that patent.
`
`-- a look at that.
`
`MS. MOORE: Mr. Moreno, can I get the document
`
`camera again?
`
`THE WITNESS: Sort of about midway down, maybe about
`
`two-thirds.
`
`BY MS. MOORE:
`
`Q.
`
`What should we be -- be looking for?
`
`THE WITNESS: I think it would be easiest maybe to
`
`start around maybe line 19 and take it down to about 27,
`
`please.
`
`So what's that saying there is when the quality of the
`
`image is classified as too low in the server, a retransmission
`
`of the digital images requested from the tele-- the telephone
`
`unit with the newly transmitted image exhibiting a higher
`
`quality or high resolution.
`
`"To determine the quality of the image, the noise in the
`
`digital media image -- image is estimated using, for example,
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 6
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 95
`
`
`the image analysis unit BAE." And --
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`What does all that mean?
`
`Well, the first part says that at the server -- and we
`
`can look at that figure in a second to check that, but at the
`
`server the images are analyzed. And it says, okay, is there
`
`too much noise in this image, is it -- is it of the quality
`
`that we want.
`
`If it's not it's going to request that the telephone unit
`
`transmit a new version of the image that, for example, would
`
`be higher quality or higher resolution. But it's saying that
`
`what you sent isn't good enough.
`
`Q.
`
`How is that different from what's in claim element
`
`38(b)?
`
`A.
`
`Well, at a high-level in the '482 patent in 38(b), or
`
`really that whole claim, what's being described is the ability
`
`to meet the specifications of the server.
`
`The whole idea is that the client can do this local
`
`processing and know that the server that it's transmitting it
`
`to are -- essentially, at a high-level, know that the
`
`server -- that it's met the specifications.
`
`In this it's a -- in this patent over here, what's being
`
`talked about is an analysis of the quality of the image that
`
`would be difficult for the client, certainly in that time
`
`frame, to perform.
`
`Q.
`
`Now, you had mentioned showing a figure of the server.
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 7
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 96
`
`
`So I want to make sure I do that, and you can discuss.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`So -- so -- so this is showing us the -- the overall
`
`system. This is figure 1 from that Mattes or '295 patent.
`
`On the left are the telephone units. This is sort of
`
`showing how the system would work in operation.
`
`In the middle is what they call the transmission system.
`
`That would be basically a -- a network.
`
`And the reason things don't match up. I believe
`
`Dr. Rhyne talked about the initials don't match up to the
`
`initials because this was written by a gentleman in Germany.
`
`It may seem a little odd.
`
`But -- then we allocution over to the right and that's
`
`sort of breaking out the server.
`
`If we look in the upper right corner you can see it
`
`labels that the server.
`
`And then immediately below that is the, what's called the
`
`image analysis unit. And that is that labeled BAE. That's
`
`what we were talking about in column 8.
`
`So that's where the -- the brains of the operation is.
`
`And that's what can actually determine whether or not the
`
`image is good enough.
`
`Q.
`
`Claim 40. I believe we've discussed claim 38 in detail.
`
`If claim 38 is not met, do we even need to get to these
`
`dependent claims?
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 8
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 97
`
`
`A.
`
`No. If -- if -- if -- when you're doing an invalidity
`
`analysis, if -- in some ways it's similar to infringement in
`
`that if you didn't -- if don't invalidate claim 38 you can't
`
`invalidate the other claims.
`
`And if we look at them, I think I can explain that.
`
`MS. MOORE: Mr. Moreno, can we go back to PX 2.
`
`We'll go to that last page and we can look at 40 through
`
`49, please. About a third of the way down there.
`
`Yes. Thank you very much.
`
`THE WITNESS: All right. So I think if we're -- if
`
`we're looking at claim 40, remember, that says the method of
`
`claim 38. So if the method of claim 38, if -- if prior art
`
`didn't invalidate that it can't invalidate 40, because 40
`
`includes that
`
`BY MS. MOORE:
`
`Q.
`
`So when I was doing those check boxes with you on Monday,
`
`if I -- if I missed one in 38 we didn't even get to go to the
`
`other ones?
`
`A.
`
`That's right. They are -- they are -- they are dependent
`
`claims. So if the independent claim is not invalidated they
`
`can't an invalidated.
`
`Q.
`
`Let's talk about some of these dependent claims here.
`
`Does Mattes teach claim 40?
`
`A.
`
`Okay. Well -- well, first of all, we know it doesn't
`
`because it didn't teach 38.
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 9
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 98
`
`
`But let's look at the additional limitation, which is --
`
`and it's got that "further comprising" language. It says we
`
`have to do this next part.
`
`It says, "receiving an identification of said digital
`
`content for transmission prior to said pre-processing."
`
`What's that talking about is receiving -- well, "an
`
`identification of said digital content," in other words, the
`
`-- the method step is getting the -- oh, well, telling you
`
`which digital content to upload or telling you sort of which
`
`photo you could upload.
`
`And you would be receiving that, most likely, from a
`
`user.
`
`MS. MOORE: Mr. Moreno, can we go back to the
`
`document camera.
`
`BY MS. MOORE:
`
`Q.
`
`I'm going to show you the phone that's described in the
`
`Mattes patent.
`
`What's one reason that we can tell from this diagram and
`
`the description that they are not selecting a photo?
`
`A.
`
`Well, there -- there are a couple of things. And I can
`
`just refer back to what -- Dr. Rhyne and I agree on how this
`
`system operates at the high-level, which is that you take a
`
`picture, it's processed, and it's transmitted to the server.
`
`There's no picking out which picture to send. As he said,
`
`every picture is sent.
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 10
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`
`
` Vol 1 152
`
`
`we've been hearing about?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's what he's saying there, yes.
`
`Last few questions.
`
`The Mattes patent.
`
`Dr. Jones, you said on cross that pushing the trigger
`
`button on the Mattes patent does not ask as an identification
`
`of digital content for transmission. Mr. Fowler did not let
`
`you explain your answer.
`
`What do you mean by that?
`
`A.
`
`I mean that when you push the trigger the digital content
`
`does not exist. The idea -- you're pushing the trigger to
`
`create the digital content. You can't identify it until
`
`actually -- until it actually exists.
`
`MS. MOORE: No further questions.
`
`RECROSS EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. FOWLER:
`
`Q.
`
`You were characterizing Mr. Wright's testimony about the
`
`size of the pictures and we looked at one piece of testimony,
`
`but isn't it -- isn't it true that what Mr. Wright said was
`
`that with respect to customer images, I mean the full
`
`testimony, the full testimony was that customer images when
`
`the PUF was in use would always be resized using the PUF and
`
`by not some other means, right?
`
`He said that, right?
`
`A.
`
`That is not what he said, because he indicated there were
`
`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
`
`PAMELA J. WILSON, CSR/RMR/CRR
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT - 214.662.1557
`
`Exhibit 2004, Page 11
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR205-00685, Summit 6 LLC