throbber
Page 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`3:11-CV-367-O
`
`Jury Trial Volume 1
`
`April 1, 2013
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE REED C. O'CONNOR
`United States District Judge
`In Dallas, Texas
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`MR. THEODORE STEVENSON, III.
`McKool Smith
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214/978-4000
`Fax: 214/978-4044 FAX
`tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
`
`MR. PHILLIP M. AURENTZ
`McKool Smith PC
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214/978-4206
`Fax: 214/978-4044
`paurentz@mckoolsmith.com
`
`MS. ASHLEY N. MOORE
`McKool Smith PC
`300 Crescent Court
`Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214/978-6337
`Fax: 214/978-4044
`amoore@mckoolsmith.com
`
`MR. JOHN B. CAMPBELL
`McKool Smith
`300 W 6th St
`Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`512/692-8730
`Fax: 512/692-8744
`jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com
`
`DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 2022, Page 1
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`MR. BRADLEY W CALDWELL
`Caldwell Cassady Curry, P.C.
`1717 McKinney
`Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75202
`214/593-7129
`Fax: 214/978-4044
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`
`MR. JAMES R. NELSON
`DLA Piper US LLP
`1717 Main St
`Suite 4600
`Dallas, TX 75201-4605
`214/743-4512
`Fax: 214/743-4545
`jr.nelson@dlapiper.com
`
`MR. MARK D. FOWLER
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Ave
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`650/833-2048
`Fax: 650/833-2001
`mark.fowler@dlapiper.com
`
`MS. CLAUDIA WILSON FROST
`DLA Piper LLP
`1000 Louisiana
`Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`713/425-8450
`Fax: 713/300-6050
`claudia.frost@dlapiper.com
`
`MR. ANDREW P. VALENTINE
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
`650-833-2000
`Fax: 650-833-2001
`andrew.valentine@DLAPiper.com
`
`MR. ERIK FUEHRER
`DLA Piper US LLP
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`650/833-2045
`Fax: 650/833-2001
`erik.fuehrer@dlapiper.com
`
`DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 2022, Page 2
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`MR. TODD S. PATTERSON
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Ave
`Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`512/457-7000
`Fax: 512/457-7001
`todd.patterson@dlapiper.com
`
`MR. DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`1050 Lake Carolyn Pkwy #2338
`Irving, Texas
`75039
`drodenrmr@sbcglobal.net
`Phone:
`(214) 753-2298
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`The above styled and numbered cause was reported by
`computerized stenography and produced by computer.
`
`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
`
`DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`
`Exhibit 2022, Page 3
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`held by its predecessor companies privileged.
`
`See Love v.
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. 677 F3d. 258 at 261 out of the Fifth
`
`Circuit, 2012.
`
`A Court can prevent a party from asserting
`
`inconsistent positions under the doctrine of judicial
`
`estoppel.
`
`In addition, Defendant's Exhibit No. 2029 would also
`
`be admissible as non-hearsay because defendants should be
`
`permitted to offer it to show Plaintiff's notice of the
`
`potential prior use of the invention claimed in the Point2
`
`'802 Patent and how that notice affected Plaintiff's
`
`subsequent conduct regarding the acquisition of the Point2
`
`'802 Patent.
`
`See United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d. 804, page
`
`815, footnote 18, in the Fifth Circuit, 1980.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`subsequent conduct of not purchasing the Point2 patent is
`
`relevant because it tends to show that plaintiff had concerns
`
`that the '802 Patent was invalid based on Point2's actions
`
`regarding the photo upload facility.
`
`This information is
`
`relevant to Samsung's defense that the activity at Point2 also
`
`renders the '482 Patent invalid.
`
`So, I needed to clear that up after worrying about it
`
`all weekend since I got the e-mails wrong.
`
`Who is the first witness?
`
`MR. STEVENSON:
`
`Scott Lewis.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Scott Lewis.
`
`(Jury in.)
`
`DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 2022, Page 4
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Lewis - Direct
`Page 23
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay, ladies and gentlemen.
`
`Thank you
`
`all for being here and being here on time.
`
`I'm sorry for the
`
`ten minute delay but we get here early -- earlier than you all
`
`and try to resolve issues to get you into the box so we don't
`
`have to get you in the box and then excuse you when those
`
`issues come up.
`
`We try to resolve them in the morning and in
`
`the evenings and we were doing that today and it ran just a
`
`little bit long, so please accept my apologies.
`
`With that
`
`said we're going to keep moving through the case and I'll turn
`
`the floor over to Mr. Stevenson.
`
`MR. STEVENSON:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Summit 6
`
`calls as its next witness the inventor Scott Lewis.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Mr. Lewis, please come up.
`
`MR. NELSON:
`
`Your Honor, can we move this slightly?
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Yes, sir.
`
`Come on up.
`
`Mr. Lewis, were
`
`you sworn in the other day?
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`Yes, I was.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Go ahead and have a seat here.
`
`Speak
`
`into that microphone good and loud so everyone can hear what
`
`you have to say.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`Okay.
`
`Thank you.
`
`SCOTT LEWIS, PLAINTIFF WITNESS, was sworn
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. STEVENSON:
`Q. Good morning, Mr. Lewis.
`
`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
`
`DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`
`Exhibit 2022, Page 5
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00685, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Lewis - Direct
`Page 69
`
`deal within PictureWorks?
`A. Because I'm -- I'm a product guy.
`
`I -- I figure out
`
`products and interfaces and that's kind of my thing and then
`
`I -- and then I show them to people and try to get them
`
`excited about it and catch my vision.
`
`Deals just aren't my
`
`thing.
`Q. Have you ever negotiated a deal or done a deal?
`A. No.
`
`I mean, I've been around them, but it's just not my
`
`thing.
`Q. And then around this time, when the eBay deal was getting
`
`done, was there a corporate change over at PictureWorks?
`A. Yes, there was.
`Q. And what happened?
`A. Well, iPIX acquired PictureWorks and so we became part of
`
`their larger company.
`Q. Who is iPIX?
`A. IPIX was a company that did imaging on the internet,
`
`differently -- various types of imaging, mostly like high end
`
`photos of like hotels and homes and things like that.
`Q. And what was the acquisition price?
`A. It was $175 million dollars.
`Q. What was the driver?
`
`What was the product of PictureWorks
`
`when iPIX acquired it?
`A. It was -- it was our invention and the related
`
`technologies to that.
`
`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
`
`DENVER B. RODEN, RMR
`United States Court Reporter
`
`Exhibit 2022, Page 6
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00685, Summit 6 LLC

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket