throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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
`IPR2015-00686, 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