Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 153 PageID #: 21466
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`VS.
`
`VIRNETX * Civil Docket No.
` * 6:07-CV-80.
` * Tyler, Texas
` *
` * March 15, 2010.
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION * 9:00 A.M
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
`MR. DOUGLAS CAWLEY
`MR. BRADLEY CALDWELL
`MR. JASON D. CASSADY
`MR. LUKE MCLEROY
` McKool-Smith
` 300 Crescent Court
` Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`MR. ROBERT M. PARKER
`Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth
`100 East Ferguson
`Suite 1114
`Tyler, TX 75702.
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE:
`
`COURT REPORTERS:
`
`MS. SUSAN SIMMONS, CSR
`Ms. Judith Werlinger, CSR
`Official Court Reporters
` 100 East Houston, Suite 125
` Marshall, TX 75670
`903/935-3868.
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced on CAT system.)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 1
`
`
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`VS.
`
`VIRNETX * Civil Docket No.
` * 6:07-CV-80.
` * Tyler, Texas
` *
` * March 15, 2010.
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION * 9:00 A.M
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
`MR. DOUGLAS CAWLEY
`MR. BRADLEY CALDWELL
`MR. JASON D. CASSADY
`MR. LUKE MCLEROY
` McKool-Smith
` 300 Crescent Court
` Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`MR. ROBERT M. PARKER
`Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth
`100 East Ferguson
`Suite 1114
`Tyler, TX 75702.
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE:
`
`COURT REPORTERS:
`
`MS. SUSAN SIMMONS, CSR
`Ms. Judith Werlinger, CSR
`Official Court Reporters
` 100 East Houston, Suite 125
` Marshall, TX 75670
`903/935-3868.
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced on CAT system.)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 153 PageID #: 21467
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`MR. MATTHEW POWERS
`MR. JARED BOBROW
`MR. PAUL EHRLICH
`MR. THOMAS KING
`MR. ROBERT GERRITY
`Weil Gotshal & Manges
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`5th Floor
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`MS. ELIZABETH WEISWASSER
`MR. TIM DeMASI
`Weil Gotshal & Manges
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`
`MR. DANIEL BOOTH
`Weil Gotshal & Manges
`700 Louisiana
`Suite 1600
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`MR. RICHARD SAYLES
`MR. MARK STRACHAN
`Sayles Werbner
`1201 Elm Street
`4400 Renaissance Tower
`Dallas, TX 75270
`
`MR. ERIC FINDLAY
`Findlay Craft
`6760 Old Jacksonville Highway
`Suite 101
`Tyler, TX 75703
`
`* * * * * *
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Jury out.)
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`08:04
`
`22
`
`08:04
`
`23
`
`08:04
`
`24
`
`08:04
`
`25
`
`All right. Do the parties have anything before we bring
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 2
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 153 PageID #: 21468
`
`3
`
`the jury in?
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. POWERS: A couple of matters, Your
`
`One is an issue that came up at the
`
`pretrial conference, and it was VirnetX's motion in
`
`limine regarding our evidence that they had earlier
`
`accused of infringement, PPTP, which is now being
`
`asserted to be prior art.
`
`And Your Honor granted that motion in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`08:04
`
`10
`
`limine. At Page 7, you said, I'll look at it closer
`
`08:04
`
`11
`
`between now and then. Bring it back up with me prior to
`
`08:04
`
`12
`
`trial. I think you're zeroing in on something that
`
`08:04
`
`13
`
`would probably be an admission. So if you want to use
`
`08:04
`
`14
`
`it to impeach their expert, to raise it now, and that's
`
`08:04
`
`15
`
`what we're doing now.
`
`08:04
`
`16
`
`08:05
`
`17
`
`So the basic --
`
`THE COURT: So you want to raise -- oh,
`
`08:05
`
`18
`
`yeah. Go ahead. Explain it to me a little further.
`
`08:05
`
`19
`
`MR. POWERS: So the basic issue is this:
`
`08:05
`
`20
`
`As Your Honor knows, we're relying on PPTP to be a piece
`
`08:05
`
`21
`
`of prior art in the case. It's a Microsoft product that
`
`08:05
`
`22
`
`was done in 1996.
`
`08:05
`
`23
`
`We believe that the fact that VirnetX's
`
`08:05
`
`24
`
`lawyers originally accused it of infringement and
`
`08:05
`
`25
`
`withdrew it only when they learned of the date is
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 3
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 153 PageID #: 21469
`
`4
`
`evidence that should be allowed to be used in
`
`cross-examination of their validity expert on the
`
`question of whether PPTP does, in fact, come within the
`
`scope of the claims.
`
`THE COURT: Response?
`
`MR. McLEROY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`The short answer is, we never accused it
`
`of infringement. PPTP is not mentioned in our
`
`infringement contentions. I believe what Counsel is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`08:05
`
`10
`
`referring to is a letter that VirnetX's lawyers --
`
`08:05
`
`11
`
`former lawyers sent to Microsoft clarifying the
`
`08:05
`
`12
`
`definition of accused features in an interrogatory we
`
`08:06
`
`13
`
`propounded to Microsoft.
`
`08:06
`
`14
`
`And as you can see from the context of the
`
`08:06
`
`15
`
`letter, as well as the interrogatories themselves, it's
`
`08:06
`
`16
`
`a broad definition of accused features that VirnetX used
`
`08:06
`
`17
`
`at the very beginning of the case, in November of 2007,
`
`08:06
`
`18
`
`to identify every possible infringing feature to do our
`
`08:06
`
`19
`
`analysis to see which infringed and which did not.
`
`08:06
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Is there a document or
`
`08:06
`
`21
`
`something that you would rely on, Mr. Powers?
`
`08:06
`
`22
`
`MR. POWERS: There is, Your Honor. It's
`
`08:06
`
`23
`
`Exhibit 3252. I can hand up my copy, if you'd like.
`
`08:06
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: All right. Bring up a copy of
`
`08:06
`
`25
`
`that.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 4
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 5 of 153 PageID #: 21470
`
`5
`
`And specifically --
`
`MR. POWERS: The specific portion I
`
`believe is highlighted in that copy, Your Honor. And it
`
`is exactly as Counsel has characterized it. It's their
`
`lawyers saying, yes, the accused functionality includes
`
`PPTP and L2TP.
`
`THE COURT: And let me see the
`
`interrogatory.
`
`MR. McLEROY: May I approach?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:06
`
`08:06
`
`08:06
`
`08:06
`
`08:06
`
`08:07
`
`08:07
`
`08:07
`
`08:07
`
`08:07
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: Okay. When do you need to get
`
`08:07
`
`11
`
`into this with him?
`
`08:07
`
`12
`
`MR. POWERS: It would be with their
`
`08:07
`
`13
`
`invalidity expert, who will be on this morning.
`
`08:07
`
`14
`
`08:07
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: Next or --
`
`MR. POWERS: No. It will be in their
`
`08:07
`
`16
`
`rebuttal case.
`
`08:07
`
`17
`
`08:07
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MR. POWERS: So we have -- it will be an
`
`08:07
`
`19
`
`hour and a half at least.
`
`08:07
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let me study on it
`
`08:07
`
`21
`
`a little bit.
`
`08:07
`
`22
`
`08:07
`
`23
`
`08:07
`
`24
`
`What else?
`
`MR. POWERS: Understood.
`
`Your Honor, there were two offers of proof
`
`08:07
`
`25
`
`filed late last night on issues that have been
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 5
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 6 of 153 PageID #: 21471
`
`6
`
`previously raised and subject of motions in limine, and
`
`we wanted to make those offers of proof and obtain
`
`indictment rulings from the Court on them.
`
`The two issues are, I know, familiar to
`
`the Court from the motions in limine.
`
`One is the question of the reexaminations.
`
`And that, of course, is relevant also to the witness
`
`coming up. It's relevant to various issues in the case
`
`and -- including, particularly, willfulness.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`08:08
`
`10
`
`And so we wanted to obtain a definitive
`
`08:08
`
`11
`
`ruling from the Court on that issue.
`
`08:08
`
`12
`
`08:08
`
`13
`
`08:08
`
`14
`
`08:08
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: It's overruled.
`
`MR. POWERS: Understood.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. POWERS: And the second one on which
`
`08:08
`
`16
`
`we wanted a definitive ruling is the question of
`
`08:08
`
`17
`
`Microsoft patents which are covering the accused
`
`08:08
`
`18
`
`functionality. On that one, Your Honor had earlier
`
`08:08
`
`19
`
`ruled as well. There is one change that has happened
`
`08:08
`
`20
`
`during the trial that does affect that issue.
`
`08:08
`
`21
`
`The change is that their damages expert
`
`08:08
`
`22
`
`testified on direct examination that one of the reasons
`
`08:09
`
`23
`
`he believed some of the licenses he was relying upon
`
`08:09
`
`24
`
`were particularly relevant was that they included PNRP
`
`08:09
`
`25
`
`patents owned by Microsoft.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 6
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 7 of 153 PageID #: 21472
`
`7
`
`So this is now a situation that is
`
`different from how it was presented to Your Honor in the
`
`motions in limine, because now VirnetX has made -- has
`
`affirmatively opened the door to the relevance and
`
`relied upon the relevance of Microsoft's patents on the
`
`accused functionality.
`
`And, therefore, we think that that opening
`
`of the door should allow Microsoft to introduce those
`
`patents into evidence.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Response?
`
`MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, I don't think
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`08:09
`
`10
`
`08:09
`
`11
`
`08:09
`
`12
`
`it's actually a fair representation to say that we've
`
`08:09
`
`13
`
`done anything outside of what we've always intended for
`
`08:09
`
`14
`
`these licenses.
`
`08:09
`
`15
`
`When Mr. Sayles and I argued the
`
`08:10
`
`16
`
`admissibility of the MCPP and WSPP licenses, I
`
`08:10
`
`17
`
`specifically referred to the PNRP-related technologies
`
`08:10
`
`18
`
`that has to go into those licenses. That was Wednesday.
`
`08:10
`
`19
`
`Here we are Monday morning. That never got brought up
`
`08:10
`
`20
`
`for five days that somehow that opened the door to any
`
`08:10
`
`21
`
`issue related to these patents.
`
`08:10
`
`22
`
`08:10
`
`23
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Ugone --
`
`THE COURT: So what are you raising,
`
`08:10
`
`24
`
`untimeliness in their --
`
`08:10
`
`25
`
`MR. CASSADY: Well, that's one, Your
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 7
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 8 of 153 PageID #: 21473
`
`8
`
`Honor, or this is just a hail Mary at the end, that they
`
`never thought it was relevant, and they're bringing it
`
`in now. That's one.
`
`Number two, Your Honor, Dr. Ugone never
`
`talked about these patents in his report. He doesn't
`
`specifically refer to these patent numbers. He doesn't
`
`specifically refer to the Microsoft technology patents.
`
`Three, Dr. Johnson, who he has to rely on
`
`for the technical knowledge of these patents, didn't
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`08:10
`
`10
`
`refer to these patents either with regards to the
`
`08:10
`
`11
`
`technology in this case.
`
`08:10
`
`12
`
`08:10
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: But Mr. Reed did.
`
`MR. CASSADY: Mr. Reed said that these
`
`08:10
`
`14
`
`patents are related to technologies that Microsoft
`
`08:11
`
`15
`
`licenses out.
`
`08:11
`
`16
`
`Now what the Defendant's trying to do is
`
`08:11
`
`17
`
`come in and say that these patents are for Microsoft
`
`08:11
`
`18
`
`Windows products. So if the Windows product is
`
`08:11
`
`19
`
`accused -- or is covered by one of our patents, then it
`
`08:11
`
`20
`
`can't possibly infringe this patent.
`
`08:11
`
`21
`
`They're trying to bring in or backdoor in
`
`08:11
`
`22
`
`an inadmissible argument based on their own patents.
`
`08:11
`
`23
`
`MR. POWERS: May I respond briefly, Your
`
`08:11
`
`24
`
`Honor?
`
`08:11
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 8
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 9 of 153 PageID #: 21474
`
`9
`
`MR. POWERS: Mr. Reed went beyond merely
`
`saying these are patents that Microsoft licenses out.
`
`Mr. Reed attempted to increase the relevance of those
`
`licenses in the eyes of the jury by saying that these
`
`patents related to the accused functionality, and it was
`
`that link that clearly opened the door.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And for what purpose do
`
`you want to introduce these patents?
`
`MR. POWERS: As evidence of Microsoft's
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`08:11
`
`10
`
`patents on its own functionality.
`
`08:11
`
`11
`
`If he's relying on them and introducing
`
`08:11
`
`12
`
`them and affirmatively relying on them, the patents
`
`08:11
`
`13
`
`themselves should be in evidence before the jury.
`
`08:11
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: But are you -- are you wanting
`
`08:12
`
`15
`
`to use them to rebut his testimony regarding the damages
`
`08:12
`
`16
`
`issue?
`
`08:12
`
`17
`
`MR. POWERS: In part, yes, but in part,
`
`08:12
`
`18
`
`they should be admissible now that he's opened the door.
`
`08:12
`
`19
`
`He's opened the door to the relevance of those patents.
`
`08:12
`
`20
`
`08:12
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: But --
`
`MR. POWERS: And one purpose would be to
`
`08:12
`
`22
`
`rebut his testimony. One purpose would be that
`
`08:12
`
`23
`
`Microsoft --
`
`08:12
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: And what would you rebut about
`
`08:12
`
`25
`
`his testimony?
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 9
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 10 of 153 PageID #: 21475
`
`10
`
`MR. POWERS: The relevance in relationship
`
`between those patents and the accused functionality, and
`
`to the extent they actually do cover the accused
`
`functionality, that's relevant to the jury as well.
`
`MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, the only
`
`question that these go to is comparability of the
`
`licenses. Mr. Reed testified about the comparability of
`
`the MCPP and WSPP license programs.
`
`And he said, one reason they're comparable
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`08:12
`
`10
`
`is they include PNRP-related patents and other
`
`08:12
`
`11
`
`technologies. He specifically said that this is what
`
`08:12
`
`12
`
`Windows -- or this is what Microsoft uses to license
`
`08:12
`
`13
`
`that technology out.
`
`08:12
`
`14
`
`He did not say they're related to Windows.
`
`08:12
`
`15
`
`He did not say they're related to server. He did not go
`
`08:12
`
`16
`
`into that detail.
`
`08:12
`
`17
`
`Dr. Ugone can easily get on the stand and
`
`08:13
`
`18
`
`say that these licenses are not comparable without those
`
`08:13
`
`19
`
`patents in his hand, as evidenced by the fact that he
`
`08:13
`
`20
`
`never referred to those patents --
`
`08:13
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: I'm not going to allow the
`
`08:13
`
`22
`
`patents to be introduced. I will allow Dr. Ugone to
`
`08:13
`
`23
`
`testify as to the damages aspect with regard to the
`
`08:13
`
`24
`
`patents.
`
`08:13
`
`25
`
`MR. CASSADY: And, so, Your Honor, just so
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 10
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 11 of 153 PageID #: 21476
`
`11
`
`we're clear, you mean he can get up and say that these
`
`cover the Windows products, and they cover the products
`
`in this case, those patents?
`
`THE COURT: No. No.
`
`MR. CASSADY: Okay. Thank you, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. POWERS: One housekeeping matter, Your
`
`Honor. I think there's an agreement between the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`08:13
`
`10
`
`parties. In that large list of exhibits that we offered
`
`08:13
`
`11
`
`on the first day, Microsoft inadvertently included
`
`08:13
`
`12
`
`DX3455, which is a physical hard drive of the source
`
`08:13
`
`13
`
`code.
`
`08:13
`
`14
`
`And so the parties have agreed that we'll
`
`08:13
`
`15
`
`have a placeholder for that where there will be a
`
`08:13
`
`16
`
`picture of the hard drive, and Microsoft will retain the
`
`08:13
`
`17
`
`physical hard drive in case it's needed for anything.
`
`08:13
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Yes. And that should be the
`
`08:13
`
`19
`
`practice with any physical objects. Substitute a
`
`08:13
`
`20
`
`photograph for it.
`
`08:13
`
`21
`
`MR. POWERS: The last thing, Your Honor,
`
`08:13
`
`22
`
`on the housekeeping side, I thought Your Honor might
`
`08:14
`
`23
`
`want the times for the depositions that are going to be
`
`08:14
`
`24
`
`read today, so you'll have that in advance.
`
`08:14
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 11
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 12 of 153 PageID #: 21477
`
`12
`
`MR. POWERS: I'll give you the sequence,
`
`if you like. There's going to be four depositions
`
`played before Mr. Ugone goes on. Those will be Becker,
`
`Hopen, Sterne, and then Kindred, and then Dr. Ugone will
`
`go on.
`
`And then the final two witnesses will also
`
`be by deposition. That will be Victor Larson with an O
`
`and then Kindell Larsen with an E. And the times for
`
`all of those depositions are 50 minutes for Microsoft,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`08:14
`
`10
`
`5-0, and 17 and a half minutes for VirnetX.
`
`08:14
`
`11
`
`08:14
`
`12
`
`08:14
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Very good.
`
`All right.
`
`MR. POWERS: I understand that VirnetX's
`
`08:14
`
`14
`
`rebuttal case includes two depositions, which as I
`
`08:14
`
`15
`
`understand it, are about four and a half minutes.
`
`08:14
`
`16
`
`So the total -- and I think almost none
`
`08:15
`
`17
`
`for Microsoft. So the totals for all the depositions
`
`08:15
`
`18
`
`will be 50 for Microsoft and about 22 for VirnetX.
`
`08:15
`
`19
`
`08:15
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Is that correct?
`
`MR. CALDWELL: I think it actually is
`
`08:15
`
`21
`
`correct, with the exception of the part that VernetX
`
`08:15
`
`22
`
`will not play in its rebuttal case. I think we will
`
`08:15
`
`23
`
`play that by ear. So 50 and 17.
`
`08:15
`
`24
`
`08:15
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Okay. We'll go --
`
`MR. CASSADY: 50 minutes and 17 and a
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 13 of 153 PageID #: 21478
`
`13
`
`half.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. We'll do the 50 and the
`
`17 and a half, and you remind me if you put in those two
`
`later depositions.
`
`MR. CALDWELL: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Anything further?
`
`MR. POWERS: Nothing further, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Bring the jury in.
`
`(Jury in.)
`
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`
`Good morning, Ladies of the Jury.
`
`Did you like your flowers?
`
`JUROR: Yes. Very good. Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Well, that's complement of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:15
`
`08:16
`
`08:16
`
`10
`
`08:16
`
`11
`
`08:16
`
`12
`
`08:16
`
`13
`
`08:16
`
`14
`
`08:16
`
`15
`
`both parties. I told them of your desire to have a --
`
`08:16
`
`16
`
`after such a pretty week, to be locked up in here with
`
`08:16
`
`17
`
`no windows all week, I think those flowers are very
`
`08:16
`
`18
`
`appropriate, and both Plaintiff and Defendant split the
`
`08:16
`
`19
`
`cost of those, and we hope that you like them.
`
`08:16
`
`20
`
`08:16
`
`21
`
`08:16
`
`22
`
`JUROR: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Very good then.
`
`Thank you for your jury service last week
`
`08:16
`
`23
`
`again. And today is, hopefully, our final day, if we --
`
`08:16
`
`24
`
`we're going to try to work very hard and move through
`
`08:16
`
`25
`
`the evidence.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 13
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 14 of 153 PageID #: 21479
`
`14
`
`We have about a little less than three
`
`hours of testimony to hear this morning, so we're going
`
`to get started.
`
`With that, Mr. Powers, you may call your
`
`first witness.
`
`MR. McLEROY: Your Honor, may we handle a
`
`couple of exhibits?
`
`THE COURT: Certainly, uh-huh.
`
`MR. McLEROY: There are two exhibits. We
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:16
`
`08:16
`
`08:16
`
`08:16
`
`08:16
`
`08:16
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`10
`
`move to admit Plaintiff's Exhibits 985 and 1034. I do
`
`08:17
`
`11
`
`not believe there are any objections.
`
`08:17
`
`12
`
`08:17
`
`13
`
`08:17
`
`14
`
`MR. POWERS: No objection, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Be admitted.
`
`MR. McLEROY: And, Your Honor, may I also
`
`08:17
`
`15
`
`bring to the front a copy of our exhibits -- list of
`
`08:17
`
`16
`
`exhibits admitted Friday?
`
`08:17
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: All right. You certainly may.
`
`08:17
`
`18
`
`That will be accepted without objection.
`
`08:17
`
`19
`
`MR. POWERS: And similarly, Your Honor, we
`
`08:17
`
`20
`
`have a list of exhibits to be admitted today as to which
`
`08:17
`
`21
`
`there's no objection and a cumulative list of exhibits
`
`08:17
`
`22
`
`admitted through Friday, including the list to be
`
`08:17
`
`23
`
`admitted today.
`
`08:17
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: Any objection to those to be
`
`08:17
`
`25
`
`admitted today?
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 14
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 15 of 153 PageID #: 21480
`
`15
`
`MR. McLEROY: No, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Be admitted, and
`
`the other list is accepted without objection.
`
`All right. Who will be your first witness
`
`today?
`
`MR. POWERS: Our first witness, Your
`
`Honor, will be Mr. Becker from SafeNet by video
`
`deposition.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:17
`
`08:18
`
`10
`
`I'll tell the ladies of the jury, we have
`
`08:18
`
`11
`
`four depositions, I'm advised, of four different
`
`08:18
`
`12
`
`witnesses coming up, and the runtime on them is going to
`
`08:18
`
`13
`
`be a little over an hour, about an hour and ten minutes.
`
`08:18
`
`14
`
`08:18
`
`15
`
`08:18
`
`16
`
`So just sit back and enjoy.
`
`(Video playing.)
`
`QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. Becker. You
`
`08:18
`
`17
`
`are Mr. Bill Becker?
`
`08:18
`
`18
`
`08:18
`
`19
`
`08:18
`
`20
`
`08:18
`
`21
`
`employed?
`
`08:18
`
`22
`
`08:18
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Yes.
`
`QUESTION: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`Mr. Becker, where are you currently
`
`ANSWER: I work at SafeNet, Incorporated.
`
`QUESTION: And what is SafeNet,
`
`08:18
`
`24
`
`Incorporated?
`
`08:18
`
`25
`
`ANSWER: It's an information security
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 15
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 16 of 153 PageID #: 21481
`
`16
`
`company located on -- headquartered in Belcamp,
`
`Maryland.
`
`QUESTION: Okay. How long have you been
`
`an employee of SafeNet?
`
`ANSWER: Since July 1996, 13 years.
`
`QUESTION: Do you recall that at some
`
`period in time, you met with individuals from a company
`
`called SAIC?
`
`ANSWER: Yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:18
`
`08:18
`
`08:18
`
`08:18
`
`08:18
`
`08:18
`
`08:18
`
`08:19
`
`08:19
`
`08:19
`
`10
`
`QUESTION: What -- what do you
`
`08:19
`
`11
`
`specifically recall about the technology that you were
`
`08:19
`
`12
`
`shown?
`
`08:19
`
`13
`
`ANSWER: It was a -- it was a solution
`
`08:19
`
`14
`
`to -- they called it EasyVPN. It was a solution to have
`
`08:19
`
`15
`
`their software distribute policy to an IP SEC client and
`
`08:19
`
`16
`
`IP SEC gateway, and they were trying to make it easier
`
`08:19
`
`17
`
`and more intuitive for the end user.
`
`08:19
`
`18
`
`QUESTION: Was SAIC trying to get you at
`
`08:19
`
`19
`
`SafeNet interested in their technology?
`
`08:19
`
`20
`
`08:19
`
`21
`
`ANSWER: In some degree, yeah.
`
`QUESTION: Do you recall -- I'm going to
`
`08:19
`
`22
`
`show you, in connection with that evaluation, a document
`
`08:19
`
`23
`
`bearing Bates No. SAFE-0006. I'm going to mark it as
`
`08:20
`
`24
`
`Exhibit 371.
`
`08:20
`
`25
`
`And I'd like to know if this refreshes
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 16
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 17 of 153 PageID #: 21482
`
`17
`
`your recollection of your conclusions about the EasyVPN
`
`technology.
`
`ANSWER: It's an accurate summary.
`
`QUESTION: Does this document, Mr. Becker,
`
`appear to be an accurate summary of SafeNet's evaluation
`
`of the EasyVPN technology that would have been created
`
`in the ordinary course of its business?
`
`ANSWER: Yes.
`
`QUESTION: And what was your conclusion as
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`08:20
`
`10
`
`to whether the EasyVPN technology would actually
`
`08:20
`
`11
`
`accomplish the simplicity that it was trying to
`
`08:20
`
`12
`
`accomplish?
`
`08:20
`
`13
`
`ANSWER: The concept of -- for the users,
`
`08:21
`
`14
`
`it might be simpler, but there was a lot of complexity
`
`08:21
`
`15
`
`in the software in actually implementing it, especially
`
`08:21
`
`16
`
`with trying to load stuff into a router.
`
`08:21
`
`17
`
`QUESTION: So in your view, would the
`
`08:21
`
`18
`
`technology that SAIC had shown you actually accomplish,
`
`08:21
`
`19
`
`ultimately, any real simplicity?
`
`08:21
`
`20
`
`08:21
`
`21
`
`ANSWER: No, not really.
`
`QUESTION: Is it accurate, as this memo
`
`08:21
`
`22
`
`says, that it seemed that the -- that the complexity it
`
`08:21
`
`23
`
`was trying to eliminate had simply been moved from one
`
`08:21
`
`24
`
`place to another?
`
`08:21
`
`25
`
`ANSWER: That's accurate, yes.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 17
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 18 of 153 PageID #: 21483
`
`18
`
`QUESTION: What exactly does it mean that
`
`the complexity that they were trying to eliminate had
`
`simply been moved from one place to another?
`
`ANSWER: Their -- the complexity at the
`
`time of VPNs was configuring policy of who could talk to
`
`who, what different gateways and clients could talk to
`
`each other.
`
`So they were trying to simplify it from
`
`the user's perspective in that they could just use .scom
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`08:21
`
`10
`
`extensions, and if something was .scom, it would go
`
`08:21
`
`11
`
`secure there.
`
`08:21
`
`12
`
`But the complexity would get moved from
`
`08:22
`
`13
`
`the user's interface now into their software, and from
`
`08:22
`
`14
`
`their software, it would be complex to get it -- to get
`
`08:22
`
`15
`
`the keys derived and load it into like a Cisco router or
`
`08:22
`
`16
`
`a VPN client.
`
`08:22
`
`17
`
`So they were moving the complexity kind of
`
`08:22
`
`18
`
`from the user interface down further into the -- into
`
`08:22
`
`19
`
`the networking stack.
`
`08:22
`
`20
`
`QUESTION: So would you call this solution
`
`08:22
`
`21
`
`that SAIC claimed to have, would you call it really just
`
`08:22
`
`22
`
`something that was, in reality, complex?
`
`08:22
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Yeah. The implementation was
`
`08:22
`
`24
`
`complex, yes.
`
`08:22
`
`25
`
`QUESTION: And do you know whether
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 18
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 19 of 153 PageID #: 21484
`
`19
`
`SafeNet, in fact, ultimately adopted this EasyVPN
`
`technology?
`
`ANSWER: We did not.
`
`QUESTION: Okay. Can you name some VPN
`
`companies that have failed?
`
`ANSWER: There's a company called Open
`
`Reach that failed. I remember the -- there were -- I
`
`don't remember the names of them all. There are a
`
`number of them that have disappeared over the years.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:22
`
`08:23
`
`10
`
`QUESTION: Can you estimate how many VPN
`
`08:23
`
`11
`
`companies have failed in the market?
`
`08:23
`
`12
`
`08:23
`
`13
`
`ANSWER: A guess is maybe ten.
`
`QUESTION: Is setting up a VPN a hard
`
`08:23
`
`14
`
`problem?
`
`08:23
`
`15
`
`08:23
`
`16
`
`ANSWER: It -- it can be.
`
`QUESTION: How can setting up a VPN be a
`
`08:23
`
`17
`
`hard problem?
`
`08:23
`
`18
`
`ANSWER: If -- if a user interface or the
`
`08:23
`
`19
`
`rules are -- are complex for a -- for a system, it could
`
`08:23
`
`20
`
`be hard to -- hard to set up and hard to get
`
`08:23
`
`21
`
`operational.
`
`08:24
`
`22
`
`QUESTION: Did you think VirnetX's EasyVPN
`
`08:24
`
`23
`
`technology was a bad idea?
`
`08:24
`
`24
`
`ANSWER: No. I didn't -- I didn't think
`
`08:24
`
`25
`
`it was a bad idea.
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 19
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 20 of 153 PageID #: 21485
`
`20
`
`QUESTION: Just hard to implement?
`
`ANSWER: It's hard to implement, yes.
`
`QUESTION: And I think you said that
`
`moving the complexity from one place to another -- what
`
`did you mean by that?
`
`ANSWER: I was referring to moving the --
`
`the complexity from -- from the user to the -- to the
`
`software that interfaces to load keys into the gateway
`
`and into the client.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:24
`
`08:25
`
`10
`
`QUESTION: So would you agree that EasyVPN
`
`08:25
`
`11
`
`technology, once implemented, would make it easier for a
`
`08:25
`
`12
`
`user to set up or create a VPN?
`
`08:25
`
`13
`
`ANSWER: It might compared to certain
`
`08:25
`
`14
`
`products, and it might not compared to other products.
`
`08:25
`
`15
`
`08:25
`
`16
`
`(End of video clip.)
`
`MR. POWERS: Your Honor, the next witness
`
`08:25
`
`17
`
`will be Mr. Hopen from Aventail, and the total time will
`
`08:25
`
`18
`
`be 14 minutes.
`
`08:25
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: All right. You've already
`
`08:25
`
`20
`
`given me the times, haven't you?
`
`08:25
`
`21
`
`MR. POWERS: I've given you the cumulative
`
`08:25
`
`22
`
`times, yes.
`
`08:25
`
`23
`
`08:25
`
`24
`
`08:25
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`(Video playing.)
`
`QUESTION: Can you please introduce
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1059, p. 20
`
`
`
`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 398 Filed 04/05/10 Page 21 of 153 PageID #: 21486
`
`21
`
`yourself?
`
`ANSWER: I'm Chris Hopen. I was a
`
`cofounder of Aventail Corporation back in 1996.
`
`QUESTION: Okay. What were your job
`
`titles while at Aventail?
`
`ANSWER: I ran engineering, so I was Vice
`
`President of engineering and Chief Technology Officer.
`
`QUESTION: What was Aventail Connect
`
`Version 3.1?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`08:25
`
`08:25
`
`08:25
`
`08:25
`
`08:25
`
`08:26
`
`08:26
`
`08:26
`
`08:26
`
`08:26
`
`10
`
`ANSWER: Aventail connect 3.1 was a piece
`
`08:26
`
`11
`
`of software that would run on an end user's PC that
`
`08:26
`
`12
`
`would provide additional secure communications services
`
`08:26
`
`13
`
`to applications running on that PC. It would -- it was
`
`08:26
`
`14
`
`a client in a pair of a client/server solutions that we
`
`08:26
`
`15
`
`sold.
`
`08:26
`
`16
`
`So it was one component of what we
`
`08:26
`
`17
`
`referred to as Aventail ExtraNet Center. And so
`
`08:26
`
`18
`
`Aventail Connect was the component that was the
`
`08:26
`
`19
`
`client-side software that would be distributed and run
`
`08:26
`
`20
`
`on individual users' systems.
`
`08:26
`
`21
`
`QUESTION: What was the name of the other
`
`08:26
`
`22
`
`component of the -- of the Aventail ExtraNet Center?
`
`08:26
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Yeah. So, typically, ExtraNet
`
`08:26
`
`24
`
`Center was sort of the umbrella name, if you will, for
`
`08:27
`
`25
`
`the entire product. The -- I believe at that point in
`
`Sunbelt Reporting & Litigation Services
`HOUSTON*DALLAS/FT. WORTH*CORPUS CHRISTI*AUSTIN*EAST TEXAS*SAN ANTONIO
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00811
`Petitioner Apple In
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
