throbber
Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 161 PageID #: 22266
`
` 1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` 2 TYLER DIVISION
`
` 3
` VIRNETX, INC. )
` 4 DOCKET NO. 6:10cv417
` -vs- )
` 5 Tyler, Texas
` ) 8:49 a.m.
` 6 APPLE, INC. November 5, 2012
`
` 7
` 8 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
` MORNING SESSION
` 9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
` UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 13
`
` 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
` 15
` MR. DOUGLAS CAWLEY
` 16 MR. BRADLEY W. CALDWELL
` MR. JASON D. CASSADY
` 17 MR. JOHN AUSTIN CURRY
` McKOOL SMITH
` 18 300 Crescent Court, Ste. 1500
` Dallas, TX 75201
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21 COURT REPORTERS: MS. JUDITH WERLINGER
` MS. SHEA SLOAN
` 22 shea_sloan@txed.uscourts.gov
`
` 23
`
` 24 Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
` produced by a Computer.
` 25
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2041
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01047
`
`Page 1 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 161 PageID #: 22267
`
` 2
`
` 1 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
` 2 MR. ROBERT M. PARKER
` MR. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER BUNT
` 3 PARKER BUNT & AINSWORTH
` 100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114
` 4 Tyler, TX 75702
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
` FOR THE DEFENDANT:
` 9
` MR. DANNY L. WILLIAMS
` 10 MR. TERRY D. MORGAN
` MR. RUBEN S. BAINS
` 11 MR. CHRIS CRAVEY
` MR. MATT RODGERS
` 12 MR. DREW KIM
` MR. SCOTT WOLOSON
` 13 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C.
` 10333 Richmond, Ste. 1100
` 14 Houston, TX 77042
`
` 15
` MR. ERIC ALBRITTON
` 16 MR. STEPHEN E. EDWARDS
` MS. DEBRA COLEMAN
` 17 MR. MATTHEW C. HARRIS
` ALBRITTON LAW FIRM
` 18 P.O. Box 2649
` Longview, TX 75606
` 19
`
` 20 MR. JOHN M. DESMARAIS
` MR. MICHAEL P. STADNICK
` 21 DESMARAIS, LLP - NEW YORK
` 230 Park Avenue
` 22 New York, NY 10169
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`
`Page 2 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 3 of 161 PageID #: 22268
`
` 3
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
` 2 (Jury out.)
` 3 THE COURT: All right. I understand
` 4 there's a matter to take up before the jury comes in; is
` 5 that correct?
` 6 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes, Your Honor.
` 7 Good morning. John Desmarais for Apple.
` 8 Last night, VirnetX disclosed a new document that they
` 9 want to use in their direct testimony of their expert,
` 10 who's going to testify today, Mr. Jones -- or Dr. Jones.
` 11 It's a slide presentation, they say, was
` 12 given by Dr. Kiuchi back in 1996. Turns out VirnetX has
` 13 had this presentation in their possession since May of
` 14 this year, during discovery in this case, and two months
` 15 before they served their validity expert report.
` 16 Yet it's not discussed in their validity
` 17 expert report. Their expert never relied on it, and he
` 18 put forward no opinions about it in his report, and it's
` 19 not on their trial exhibit list.
` 20 So despite having it since May and during
` 21 discovery, they sent it to us for the first time
` 22 Saturday night, two days ago, right before the last day
` 23 of trial at 11:00 p.m.
` 24 I don't understand the set of circumstances that it
` 25 would be appropriate for them to now use that
`
`Page 3 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 4 of 161 PageID #: 22269
`
` 4
`
` 1 affirmatively with their expert on direct when it's
` 2 not on their exhibit list, wasn't produced in discovery,
` 3 and he didn't rely on it in his expert report.
` 4 More than that, just going to the merits,
` 5 it's not relevant to any issue in the case. As Your
` 6 Honor is well-aware at this point, our invalidity theory
` 7 is anticipation over the Kiuchi publication. And Dr.
` 8 Alexander's entire direct testimony was about what that
` 9 published article discloses.
` 10 He wasn't reading in outside materials.
` 11 He wasn't combining references. So it's not relevant to
` 12 the issue of whether the Kiuchi publication anticipates
` 13 these patents, whether or not Dr. Kiuchi at some other
` 14 point gave a presentation about his specific
` 15 implementation.
` 16 It's prejudicial. It's not relevant to
` 17 the issues in this case. And it certainly shouldn't be
` 18 allowed to be used in VirnetX' direct case.
` 19 The document is -- on the evidentiary
` 20 issues, it's a hearsay document. It's not authentic.
` 21 There's no proof of it. No witness testified about it.
` 22 So anything the expert said about it would be hearsay
` 23 anyway.
` 24 But more importantly, the speculative
` 25 opinions that Dr. Jones would be offering, we would be
`
`Page 4 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 5 of 161 PageID #: 22270
`
` 5
`
` 1 hearing for the first time in the rebuttal case here in
` 2 open court, because it's not in his report, and he
` 3 wasn't deposed about it.
` 4 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
` 5 Response?
` 6 MR. CALDWELL: Good morning, Your Honor.
` 7 Okay. So a couple of facts to clear up.
` 8 One, it wasn't yesterday as Mr. Desmarais
` 9 said; and, two, when we disclosed it to him, we said
` 10 we'd like to use for cross of his expert.
` 11 So he came up here and gave you an
` 12 argument about use on an affirmative basis with our
` 13 expert. And let me tell you what actually has happened.
` 14 On Friday, we heard Dr. Alexander give
` 15 direct testimony, saying here's what happened at the
` 16 proceedings in San Diego in February of 2006. And he
` 17 said it over and over and over again. Even his slide
` 18 is, here's what Dr. Kiuchi presented at the symposium.
` 19 That was his slide.
` 20 These are the --
` 21 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Here is what he
` 22 presented?
` 23 MR. CALDWELL: Well, this is what
` 24 Dr. Alexander showed on the screen: Dr. Kiuchi
` 25 presented his idea at the symposium. This is one of
`
`Page 5 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 6 of 161 PageID #: 22271
`
` 6
`
` 1 Dr. Alexander's slides.
` 2 Then he said the Kiuchi proceedings that
` 3 we're going to discuss invalidate the asserted claims.
` 4 He talked about the society, and it's a record of the
` 5 proceedings that happened in '96. It was a symposium.
` 6 February 22-23, '96, in San Diego.
` 7 It's an indication there was a meeting of
` 8 several hundred people, professionals in the field, in
` 9 '96, in San Diego. It's the proceedings we looked at,
` 10 February '96.
` 11 How do these symposiums run? How many
` 12 people go? Who goes? What are the numbers like? Those
` 13 were Mr. Desmarais' questions.
` 14 Several hundred professionals that give
` 15 presentations, present their papers. And even -- then,
` 16 this is -- this is even better.
` 17 Mr. Desmarais cannot let his derivation
` 18 theory go. They've lost it twice. He's filed a motion
` 19 for reconsideration while we're in the middle of this
` 20 trial; and then on Friday, he asks, gee, Dr. Alexander,
` 21 is SAIC, for instance -- knowing that's our inventors
` 22 were -- SAIC, for instance, were they there?
` 23 Oh, yeah. My recollection -- implying
` 24 that Dr. Alexander was there -- my recollection is that
` 25 for this particular conference, SAIC was there.
`
`Page 6 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 7 of 161 PageID #: 22272
`
` 7
`
` 1 And tell us what you found in the
` 2 presentation by Mr. Kiuchi discussed in San Diego.
` 3 Now, after that happened on Friday
` 4 afternoon -- and, Dr. Alexander, who now purports to be
` 5 talking about nothing more than the published paper of
` 6 Kiuchi, after he testified all about the symposium, we
` 7 go back and we're getting ready.
` 8 And on Saturday night, we're poking
` 9 around to see about attendees at the symposium, and I
` 10 see for the first time this is on the Internet Society
` 11 website. So the website of the Internet Society who put
` 12 on this symposium -- it's right there on the paper --
` 13 they have a website.
` 14 And it says here is the paper that was
` 15 submitted later -- or the paper that was submitted and
` 16 in the books for the conference -- excuse me -- and here
` 17 are the slides Mr. Kiuchi showed.
` 18 We download that PDF, and Mr. Curry sends
` 19 it to Mr. Desmarais on Saturday night, not last night;
` 20 and says, Mr. Desmarais, we wanted you to have a copy of
` 21 this. We intend to use it to cross Dr. Alexander.
` 22 And then this back and forth goes on and
` 23 on. We asked him several times if he ever knew about
` 24 it, and eventually Mr. Desmarais says, no, I never knew
` 25 about it. He asked us if we knew about it or ever had
`
`Page 7 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 8 of 161 PageID #: 22273
`
` 8
`
` 1 it. And we run searches in all our databases, and what
` 2 we find is one of their buddies from the other case, the
` 3 Mitel matter, had produced it to us.
` 4 So we found -- and we just told him, in
` 5 the interest of full disclosure, hey, it looks like it
` 6 was in amongst a pile of stuff we got from your buddy
` 7 back in May. So we were completely candid about that.
` 8 Apparently, we've had it in somebody
` 9 else's production they gave to us since May. We put two
` 10 and two together on Saturday night, after Dr. Alexander
` 11 came here and testified about the symposium.
` 12 THE COURT: Okay. Let me see the exhibit
` 13 that's in question, please.
` 14 MR. CALDWELL: I've got it right down
` 15 here.
` 16 MR. DESMARAIS: May I respond to that,
` 17 Your Honor?
` 18 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
` 19 MR. DESMARAIS: First of all, if we look
` 20 at -- if we look at what we heard Mr. Caldwell talk
` 21 about what Dr. Alexander testified to, I have here what
` 22 Dr. Alexander actually said.
` 23 This is the trial testimony from
` 24 Friday -- oops.
` 25 He said: Every year they publish
`
`Page 8 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 9 of 161 PageID #: 22274
`
` 9
`
` 1 probably tens of thousands of papers that are authored
` 2 by different people. And this is an example of a paper
` 3 that was published by Kiuchi.
` 4 And then on the next page, he says:
` 5 All right. So let's drill down a little bit on what
` 6 exactly is disclosed in this publication from this
` 7 meeting in February of 1996.
` 8 We didn't ask him anything about what was
` 9 in a slide presentation.
` 10 And when you look at Kiuchi, Your Honor,
` 11 the very first page of Kiuchi says the paper is from the
` 12 proceedings of a symposium on network-distributed
` 13 security systems, 1996. This has been an exhibit all
` 14 along. This is the exhibit that's in everyone's expert
` 15 report.
` 16 And then the very next page is the paper
` 17 that was published at the symposium. So the symposium
` 18 has this meeting; they publish papers; then they bind
` 19 them; and then they put them in libraries. Nothing was
` 20 new about that testimony.
` 21 But more importantly, Your Honor,
` 22 Mr. Caldwell is mistaken about another very important
` 23 fact, which was it is true that Saturday night at
` 24 11:00 p.m. when they sent me the presentation and I told
` 25 them I had never seen it before, I asked them where did
`
`Page 9 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 10 of 161 PageID #: 22275
`
` 10
`
` 1 you get it, and they told me they got it from the other
` 2 case, that Avaya produced it to them back in May. But
` 3 if you actually look at the timeline, not only did Avaya
` 4 produce it to them in May, but yesterday, I got my hands
` 5 on the Avaya invalidity report.
` 6 And this is on May 22 of 2012. And on
` 7 Page 35 is the presentation in the Avaya validity report
` 8 in the other case, and right at -- that's a figure right
` 9 from the presentation slides.
` 10 And at the bottom, it tells you: The
` 11 above image is included in a presentation that, I
` 12 understand, and according to information at this, was
` 13 presented alongside the Kiuchi publication at the 1996
` 14 symposium on network and distributed systems security.
` 15 So maybe Mr. Caldwell didn't know about
` 16 the presentation, but certainly the VirnetX trial team
` 17 knew about it. It's in the validity report that was
` 18 served back in May in -- in the other case, not in this
` 19 case.
` 20 We didn't know about it. This is in the
` 21 other case.
` 22 But more importantly, two months later,
` 23 Dr. Jones, their expert, responded to that report and
` 24 doesn't rely on the presentation. Doesn't say word one
` 25 about the presentation.
`
`Page 10 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 11 of 161 PageID #: 22276
`
` 11
`
` 1 In July of 2012, two months later,
` 2 Dr. Jones has an entire section responding to
` 3 Stubblebine. That's the Avaya expert responding to
` 4 Stubblebine and Kiuchi. And the only thing he relies on
` 5 in the entire response is the printed publication.
` 6 Now they're here in court -- and by the
` 7 way, what he says in that report -- I compared it
` 8 yesterday -- is word-for-word what he said in our
` 9 report.
` 10 So their expert's response to learning
` 11 about this presentation was to ignore it and to serve
` 12 two expert reports in July, rendering no opinions on it.
` 13 Now they want to come in here and have him get on the
` 14 stand and render for the first time new opinions about
` 15 what that presentation discloses, opinions we've never
` 16 heard before, opinions that weren't in his expert
` 17 report.
` 18 And the document, despite them having it
` 19 and despite it being in the validity reports, isn't on
` 20 their trial exhibit list.
` 21 And all -- the whole issue is a sideshow,
` 22 because the issue for this jury is what does the printed
` 23 publication that we're relying on disclose.
` 24 In the four corners of that printed
` 25 publication, these patents are either valid or invalid.
`
`Page 11 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 12 of 161 PageID #: 22277
`
` 12
`
` 1 What Dr. Kiuchi might have said in a presentation has no
` 2 bearing on whether that publication invalidates these
` 3 patents. We shouldn't be hearing these opinions on the
` 4 last day of trial. It's unfair and it's prejudicial.
` 5 MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor, Mr. Desmarais
` 6 continues to misrepresent what I've even just told you a
` 7 few minutes ago.
` 8 I would like to use to it cross their
` 9 expert, and I really am really, really bothered by the
` 10 suggestion that I have somehow lied to you. As soon as
` 11 he stands up here, he says, let me tell what you
` 12 Dr. Alexander really said on Friday.
` 13 I'm reading from the trial transcript,
` 14 those eight or nine pages that I quoted where he talks
` 15 about what was presented at the symposium. And here's
` 16 the point; here's why I want to do it.
` 17 Candidly, I think there's a problem with
` 18 the Kiuchi paper, a problem, an aspect of it where it
` 19 would not work. And there are contents -- there's one
` 20 content in particular, but basically two slides out of
` 21 the presentation I want to show. One is a drawing; two
` 22 is a uncertain message content that differs from what's
` 23 written in the paper.
` 24 And I think the significance of that is,
` 25 what was written in the paper very well could be
`
`Page 12 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 13 of 161 PageID #: 22278
`
` 13
`
` 1 inoperable, and he comes and shows a different message
` 2 content in his slide.
` 3 And you know what, I'm not asking Your
` 4 Honor to let us give the slides to Dr. Jones in the
` 5 rebuttal case and have him put forward some sort of
` 6 affirmative new opinion. I just would like to cross Dr.
` 7 Alexander on how he got up here and talked about the
` 8 symposium and what was presented, and in particular, in
` 9 view of his entirely gratuitous statement that, oh, SAIC
` 10 was there, I mean that's just --
` 11 THE COURT: All right. Objection is
` 12 overruled.
` 13 Anything else before we bring the jury
` 14 in?
` 15 MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, just one small
` 16 procedural matter. I will be very quick, Your Honor.
` 17 I know the Court has a predilection to having live
` 18 witnesses called, if they're here; but in this
` 19 situation, given the amount of time that's left in the
` 20 case, I think the parties are in agreement that there's
` 21 a short two minutes for Kendall Larsen that the parties
` 22 would like to play, whether in their case or in ours.
` 23 And neither party objects, and I wanted
` 24 to make sure, before one of us got up and asked to play
` 25 the depo, you weren't going to have a problem with that,
`
`Page 13 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 14 of 161 PageID #: 22279
`
` 14
`
` 1 Your Honor.
` 2 THE COURT: All right. As long as both
` 3 sides agree.
` 4 MR. CASSADY: Thank you, Your Honor.
` 5 THE COURT: All right. Bring the jury
` 6 in, please.
` 7 COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise for the
` 8 jury.
` 9 (Jury in.)
` 10 THE COURT: Please be seated.
` 11 All right. Good morning, Ladies and
` 12 Gentlemen of the Jury. Hope you had a good, restful
` 13 weekend and got some sleep and all rested up and ready
` 14 to go.
` 15 We should finish the testimony today, as
` 16 I told you. So we'll get started.
` 17 Mr. Caldwell, you may proceed.
` 18 MR. CALDWELL: Thank you, Your Honor.
` 19 PETER ALEXANDER, Ph.D., DEFENDANT'S WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY
` 20 SWORN
` 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION
` 22 BY MR. CALDWELL:
` 23 Q. Dr. Alexander, good morning.
` 24 A. Good morning.
` 25 Q. I am the attorney for VirnetX. I don't
`
`Page 14 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 15 of 161 PageID #: 22280
`
` 15
`
` 1 believe we have met.
` 2 A. No, I don't believe so.
` 3 Q. Well, it's good to meet you.
` 4 Just to clear up in case there was any sort of
` 5 confusion on Friday -- I mean, obviously we finished
` 6 your direct testimony.
` 7 And you understand that VirnetX has not yet
` 8 had a chance to cross-examine you and challenge your
` 9 opinions yet, correct?
` 10 A. That's right.
` 11 Q. Now, in case there's a wrong impression left,
` 12 you are not here as an independent expert, correct?
` 13 A. Well, I am an independent expert, but I am
` 14 retained by Apple.
` 15 Q. And paid?
` 16 A. Of course.
` 17 Q. Okay. You're not court-appointed or something
` 18 of that ilk, correct?
` 19 A. Could you repeat that?
` 20 Q. You are not here as a court-appointed expert?
` 21 A. Oh, no. No.
` 22 Q. Okay. Now, you talked a little bit about
` 23 certain aspects of your background going back maybe into
` 24 the '80s and '70s, and I just want to make sure you're
` 25 not meaning to suggest or imply that you are some sort
`
`Page 15 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 16 of 161 PageID #: 22281
`
` 16
`
` 1 of an Internet pioneer. Correct?
` 2 A. No. I think I've made that clear. I mean, I
` 3 came to the Internet 20 years after the beginnings,
` 4 around 1969.
` 5 Q. And you were not involved in standardizing
` 6 TCP-IP or DNS, correct?
` 7 A. No. I was building products.
` 8 Q. You do this quite a lot, testifying in patent
` 9 cases, right?
` 10 A. I have, yes.
` 11 Q. Yes. I mean, you've been in probably 40
` 12 cases. Is that about right?
` 13 A. I don't know. It could be that many.
` 14 Q. All right. Now, by the time of your
` 15 deposition, had you ever talked to Defendant's other
` 16 expert, Dr. Kelly?
` 17 A. No, not at all.
` 18 Q. And you didn't know him outside the patent
` 19 litigation context, correct?
` 20 A. No. I might have seen his name, but I've
` 21 never met him.
` 22 Q. All right. Now, over the weekend, did you
` 23 have an opportunity to read your testimony from Friday?
` 24 A. No, I did not.
` 25 Q. Based on what you remember, is there anything
`
`Page 16 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 17 of 161 PageID #: 22282
`
` 17
`
` 1 you regret saying or want to change?
` 2 A. No. I think it's clear. I think it's --
` 3 Q. Okay.
` 4 A. -- something is being misunderstood, but I
` 5 thought it was clear.
` 6 Q. Okay. Now, will you agree with us -- there
` 7 seems to be a little bit of dispute on this -- will you
` 8 agree with us that a person, a technical person does not
` 9 need to be a patent attorney or have formal training in
` 10 patents in order to read and understand a patent?
` 11 A. Well, that's my understanding of the role of a
` 12 person of ordinary skill.
` 13 Q. Okay. So is that, yes, you agree with the
` 14 statement?
` 15 A. That's a yes.
` 16 Q. All right. And Apple employs persons of
` 17 ordinary skill in the art, right?
` 18 A. Apple's employees?
` 19 Q. Yeah, Apple employs.
` 20 A. Well, I don't know. They have a lot of
` 21 employees.
` 22 Q. In your deposition, you testified that Apple
` 23 would employ persons of ordinary skill in the art,
` 24 right?
` 25 A. Well, you said Apple employees, so, you know,
`
`Page 17 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 18 of 161 PageID #: 22283
`
` 18
`
` 1 I'm sure they have people who are technical, who are at
` 2 least qualified as persons of ordinary skill for these
` 3 patents.
` 4 Q. Now, Dr. Alexander, if you worked at Apple and
` 5 you worked on the VPN On Demand or FaceTime products,
` 6 would you have bothered to read VirnetX' patents?
` 7 A. I don't know. I -- I don't think people who
` 8 develop software go around reading patents. They get
` 9 advice from the administration probably.
` 10 Q. All right. Dr. Alexander, were you here when
` 11 Dr. Jones testified?
` 12 A. I'm sorry. Doctor who?
` 13 Q. Dr. Jones?
` 14 A. Oh, yes.
` 15 Q. You were. You watched his presentation,
` 16 correct?
` 17 A. Yes.
` 18 Q. And he did not discuss invalidity last week,
` 19 right?
` 20 A. That's correct.
` 21 Q. Now, you recall that Dr. Jones said he might
` 22 come back later in the case, if Apple decides to assert
` 23 invalidity.
` 24 Do you remember that?
` 25 A. Yes. I just assumed he was coming back, so...
`
`Page 18 of 161
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 615 Filed 11/09/12 Page 19 of 161 PageID #: 22284
`
` 19
`
` 1 Q. Now, why is it that Dr. Jones would not have
` 2 been addressing validity back then in VirnetX's case?
` 3 A. Oh, I think it's -- it's a rebuttal to my
` 4 testimony --
` 5 Q. Right.
` 6 A. -- for the invalidity aspects of this case.
` 7 Q. I agree with that, and that's because the
` 8 company that's hired you has the burden of proof on
` 9 invalidity. Correct?
` 10 A. That's correct.
` 11 Q. What does that mean?
` 12 A. Well, it means with clear and convincing
` 13 evidence, it has to be established that the patents are
` 14 anticipated or obvious in view of prior art, and
` 15 that's -- that's what's being discussed in my testimony
` 16 so far.
` 17 Q. And, Dr. Alexander, after patents are awarded
` 18 by the United States Patent & Trademark Office, they are
` 19 presumed valid, correct?
` 20 A. Yes, they are.
` 21 Q. Do you understand the presumption of validity?
` 22 A. Well, yes.
` 23 Q. But you'll agree with me, you just didn't
` 24 concern yourself with the presumption of vali

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