throbber
1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING, )( Civil Docket No.
`S.A.R.L. )( 2:14-CV-911-JRG-RSP
` )( MARSHALL, TEXAS
`VS. )(
` )(
`LG ELECTRONICS AND LG )( March 21, 2016
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA, )( 8:29 a.m.
`INC. )(
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr. John C. Hueston
`Mr. Douglas J. Dixon
`Mr. Michael J. Stephan
`HUESTON & HENNIGAN, LLP
`620 Newport Center Drive
`Suite 1300
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`
` Mr. Alexander C. Giza
`Mr. Marshall A. Camp
`Mr. Padraic Foran
`HUESTON & HENNIGAN, LLP
`523 W. 6th Street
`Suite 400
`Los Angeles, California 90014
`
`
`
`
`COURT REPORTER: SHELLY HOLMES, CSR, TCRR
` Official Court Reporter
` United States District Court
` Eastern District of Texas
`
`Marshall Division
` 100 E. Houston, Suite 125
` Marshall, Texas 75670
` (903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on CAT system.)
`
` 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
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 1 of 23
`
`

`
` 2
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ms. Elizabeth L. DeRieux
`CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP
`114 E. Commerce Avenue
`Gladewater, Texas 75647
`
`
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Mr. Richard D. Harris
`Mr. Cameron M. Nelson
`Mr. Herbert H. Finn
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Nicholas A. Brown
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Center
`Suite 3000
`San Francisco, California 94111
`
`Mr. Stephen M. Ullmer
` GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
` 1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
` Denver, Colorado 80202
`
`
`Mr. Kevin S. Kudlac
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`300 West 6th Street
`Suite 2050
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`Mr. J. Mark Mann
`Mr. G. Blake Thompson
`MANN TINDEL & THOMPSON
`300 W. Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 2 of 23
`
`

`
` 100
`
` 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
`
`The jury is excused for recess at this time.
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`
`(Jury out.)
`
`THE COURT: All right. The Court stands in recess.
`
`(Recess.)
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`
`THE COURT: Be seated, please.
`
`Counsel, let me review with you a little bit of the
`
`history of today's portion of the trial so that I can be clear
`
`with everyone as to where we started this morning and where we
`
`are now.
`
`Previously this morning, after the inventor,
`
`Mr. Martyn, testified, I met with counsel in chambers. And at
`
`that time, I raised with counsel the possibility that there
`
`might be an 02 Micro situation requiring additional
`
`construction of disputed or potentially disputed terms by the
`
`Court.
`
`We discussed "unlaunched," and we discussed "reached
`
`directly," both of them coming from Claim 1 of the '020 patent
`
`and Claim 2 of the '476 patent.
`
`The Plaintiff indicated to me in chambers that they
`
`did not believe an 02 Micro situation existed. Defendants
`
`indicated in chambers that they thought there might be an 02 --
`
`02 Micro issue and that they thought as late as last week that
`
`there possibly could be one in this trial, but they weren't
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 3 of 23
`
`

`
` 101
`
` 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
`
`sure how to raise it.
`
`Therefore, they did not bring it to the Court's
`
`attention until the Court raised it this morning in chambers
`
`after Mr. Martyn testified. The Defendants asked the Court to
`
`revisit the issue after Dr. Zeger testified. And with the
`
`agreement of the Plaintiff, the Court proceeded to let
`
`Dr. Zeger testify. He has now given his direct testimony.
`
`And the Court is persuaded that an 02 Micro situation
`
`does, in fact, exist. There's no need to go through the
`
`cross-examination of Dr. Zeger to reach that conclusion, and
`
`that under 02 Micro and its progeny, the Court has an
`
`obligation to provide further claim construction with regard to
`
`these terms to the parties.
`
`I intend to discharge that obligation. I'm going to
`
`afford both sides an opportunity to offer very brief and
`
`concise argument on these two terms. The time that we're
`
`spending is going to be equally chargeable to the parties as a
`
`part of the trial time.
`
`I'm not -- I'm not casting fault with why this was
`
`not raised earlier; I'm merely making it very clear on the
`
`record it wasn't raised earlier, and it now must be disposed of
`
`so that we can proceed with the trial.
`
`I've reviewed the treatment of these terms in the
`
`file history. I've reviewed any other materials available to
`
`me.
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 4 of 23
`
`

`
` 102
`
` 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
`
`If the Plaintiff would care to offer any argument on
`
`the term "unlaunched" or the term "reached directly," I'd be
`
`happy to hear it.
`
`Does Plaintiff have any argument on these terms to
`
`present to the Court?
`
`MR. GIZA: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`Would you like me to present some slides that show
`
`some of the evidence of the file history or --
`
`THE COURT: Counsel, I'll let you present your
`
`argument. I'd ask that you do it from the podium.
`
`MR. GIZA: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: I want you to understand that the time
`
`you use is going to be charged to your trial time, but I want
`
`you to have an opportunity to present to the Court what you
`
`think is the most compelling case for your view of these terms
`
`and what is an appropriate construction for them.
`
`So that -- so with that, Mr. Giza, let me hear from
`
`you.
`
`please?
`
`MR. GIZA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Mr. Wietholter, could you cue up Dr. Zeger's slides,
`
`Can we go to Slide 60, please?
`
`Your Honor, the claim term "launched" and
`
`"unlaunched" show up in two places in the patent in the claims.
`
`First, in Element [1e]: Each function in the list
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 5 of 23
`
`

`
` 103
`
` 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
`
`being selectable to launch the first application and initiate
`
`the selected function.
`
`And then in [1f]: Wherein the application summary
`
`window is displayed while the application is in an unlaunched
`
`state.
`
`So we have "launched" and "unlaunched." Obviously,
`
`that's just opposite. I think we can all agree on that.
`
`In terms of understanding what "launch" means, I do
`
`believe that the plain and ordinary meaning applies, but to the
`
`extent we go to claim construction, we first should look at the
`
`specification, the patent itself.
`
`So in the specification, this is at Column 2, I
`
`believe, at the bottom of Column 2. I'll give you a cite, Your
`
`Honor. Column 2, Lines 61 to 64.
`
`And here in the patent, the term "launch" is actually
`
`used. It says: Launch a main view.
`
`So "launch" is equated to something you can see, a
`
`view, a view which shows. It's quite clear that it's something
`
`that's visible.
`
`If we go to the next slide, just on the very next
`
`line, it uses the term "launch" again, and it says: Launch the
`
`appropriate summary window.
`
`Again, visible.
`
`If we go to the third slide, this is the third use of
`
`"launch" in the patent, and it says: Once the summary window
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 6 of 23
`
`

`
` 104
`
` 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
`
`is launched, core data/functionality is displayed.
`
`So, again, a window is launched. You can see it.
`
`The core data/functionality is displayed. That's the context.
`
`And I think that is the plain and ordinary meaning of "launch."
`
`It's something you can see in this context.
`
`To be sure, we'd have to look at the file history.
`
`So let's go to Slide 68, Mr. Wietholter.
`
`So it's mentioned several times in the file history,
`
`and I expect that LG will show you some examples as well. But
`
`it's somewhat equivocal. Let's look at -- let's see, I've got
`
`a Bates number, this is one of the responses in the file
`
`history.
`
`And the applicant is saying: However, it is only
`
`ever displayed within a running instance of the program, i.e.,
`
`when the program is in a launched state.
`
`So, again, the equation between "displayed" and
`
`"launched," it's the same argument.
`
`If we go to the next slide.
`
`Here's another part of the file history. This is
`
`where they're distinguishing some prior art, but they're
`
`talking about "displayed" and "launched."
`
`And it says: The applicant underlines that when the
`
`main menu of Figure 6A is displayed, that happens when the mail
`
`application has already been launched.
`
`So it's equating "launched" to being displayed, to
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 7 of 23
`
`

`
` 105
`
` 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
`
`being visible.
`
`The next sentence: It follows that the main menu
`
`cannot be displayed when the mail application is in an
`
`unlaunched state.
`
`So it's not displayed when it's in an unlaunched
`
`state. I think that lines up exactly with the infringement
`
`evidence that we presented to the jury in the last session.
`
`If we can go to the last slide, this is just
`
`another -- a little bit of additional support. In this
`
`excerpt, this is LG's Document 62, and the Bates number is
`
`LG 3697.
`
`And it says: The menus are available within a
`
`launched application.
`
`And, again, menus are something that's visible, and
`
`it's equating that to something in a launched application.
`
`So I think it's consistent throughout that the
`
`patent -- the use of the patent -- the use of the term
`
`"launched" in the patent and the file history is equated to
`
`something that's visible, something that's displayed, and
`
`that's the construction.
`
`Dr. Zeger's testimony in his deposition -- and I can
`
`read to you -- in his deposition, he was asked -- well, it's
`
`kind of messy so I'll read it all in for you, Your Honor.
`
`QUESTION: So an unlaunched state could be --
`
`MR. GIZA: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll give you the cite.
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 8 of 23
`
`

`
` 106
`
` 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
`
`MR. BROWN: Thank you.
`
`MR. GIZA: Page -- I'm starting at Page 213, Line 16,
`
`and I'm reading through to Page 214, Line 5, to get the
`
`question and answer.
`
`QUESTION: An unlaunched state could be -- well, I
`
`want to understand what you -- I want to understand what you
`
`mean by "negation" because it sounds like a false
`
`contrapositive to me.
`
`ANSWER: No, it's not. The launched is the logical
`
`end of two things. It could be executing code, and it has to
`
`be executing code, and it has to be visible to the user.
`
`So, I mean, if you want me to get mathematical about
`
`it, we could use -- we could use De Morgan's law and the
`
`negation of that and is not something and not something else.
`
`QUESTION: Right.
`
`ANSWER: So it's either not executing code or not
`
`visible to the user. That's what unlaunched would be.
`
`MR. GIZA: So I think that's entirely consistent with
`
`what we're presenting. It focuses on what's visible. If
`
`something's visible, obviously, it's executing code. But our
`
`expert, of course, goes into a little more detail because he's
`
`more detailed.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let me hear Defendants'
`
`position on unlaunched state. And I indicated earlier this
`
`language comes from -- well, to be clear, this language comes
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 9 of 23
`
`

`
` 107
`
` 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
`
`from Claim 1 of both the '020 and the '476 patent.
`
`Mr. Brown, what's Defendants' position on unlaunched
`
`state?
`
`MR. BROWN: Your Honor, before I begin, I'd like to
`
`ask that Dr. Zeger be excluded from the courtroom while I make
`
`this presentation to the Court. The subject matter of it would
`
`be reflected in the cross-examination. I'd prefer to not
`
`display that to him while I'm making the argument to the Court.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not sure that's going to be the
`
`problem you think it is, but out of an abundance of caution,
`
`I'll ask Dr. Zeger to exit the courtroom until he's recalled.
`
`THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: If you'll just wait outside, Dr. Zeger.
`
`THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: We'll have you back in here shortly.
`
`(Dr. Zeger leaves the courtroom.)
`
`THE COURT: All right, Mr. Brown. Proceed.
`
`MR. BROWN: The first point, Your Honor, is that the
`
`patents use the word "displayed" in the claims when they mean
`
`displayed or visible, and they use a distinct and different
`
`word, "launched" and "unlaunched." There's a presumption that
`
`those words mean different things. That's our first point.
`
`Our next point is based on the file history. And I'd
`
`like to show the Court where the unlaunched state was added to
`
`the claims by the applicant.
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 10 of 23
`
`

`
` 108
`
` 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
`
`If we can put up Exhibit LGX-62, which is the file
`
`history, and if we can turn to Page 169.
`
`This is an office action.
`
`If you can call out the date -- that is 8/22/2007,
`
`and if we can turn to Page 171, which is the beginning of this
`
`office action. And if we zoom in on the art that was cited
`
`here.
`
`You can see that there are three references. The one
`
`I'm going to focus on here is the Richard reference.
`
`If we can now turn to Page 189.
`
`This is a response -- excuse me -- a reply and
`
`amendment to that office action, the 8/22/2007 office action.
`
`It's dated December 26, 2007.
`
`If we can turn to the next page, Page 190, and zoom
`
`in on the top of the page.
`
`The Court can see that at this point in response to
`
`that office action, which included the Richard reference, that
`
`the unlaunched state limitation is added to the claims.
`
`I'd now like to show the Court the Richard reference.
`
`That is Exhibit LGX-75. This is a patent to IBM. And if we
`
`can turn to Page 8.
`
`Can we rotate that?
`
`Your Honor, as you can see, this is -- oop. That
`
`wasn't very elegant. But this is App B up in this corner. And
`
`you can see there's a start button, and there's the bar along
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 11 of 23
`
`

`
` 109
`
` 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
`
`the bottom of the screen that you can use to switch between
`
`applications. You can see there's App B, and there's App A.
`
`So right now in this figure, you're looking at App --
`
`App B, and there is this document untitled B opened within
`
`App B. And you can switch from App B to App A by tapping on
`
`that App A button on the bottom.
`
`And if we can show Figure 4 of this patent, which is
`
`Page 5.
`
`Rotate it.
`
`You'll notice, Your Honor, this is prior art. This
`
`is the problem that this patent was addressing.
`
`And what it says is: When you switch from App A to
`
`App B, and then within App B, you have these three documents
`
`opened, Untitled A, Untitled B, Untitled C, you then have to
`
`take an extra step to get to the document you want. If you go
`
`to this window menu and drop it down, then you have to select
`
`Untitled A, B, or C to get to it.
`
`And so what the patent -- the Richard patent
`
`proposes, Your Honor, if we can turn now to Figure 6, which is
`
`at Page 7 of the document, it proposes consolidating those
`
`multiple steps so that when you are in App A, as you can see at
`
`the top of Figure 6, you could go over and click on the arrow
`
`522 to pull up this window.
`
`And then you could immediately there select from
`
`within the documents that were opened within App B so that when
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 12 of 23
`
`

`
` 110
`
` 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
`
`you picked one, you would be taken immediately to that document
`
`that was opened within App B.
`
`And you can see here it says Untitled B there. If we
`
`can now go to the next page, Figure 7, which is Page 8, you can
`
`see we were taken immediately to the document Untitled B within
`
`App B. So that's what -- that's what Richard shows.
`
`So now let's go back to the file history, LGX-62, and
`
`let's go to Page 197.
`
`This is within, Your Honor, the office action that I
`
`showed you earlier -- excuse me -- the -- the reply and
`
`amendment that I showed you earlier, the one dated
`
`December 26th, 2007, where the applicant added the phrase --
`
`the limitation: Wherein the application summary window is
`
`displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state.
`
`And this is what they said on -- about the Richard
`
`reference in that amendment. They said that Richard describes
`
`the pop-up menu on the task bar 510. That was the one that I
`
`described to you.
`
`They go on to say that the menu items within that
`
`pop-up menu correspond to open windows within a single
`
`application to which the entire menu relates, App B.
`
`They go on to say the main menu describes in Richard
`
`is therefore merely a menu of open windows within a single
`
`application, i.e., a launched application.
`
`And here's the key sentence, Your Honor: It follows
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 13 of 23
`
`

`
` 111
`
` 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
`
`from the fact that the windows are open within the application
`
`that the application must be running and, therefore, has been
`
`launched.
`
`Now, if you remember, Your Honor, Richard had two
`
`running applications. And when you were in App A and before
`
`you went to App B, you couldn't see App B. It was not visible.
`
`This argument that they have made where they added
`
`unlaunched, and they distinguished it on the basis that the
`
`application, even though it wasn't physical, because it had
`
`windows open within the not visible application, because the
`
`application must be running and, therefore, has been
`
`launched -- that's how they distinguish it -- that argument
`
`that they made is squarely inconsistent with the position that
`
`has been taken by Dr. Zeger.
`
`You will hear, Your Honor, that Dr. Zeger's position
`
`is, if it is not visible, it is therefore unlaunched. And he
`
`will testify on cross-examination that that is true even if the
`
`application is still running.
`
`That position that what matters is visibility and not
`
`whether or not the application is running is squarely
`
`inconsistent with what they said in the file history about
`
`Richard.
`
`There's more, Your Honor. I can show you in the file
`
`history, if we scroll down on this page, here they're
`
`distinguishing the Arcuri reference. And you saw this in
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 14 of 23
`
`

`
` 112
`
` 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
`
`Plaintiff's slides.
`
`I'll point out, Your Honor, that what they say about
`
`Arcuri is that it's only ever displayed within a running -- and
`
`then they italicize "running," instance of the program, i.e.,
`
`only when the program is in a launched state. And they
`
`italicized "launched."
`
`Your Honor, they're -- I would submit that is clearly
`
`equating "running" with "launched." And it is not, as
`
`Plaintiff would have you believe, equating "displayed" with
`
`"launched."
`
`If we could turn to the next page, which is Page 198.
`
`And if we can scroll down and pull out this paragraph with the
`
`underlying purpose.
`
`So this paragraph, Your Honor, describes the
`
`underlying purpose of the application summary window of the
`
`present invention. And it goes on to explain that the
`
`advantage -- I'm at this line here.
`
`This advantage cannot be achieved if the application
`
`summary window is not displayed until after the application is
`
`already running, not -- not visible, running.
`
`And they then conclude, the benefit of the invention
`
`cannot be achieved using only the teaching of Richard,
`
`et cetera.
`
`Your Honor, it's our position that they clearly
`
`stated in the file history when they add this limitation and
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 15 of 23
`
`

`
` 113
`
` 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
`
`when they distinguished the prior art using the unlaunched
`
`state limitation that what it meant was that it was -- that
`
`"unlaunched" meant "not running" and that "launched" meant
`
`"running" and that the reason that they were different from the
`
`Richard reference is that in the Richard reference, you could
`
`tell that even though the application for App B was not
`
`visible, you could tell that it was running because it had
`
`three open windows within it.
`
`And that is why they added the unlaunched limitation
`
`at this point in time to distinguish that reference.
`
`THE COURT: All right. The next term I want to hear
`
`argument on is "reached directly."
`
`Mr. Giza, I'd like to hear from the Plaintiff on
`
`this, if you have argument to offer.
`
`MR. GIZA: Your Honor, may I respond to that very
`
`briefly? I just want to talk about it briefly.
`
`THE COURT: Very briefly.
`
`MR. GIZA: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Counsel, this is something unexpected.
`
`I'm trying to comply with the authority given from me from the
`
`Federal Circuit. I'm trying to afford you a reasonable
`
`opportunity to present your arguments.
`
`But we do have a jury waiting in the jury room. That
`
`is not my fault, and I do not intend this to go on too much
`
`longer. So we'll all have to live with the context that we
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 16 of 23
`
`

`
` 114
`
` 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
`
`find ourselves in.
`
`But go ahead, Mr. Giza.
`
`MR. GIZA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`I really just want to make one point with regards to
`
`Richard. They point out Richard and they say, Richard, it's
`
`not visible; it's not running. Your Honor, it's visible right
`
`here. It's visible.
`
`This is a totally different kind of system. This is
`
`a computer, right? I think you might recall the old Windows
`
`version, and every time you have a program that's launched, it
`
`opens up a little -- it opens a window in the menu bar at the
`
`bottom there. And when it's not launched, it's not there. You
`
`find -- you access it from a different point.
`
`But the main point is, when you're looking at this
`
`window, it's clear that Application B is launched. It's
`
`visible, and there is code running.
`
`So that's entirely consistent with this -- we're
`
`looking at Figure 6 of the Richard patent, by the way, Your
`
`Honor. This is Figure -- this is Exhibit LGX-75.
`
`And so this is entirely consistent with what the
`
`applicants in the file history said that Richard is different
`
`because Application B is visible and running.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let me hear your argument on
`
`"reached directly."
`
`MR. GIZA: Your Honor, on "reached directly," we
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 17 of 23
`
`

`
` 115
`
` 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
`
`believe that the plain and ordinary meaning applies. Claim
`
`language simply says it's reached directly. It doesn't specify
`
`anything beyond that.
`
`The patent describes -- actually, can we put up
`
`Column 2, Lines 55 to 65, I think? There's a whole -- starting
`
`from the detailed description.
`
`So just to give the context, if we look at -- if you
`
`look at Line 58, okay, it's talking about "reached directly,"
`
`right?
`
`So if we start up at Line 56, it says "a snapshot
`
`view." That's the App Snapshot or the application summary
`
`window, which brings together in one summary window a limited
`
`list of functions and commonly accessed stored data, which
`
`itself can be reached directly from a main menu. That's the
`
`context here.
`
`So we go down and it says: For example, a user can
`
`get to the summary window in just two steps. First, launch a
`
`main view, which shows the various applications; then launch
`
`the appropriate summary window.
`
`So it says two steps here, but really what we're
`
`looking at is the step from the main view to the application
`
`summary window. And that's one step.
`
`And that's the concept of "reached directly" here.
`
`It's not limited by how you get there. So there's a couple of
`
`examples in the specification as well.
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 18 of 23
`
`

`
` 116
`
` 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
`
`Can we go to Column 3 and Lines 35 to 45?
`
`Okay. So at Lines 38, Your Honor, it says: Other
`
`selection processes could be used, parenthetical, to access the
`
`App Snapshot.
`
`Okay. So we're clearly talking about how we're
`
`accessing the App Snapshot. And it's talking about voice
`
`activation, softkey selection.
`
`Voice activation, there's no need to be touching the
`
`screen. All it needs to be is that it's visible. But you
`
`don't have to be touching the main menu and -- and moving your
`
`finger around on it or something like that, which is apparently
`
`what LG is arguing. It can be any of those ways.
`
`Even more clear is Column 5, at the top, Line 5 and
`
`6, so here it's talking about an example in the contacts
`
`manager. And it says: The App Snapshot opens, and then a
`
`parenthetical: Using whatever mechanism is implemented.
`
`The patent is agnostic about how you get there. The
`
`point is that you can get there quickly and easily. It's all
`
`consistent with this being a user interface patent.
`
`And it says you get there in one step. That's really
`
`what the issue is. It doesn't matter the mechanism.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR. GIZA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Giza.
`
`Mr. Brown, you have responsive argument?
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 19 of 23
`
`

`
` 117
`
` 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
`
`MR. BROWN: I do, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: You believe there is a dispute between
`
`the parties as to this term?
`
`MR. BROWN: I do, Your Honor. I believe it is
`
`focused on the particular words "main menu," in fact. I
`
`think --
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead and make your argument.
`
`MR. BROWN: So I just -- I want to show the Court --
`
`and I know Court's just read this. I will not belabor through.
`
`The dispute at the claim construction hearing on this
`
`phrase was about this notion that the main menu is displayed
`
`together with the main menu. LG made that argument at claim
`
`construction.
`
`That argument was rejected by Judge Payne. This is a
`
`different issue. Our position at this point, Your Honor, is
`
`that what "reached directly from the main menu" means is that
`
`it needs to be reached from the main menu without an
`
`intervening step.
`
`We're not trying to argue, as Mr. Giza just
`
`suggested, that the patent specifies some particular way of
`
`doing that. What we're saying is it's directly from the main
`
`menu, it means from the main menu without an intervening step.
`
`And really the focus, Your Honor, is on the term
`
`"main menu."
`
`If you can put up LGX-60, Page 3, which is the
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 20 of 23
`
`

`
` 118
`
` 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
`
`figures.
`
`Your Honor, you can see here that there is a status
`
`bar at the top of each of these screens. Beneath that in each
`
`of the screens is the word "launcher." And at the bottom is
`
`the word "phone." There's no arrow at the status bar. It's
`
`not indicated in any way in the patent.
`
`And if we could put up LGX (sic) Page 5, Column 4 and
`
`zoom in beginning at the paragraph at Line 24.
`
`The specification states what the main list is. I
`
`don't think there would be any disagreement that this is
`
`referring to the main menu.
`
`And it says: There will typically be one item --
`
`when the App Snapshot opens, there will typically be one item
`
`in the main list above and below it to preserve context, to
`
`reduce any feeling of having gone somewhere else.
`
`And then it goes on to say: Hence, in Figure 2, the
`
`term "launcher" remains at the top of the screen, and the word
`
`"phone" and its associated icon remain at the bottom.
`
`Your Honor, what that's saying right there is that in
`
`that figure, the main menu or -- or specifically the main list
`
`starts with the word "launcher" and ends down here with
`
`"phone."
`
`So if we can go back to the figure, you see that does
`
`not include the status bar.
`
`So our position, Your Honor, simply put, is that the
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 21 of 23
`
`

`
` 119
`
` 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
`
`status bar is described in the patent as not being part of the
`
`main menu, that if you interact with the status bar in order to
`
`access the notification shade, that is an intervening step that
`
`is not involved in interacting -- you're not interacting with
`
`the main menu; you're interacting with the status bar, which is
`
`the patent itself is something different. Because it is an
`
`intervening step, it is not being reached directly from the
`
`main menu.
`
`What you'll hear from Dr. Zeger, Your Honor, is that
`
`in his opinion, it -- consider it -- doesn't matter whether the
`
`status bar is part of the main menu or not. What matters is
`
`that you can see the main menu on the screen and then take some
`
`action.
`
`Doesn't matter whether you're interacting with it or
`
`not, as long as you can see it and take an action, which I
`
`think he's going to concede requires acting on the status bar.
`
`Then you are reaching from the main menu, regardless of whether
`
`or not the status bar is part of the main menu.
`
`That's what I believe you'll hear from Dr. Zeger.
`
`THE COURT: Well, the discussions we've had in
`
`chambers and that I mentioned previously have been that the
`
`parties felt -- and particularly the Defendant felt it likely
`
`that there was a need for additional construction by the Court
`
`with regard to "reached directly."
`
`That's what I want to hear from you on to the extent
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 22 of 23
`
`

`
` 120
`
` 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
`
`you have anything else you haven't already given me.
`
`MR. BROWN: I -- I think by "reached directly," Your
`
`Honor, we meant the term "reached directly" from the main menu.
`
`And I think the construction we would like on "reached
`
`directly" is "without an intervening step."
`
`THE COURT: All right. All right. Is there further
`
`argument from either side on these terms?
`
`MR. GIZA: No, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Brown?
`
`MR. BROWN: No, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to construe
`
`"unlaunched state" as "not displayed." And I'm going to
`
`construe "reached directly" as "reached without an intervening
`
`step." And I'm prepared to give those two constructions in
`
`written form to the jury when they return to be placed in their
`
`juror notebooks.
`
`I will also instruct the jury to disregard any
`
`testimony they've heard from either of these two witnesses that
`
`in any way is inconsistent or contradicts with these
`
`constructions.
`
`I'm also going to instruct counsel for both parties
`
`that having raised this issue, having been through it and
`
`having received these additional constructions, neither side is
`
`to attempt to go behind, collaterally attack, or otherwise
`
`dispute the constructions that I've just given you.
`
`IPR2015-01898 & IPR2015-01899
`Ex. 2004
`Page 23 of 23

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