CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`Page 263
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` TYLER DIVISION
`TracBeam, LLC, )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.
` ) 6:14-cv-678-RWS
` VS. )
` ) Volume II
`T-Mobile US, Inc., et al., ) Pages 263 - 400
` )
` Defendants. )
` )
` )
`_____________________________)
` )
`TracBeam, LLC, )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.
` ) 6:14-cv-680-RWS
` VS. )
` )
`Apple Inc., )
` )
` Defendant. )
`_____________________________)
` CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DENNIS DUPRAY, PH.D.
` Los Angeles, California
` Wednesday, February 17, 2016
`
`Job. No. 103661
`Reporter: NIKKI ROY, CSR No. 3052
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`45
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1027
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 1
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Page 264
` Videotaped deposition of DENNIS DUPRAY, PH.D.,
`taken on behalf of the Defendant, at 201 Santa
`Monica Boulevard, Suite 600, Santa Monica,
`California, on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at
`9:10 a.m., before NIKKI ROY, CSR No. 3052.
`
`Page 265
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`FOR PLAINTIFF:
` DOVEL & LUNER
` JEFF EICHMANN, ESQ.
` 201 Santa Monica Boulevard
` Suite 600
` Santa Monica, California 90401
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT T-MOBILE:
` BAKER BOTTS
` DOUGLAS KUBEHL, ESQ.
` ROSS CULPEPPER, ESQ.
` 2001 Ross Avenue
` Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT APPLE:
` MORRISON & FOERSTER
` DAVID YANG, ESQ.
` 707 Wilshire Boulevard
` Los Angeles, California 90017
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` MICHAEL MULLIN, Videographer
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 266
`
`Page 267
`
` I N D E X (CONTINUED):
`
`QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
` Page Line
` 273 19
` 274 7
` 298 25
` 389 14
` 389 22
`
` INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
` None
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
`DENNIS DUPRAY,
`PH.D.
` MR. KUBEHL 268, 382,
` 396
` MR. CULPEPPER 290
` MR. EICHMANN 367, 395,
` 396
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 34 Email chain, Bates numbers 282
` TB040251 through TB040259
`
`Exhibit 35 Plaintiff TracBeam's Second 368
` Supplemental Response to
` Defendants Common Interrogatory
` Number 2
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1027
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 2
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Page 332
`
`Page 333
`
`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
`
`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
`
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. And triangulation, are you familiar with
`triangulation?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Are you familiar with cell tower
`triangulation?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. That was a prior art technique available
`before the TracBeam patents, correct?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Is GPS dependent on cell tower
`triangulation?
` A. No, sir, it's not -- oh, I don't think so.
` Q. Is cell tower triangulation dependent on
`GPS?
` A. That's a difficult -- that's a difficult
`question to answer.
` Q. Why?
` A. Because it may or may not be in certain
`circumstances.
` Q. So cell tower triangulation doesn't have to
`be dependent on GPS, correct?
` A. There may be a version.
` Q. There was a version of cell tower
`triangulation prior to TracBeam's invention that did
`
`Page 334
`
`performed.
` Q. Is it your understanding that prior to
`TracBeam's invention, there were no TDOA techniques
`other than TDOA techniques that relied on GPS?
` A. My understanding is that there is -- that
`there probably is such a system. I was just
`answering your specific question, sir, before that.
` Q. So then prior art techniques did exist prior
`to your invention that were not dependent on each
`other, correct?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe so.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. If a system today operated in line with the
`Loomis prior art patent, would you agree that that
`system would not infringe your patents?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: No, sir.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. Why not?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: TracBeam probably has over a
`thousand claims perhaps in this general area, and I'm
`not prepared to go through those claims, and I'm
`thinking of something that's like Loomis but probably
`
`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
`
`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
`
`not involve GPS, correct?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't have any in mind right
`at this time. My belief is there probably was.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. Sir, didn't you and Mr. LeBlanc start your
`investigation with terrestrial techniques that
`existed like TDOA and TOA?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: We investigated those, yes,
`sir.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. And you did not invent those techniques,
`correct?
` A. No, sir.
` Q. Did TDOA at the time, or the TDOA variations
`that you investigated, involve GPS?
` A. Actually, they probably -- those particular
`techniques probably do.
` Q. Why?
` A. Because it's my understanding that in that
`particular case, GPS signals may be required for the
`cell towers in order for the timing issues for CDMA
`to synchronize the base stations so that accurate
`locations, or even any reasonable location can be
`
`Page 335
`not Loomis because Loomis is prior art, but if there
`is something like Loomis, I'm not prepared to go
`through those one way or the other.
` As for Loomis specifically and what is
`disclosed in the -- in the Loomis patent, my
`assumption would be that that system would not
`infringe claims because then those claims would be
`invalid.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. So a system that operated as described in
`the Loomis patent either wouldn't infringe TracBeam's
`claims or TracBeam's claims would be invalid,
`correct?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: No, sir.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. Why?
` A. In any system like this, the systems are
`extremely complicated, and there could be all kinds
`of other additional features in such a system that
`could infringe claims. It is not as simple, I
`believe, as you're -- or at least I interpret that
`you're either perceiving or indicating.
` Q. Sir, if a system operates the way Loomis
`describes, how is it possible for that system to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`19
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1027
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 3
`
`

`
`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
`
`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
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Page 336
`infringe your patents, yet those same patents not be
`invalidated by Loomis?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Any system -- okay. Let me --
`let me back up, sir.
` Suppose an imple -- implementation of Loomis
`were currently available, that implementation would
`have additional features beyond what is disclosed in
`Loomis. What I'm saying is there -- those additional
`features I'm not prepared to go through a
`hypothetical and discuss TracBeam's claims related to
`an actual system that -- an actual system that
`purportedly is an embodiment of the Loomis patent.
` And the reason for that is that there is, in
`general, in my view, substantially more to these
`kinds of systems than just the wireless -- the -- the
`bare bones wireless location features that might be
`disclosed in Loomis.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. I'm not asking for a substantive
`non-infringement analysis. I'm -- I'm asking for a
`logical conclusion.
` Loomis was prior art patent, correct?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Loomis describes a wireless location 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
`
`Page 337
`
`correct?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Loomis describes a wireless location system
`that uses two location techniques, correct?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. You testified today that at least some of
`your claims are not invalidated by Loomis, correct?
` A. I believe that's the case.
` Q. If a system was implemented as described in
`Loomis, that system could not infringe those claims,
`correct?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it could.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. So a system that -- that implemented
`wireless location technology just like Loomis could
`infringe your claims, yet Loomis doesn't invalidate
`those same claims?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe so and the reason I
`say that is because, because it does -- Loomis does
`not mean it doesn't do something else that would also
`read on the claims.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. If a system uses two location techniques
`
`Page 338
`that are dependent on each other, could that system
`infringe the asserted claims?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. And the reason I
`say that is because there may be other portions of
`the system and other techniques that are used by this
`hypothetical system that would infringe the tech --
`that would infringe TracBeam claims.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. If every location technique used by the
`system is dependent on one of the other, could that
`system infringe the asserted claims?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. How?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. So let's suppose we
`have four of them, just as a hypothetical. A depends
`on B. C depends on D. A and C are independent. So
`the answer to your question is exactly what I said,
`sir. Yes, it still could.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. If a claim -- okay.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes DVD
`
`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
`
`Page 339
`Number 1. We're now going off the video record. The
`time is 11:32.
` (Recess held 11:32 a.m. to 11:48 a.m.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is DVD Number 2.
`The time is 11:49.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. Do you still have your tax returns from 2011
`and forward?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. Have those been provided to your counsel in
`this case?
` A. I believe some of them have.
` Q. Have those been produced in this case?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not aware if they have
`been produced or not.
`BY MR. CULPEPPER:
` Q. Sir, if a wireless location system uses two
`location techniques, just two, and both are dependent
`on each other, can that system infringe TracBeam's
`patents?
` MR. EICHMANN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not going to get into
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`20
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1027
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`Page 4