Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 3964
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`HTC EXHIBIT 1022
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`HTC EXHIBIT 1022
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 3965
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`NORFOLK DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-548
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`VIRGINIA INNOVATION
`SCIENCES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.; SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA
`LLC;
`
`Defendants.
`
`I, Arthur T. Brody, say and declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a technical expert, with thirty-plus years of experience in the
`
`telecommunications industry. This experience includes performing or managing systems
`
`engineering, marketing and sales, new product development, corporate strategy consulting,
`
`product management, and competitive assessment functions. Much of this experience is in the
`
`area of video technologies and wireless networking. This declaration is based on my own
`
`personal knowledge (as well as my education and years of experience working in the
`
`telecommunications industry and my understanding of the knowledge, creativity, and experience
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art) and if called as a witness I could and would competently
`
`testify thereto.
`
`2.
`
`The asserted patents relate to systems of, and methods for, converting and
`
`delivering video initially received by a mobile terminal to an alternative display device in an
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 3966
`
`appropriate format. In determining whom a person of ordinary skill in the art would be, I
`
`considered the patents-in-suit, the types of problems encountered in wireless communications
`
`and video technologies, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapid pace of innovation in
`
`the fields of wireless communications and video technology, the sophistication of wireless
`
`communications and video technology, and the educational level of workers active in the field.
`
`Based on these factors, I have concluded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have an
`
`accredited bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline
`
`that included coverage of video technologies and familiarity with wireless communications, and
`
`also at least two years of industry experience. In lieu of specific academic training, one may
`
`draw upon appropriate industry experience to meet the requirements of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`3.
`
`I have also reviewed the definition of an ordinary skilled artisan provided by
`
`Defendants’ expert, Dr. Almeroth. I note that I meet Dr. Almeroth’s definition of an ordinary
`
`skilled artisan.
`
`4.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that certain types of
`
`connections, including composite video, S-Video, co-axial, VGA, DVI and HDMI, could be used
`
`to transmit decompressed video signals.
`
`5.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, given the bandwidth
`
`limitations of wireless networks, signals containing video content had to be transmitted in a
`
`compressed format, such as MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, via wireless networks.
`
`6.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that channels could be
`
`selected when multiple channels of input were available on the display device. Whether
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 3967
`
`selecting a channel was a commonly used technique would depend on both the channel and what
`
`it was being used for.
`
`7.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that video content could be
`
`converted. The specific conversion techniques of which one of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`aware would depend on both the video content and the display device.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 7,580,005 to Palin (“Palin”).
`
`Palin does not disclose a conversion. As a result, there is no MTSCM or
`
`functional equivalent in Fig. 1(a) of Palin. Palin is simply a file transfer system, aimed at merely
`
`receiving a compressed file with two parts and then transmitting one of the two compressed
`
`parts.
`
`10.
`
`Palin is directed to reformatting packets received in a cellular network
`
`communication (e.g., GSM, EDGE, WCDMA) for transmission in a Bluetooth communication.
`
`11.
`
`Palin is devoid of any discussion regarding conversion and display formats (i.e.,
`
`uncompressed video content).
`
`12.
`
`The Bluetooth connection Palin uses to transmit data to the television cannot
`
`support uncompressed video.
`
`13.
`
`Bluetooth is a low-bandwidth technology. At the time of the invention, Bluetooth
`
`could only support throughput of 3 Mb/s, which is far lower than the 500 Mb/s required to
`
`transmit an uncompressed standard definition 720 x 480 signal.
`
`14. When the television in Palin receives the data, it must be in a compressed format,
`
`which the television must decompress prior to display.
`
`15.
`
`The fact that the battery in Palin could be charged is irrelevant to the issue of
`
`whether the battery provides the power for receiving, processing and providing the video signal.
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 3968
`
`It is not correct to simply assume that when the mobile phone is plugged in the internal battery
`
`would not be the power source for receiving, processing and providing the video signal.
`
`16.
`
`Because the file transfer disclosed in Palin would not have drained the battery at
`
`the higher rate required in decompressing the video signal and sending the uncompressed video
`
`signal requiring several hundred times more bits transmitted, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have been motivated to combine Palin with a system that discloses using an alternate
`
`power supply for receiving, processing and providing a video signal.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`File transfer systems are generally not resource intensive.
`
`The system described in Palin simply performs header indexing; this would
`
`neither tax a processor nor significantly drain the battery.
`
`19.
`
`To the extent the functionality described in Palin was intended to be performed
`
`using an alternate power source, and not the internal battery of the mobile phone, Palin would
`
`have disclosed the same.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Palin only discloses transmitting compressed data.
`
`HDMI is utilized to transport uncompressed data.
`
`I have also reviewed U.S. Patent No. 8,028,093 to Karaoguz (“Karaoguz”).
`
`The concepts of “text and voice overlay” and “an integrated TV channel guide
`
`look-and-feel,” from Karaoguz, teach away from converting the underlying video content.
`
`24.
`
`Karaoguz discloses “text and voice overlay.” This means that additional
`
`information is “overlayed” on the video signal. This does not change the underlying video
`
`content. If anything it simply means that text or voice is placed over the underlying video
`
`content. An example of this is when you change the channel on your television and the name
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 3969
`
`and number of the next channel appears in one of the upper corners for a period of time. This
`
`did not change the “underlying video content.”
`
`25.
`
`I was also asked to perform an analysis to determine the conception and reduction
`
`to practice date I believe certain claims from the patents-in-suit are entitled to. In performing
`
`this analysis I reviewed notes that I understand were created by at least some of the named
`
`inventors, Provisional Application No. 60/588,358, the patents-in-suit, the deposition testimony
`
`of Dr. Ronald Wang and Dr. Ann Wang and other materials in this matter. I was also informed
`
`by counsel or Virginia Innovation that the filing of a patent application constitutes a constructive
`
`reduction to practice.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`30.
`
`In support of these opinions I have attached hereto as Exhibit 1 a chart identifying
`
`support for each of my opinions.
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 3970
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Samsung knew that its patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/237,357
`
`(“the ’357 Application), was rejected five times in light of U.S. Publication No. 20060077310,
`
`which was the publication of the application that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,899,492
`
`(“the ’492 Patent”). See my Opening Expert Report, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2,
`
`without the exhibits, which I incorporate herein by reference.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Samsung abandoned the ’357 Application after the ’492 Patent issued. Id.
`
`Samsung knew that U.S. Patent No. 8,135,398 was cited as pertinent prior art
`
`against its application, U.S. Application No. 11/647,153 (“the ’153 Application), which
`
`ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,260,933. Id.
`
`36.
`
`The technology at issue in Samsung’s applications – the ’357 Application and the
`
`’153 Application – is closely related to the technology at issue in the patents-in-suit, as well as
`
`that embodied in the accused products in this case. Id.
`
`37.
`
`It can be inferred that Samsung knew, or should have known, that it was seeking
`
`to patent the same invention, and produce products, covered by the patents-in-suit.
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00548-MSD-TEM Document 159-1 Filed 08/26/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 3971
`
`38.
`
`As detailed in my Opening Expert Report, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2
`
`without the voluminous exhibits, in my opinion each of the Accused Products infringes one or
`
`more of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: August 26, 2013
`
`______
`
`Arthur T. Brody
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`
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
