Date: April 27, 2017
`
`Case: Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating
`Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and Components Thereof
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`Phone: 202-347-3700
`Fax: 202-737-3638
`Email: info@acefederal.com
`Internet: www.acefederal.com
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p1
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p2
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
` UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
` BEFORE THE
` INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`IN THE MATTER OF: : Investigation
`CERTAIN MOBILE AND PORTABLE ELECTRONIC : Numbers
`DEVICES INCORPORATING HAPTICS (INCLUDING : 337-TA-1004
`SMARTPHONES AND LAPTOPS) AND COMPONENTS : 337-TA-990
`THEREOF : Consolidated
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` HEARING
`
` Thursday, April 27, 2017
` Courtroom C
` U.S. International Trade
` Commission
` 500 E Street SW
` Washington, DC
`
`The Hearing commenced, pursuant to notice of the Judge, at
`10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock,
`Administrative Law Judge for the United States
`International Trade Commission.
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p3
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
` ERIN P. GIBSON, ESQ.
` SEAN CUNNINGHAM, ESQ.
` JACOB D. ANDERSON, ESQ.
` ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
` DLA Piper LLP (US)
` 401 B Street, Suite 1700
` San Diego, California 92101-4297
` 619.699.2700
` Appearing for Respondents Apple Inc. and AT&T, Inc.
` and AT&T Mobility LLC
`
` BRIAN K. ERICKSON, ESQ.
` TODD PATTERSON, ESQ.
` DLA Piper LLP (US)
` 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
` Austin, Texas 78701-3799
` 512.457.7000
` Appearing for Respondents Apple Inc. and AT&T, Inc.
` and AT&T Mobility LLC
`
` -continued-
`
`Page 5
`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
`
` BENJAMIN HERSHKOWITZ, ESQ.
` Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
` 200 Park Avenue
` New York, New York 10166-0193
` 212.351.4000
` Appearing for AT&T Respondents
`
` LISA MURRAY, ESQ.
` DAVID LLOYD, ESQ.
` Office of Unfair Import Investigations
` United States International Trade Commission
` 500 E Street, S.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20436
` 202.205.2734
`
`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
`
`APPEARANCES
`
` MORGAN CHU, ESQ.
` RICHARD M. BIRNHOLZ, ESQ.
` GRACE CHEN, ESQ.
` STEPHEN PAYNE, ESQ.
` GAVIN SNYDER, ESQ.
` Irell & Manella LLP
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
` Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
` 310.277.1010
` Appearing for Complainant Immersion Corporation
`
` LISA S. GLASSER, ESQ.
` REBECCA CARSON, ESQ.
` C. MACLAIN WELLS, ESQ.
` BABAK REDJAIAN, ESQ.
` Irell & Manella LLP
` 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
` Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
` 949.760.0991
` Appearing for Complainant Immersion Corporation
`
` -continued-
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
`
` BARBARA A. MURPHY, ESQ.
` Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, P.C.
` 1899 L Street, N.W., Suite 1150
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` 202.822.4100
` Appearing for Complainant Immersion Corporation
`
` MARK FOWLER, ESQ.
` ROBERT BUERGI, ESQ.
` SUMMER TORREZ, ESQ.
` KRISTA A. CELENTANO, ESQ.
` ERIN MC LAUGHLIN, ESQ
` KATHERINE CHEUNG, ESQ.
` ASA WYNN-GRANT, ESQ.
` DLA Piper LLP (US)
` 2000 University Avenue
` East Palo Alto, California 94303-2215
` 650.833.2000
` Appearing for Respondents Apple Inc. and AT&T, Inc.
` and AT&T Mobility LLC
`
` -continued-
`
`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
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p4
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Good morning. This is the
`hearing in 337-TA-1004 and 990. We'll start with
`appearances.
` MR. CHU: Good morning, your Honor. Morgan Chu
`from Irell & Manella for the Complainant Immersion, and I
`would like to introduce a number of other people here
`today. On the far left of the first row, Barbara Murphy of
`Foster and Murphy, Rebecca Carson, Lisa Glasser and Richard
`Birnholz. And there are a number of people from Immersion
`here today that I'd like to introduce, in particular two of
`them, Vic Viegas, who has been with Immersion for 18 years
`and is currently the chief executive officer, and Amy
`Peters, who is the general counsel.
` Good morning.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Good morning.
` MR. FOWLER: Good morning, your Honor.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Good morning.
` MR. FOWLER: Mark Fowler from DLA representing
`Respondents Apple and AT&T Mobility. I have a number of my
`colleagues here from DLA as well and I'd like to introduce
`them.
` Starting in the front, Erin Gibson, Sean
`Cunningham, Brian Erickson, Robert Buergi, Summer Torres,
`Jacob Anderson, Bob Williams, Todd Patterson, Krista
`
`Page 7
`Grewal, Erin McLaughlin, Katherine Chung, Assa Wynn-Grant
`and Jonathan Hicks. Also with us from Apple today is
`in-house counsel Kim Moore.
` MR. HERSHKOWITZ: Good morning, your Honor,
`Benjamin Hershkowitz from Gibson, Dunn representing the
`AT&T Respondents. And with me today from AT&T's legal
`department is Brian Gaffney.
` MS. MURRAY: Good morning, your Honor, Lisa
`Murray on behalf of the Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations, and with me is David Lloyd, also OUII.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Okay. I received the list of
`issues the parties would like to discuss. I'm going to go
`through my list. I think some of these questions will be
`answered, but to the extent they're not, we can discuss
`them afterwards.
` Okay. Parties have already been informed about
`how I generally handle expert reports, discovery responses
`and so forth, so I'm not going to discuss that anymore.
` I'm going to ask the parties to give me an
`updated schedule of estimated time and date of hearing
`witnesses, unless the parties have already prepared one. I
`know that some witnesses will be appearing just by their
`witness statements being entered in.
` Okay. Possible government shutdown, and I know
`that's one of the concerns that the parties had as well.
`
`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
`
`Page 8
`The one -- normally, if it was a weather thing, Rina could
`send you an e-mail, whatever. If there's a period over the
`weekend, let's say, where the government is shut down, none
`of us can communicate with you, but I would encourage you
`to watch TV, see if the government is reopened. As soon as
`it is reopened, we will let you know what's going on.
` Obviously, everyone is hopeful that the
`government won't be closed, but we'll have to see.
` If we go beyond Tuesday, which is very unlikely,
`but if we do, I think we're going to have to talk about
`rescheduling, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to
`it. Hopefully we won't.
` Okay. Witness binders. At the end of the
`trial, I'm going to direct the parties to remove the
`witness binders from the courtroom.
` As far as sequestration of fact witnesses, if a
`party requests that, I will do that. But if not, I don't
`require it on my own. But if a party is concerned about
`that, then I will require that the other witnesses be
`sequestered as appropriate.
` Okay. Respondents withdrew two of their high
`priority objections. Respondents also objected to certain
`exhibits as lacking a sponsoring witness. So the
`objection -- that objection was denied as premature, so
`it's possible, unless the parties have come to agreement,
`
`Page 9
`that I might have to deal with that on a case-by-case
`basis.
` Okay. I did grant a couple of requests to
`receive evidence without a sponsoring witness. However,
`that doesn't mean that those exhibits are actually in
`evidence, so you're still going to have to move them in
`evidence at an appropriate time.
` We have four stipulations, JX-35, JX-36, JX-37
`and JX-382. So parties can offer them in at an appropriate
`time and I will receive them into evidence.
` Okay. Parties are aware we're scheduled --
`we're starting today. We will be ending on May 4. The
`courtroom hours are 9:00 to 4:30. I usually take two
`15-minute breaks, one in the morning, one in the afternoon,
`and then an hour for lunch.
` Just so you're aware, I am not going to be
`extending the hearing hours, so it's incumbent on the
`parties to make sure that everything is finished on next
`Thursday at 4:30.
` I have an internal meeting to attend on Monday,
`so this meeting is right before lunch. We are going to
`break from 10:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. That will allow me to
`go to the meeting, and then we'll have our lunch break.
` Okay. Allocation of time. Basically, the
`allocation will be Complainants, 45 percent, Respondents,
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p5
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`Page 10
`45 percent, Staff, 10 percent. I'm going to ask the
`parties to keep track of the time, and then starting
`tomorrow, we'll meet and confer and then give me a
`statement on the record as to what -- how much time each
`party has used.
` Okay. Exhibits generally come in after --
`except for the witness statement, they come in after the
`witness has appeared. But what I have parties do is meet
`and confer so that hopefully you can come up with an
`agreement on all or at least most of those exhibits in
`written form so you can just hand it to me at that time,
`and to our reporter.
` Okay. I no longer require findings of fact or
`conclusions of law, though the parties should cite directly
`to their exhibits or trial testimony.
` If someone does want to file findings of fact
`and conclusions of law, the other side is not required to
`respond.
` Okay. With respect to when you're doing your
`briefing, with respect to the issues of infringement and
`validity, the briefing should be done on a
`limitation-by-limitation basis, so I'm going to direct the
`parties to meet and confer regarding an outline for their
`briefs, at least the initial briefs. And I want to see the
`outline no later than noon next Monday, May 1.
`
`Page 12
`again, I would encourage you -- the parties to meet and
`confer and try to work this out beforehand.
` But to the extent we have one with respect to
`the witness appearing, our first witness, then I'll deal
`with that right after the witness statement is moved into
`evidence, you can then make an objection.
` Okay. There's a question here about the
`applicability of Order Number 43 to the case. I'm not sure
`what that is, but I'll let the parties explain what the
`question is there.
` MS. GLASSER: Good morning, your Honor, Lisa
`Glasser for Complainant Immersion.
` The issue is with respect to Order Number 43, in
`which your Honor held "the undersigned finds that the
`patent covers patentable subject matter under the first
`step in Alice and is not invalid under section 101."
` In so holding, Immersion's position is that your
`Honor could not have been clearer, you have ruled on this
`issue of law, there's been no basis asserted for a motion
`for reconsideration. And furthermore, the ruling tracks 19
`CFR 210.18, subsection (e), which specifically directs that
`in denying a motion for summary determination, the ALJ is
`permitted and encouraged to ascertain whether or not there
`are any material facts in dispute.
` Of course, in your order, there were no material
`
`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 11
` Page limitations for briefs. Okay. Initial
`posthearing briefs will be 250 pages, and I'm going to add
`25 pages, but that can only be -- those 25 pages can only
`be used for public interest.
` Reply briefs, 125 pages.
` Okay. I'm going now to the parties' lists.
`We've talked about procedures in event of a government
`shutdown. Redactions to witness statements. There was a
`question there -- let me just see if I can anticipate what
`the question might be.
` I want the redactions, in other words, the
`redacted language, taken out. Is that the question you
`have or was there something else?
` MS. GIBSON: Good morning, your Honor. The
`issue is there may be some disputes as to whether or not
`the redactions are complete or in compliance with your
`Honor's orders. And there is one small dispute with
`respect to the witness statement of Dr. Abowd, who is
`expected to take the stand today. And there may be
`additional disputes, of course, we'll work to resolve
`those.
` The question was when should we present those
`disputes to you if there is something to resolve.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: I think the appropriate time
`would be when the witness statement is introduced. And
`
`Page 13
`facts in dispute. It was presented as an issue of law and
`decided entirely based upon the language of the patent and
`the governing case law.
` The reason this is being brought to your
`attention now is that there is a position presented by
`Apple and, I believe, supported by the Staff that the order
`may or may not be determinative.
` So we thought it was worth presenting now
`because --
` JUDGE BULLOCK: I can settle that one right now.
`It is determinative, and I'm not going to entertain any
`motions for reconsideration.
` Does that resolve the issue?
` MS. GLASSER: Yes, it does. Thank you very
`much.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Okay.
` Timekeeping, admissions of exhibits, we've
`covered that.
` Okay. The parties have raised the issue of
`treatment of source code at the trial.
` MS. GLASSER: We have resolved the issue, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Great, thank you.
` Okay. Submission of deposition designations and
`exhibits and witness statements and exhibits for those
`
`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
`
`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
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p6
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`Page 14
`witnesses not appearing live. Is there still a question as
`to that?
` MS. CARSON: Your Honor, we just wanted to go
`over with you the procedure for doing that. The parties
`are in the process of addressing your Honor's motions on
`the motions in limine and high priority objections and are
`preparing those materials.
` Our proposal is that the parties exchange those
`over the weekend and move them into evidence Monday
`morning, if that works for your Honor.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Okay. Is that agreeable to
`everyone?
` MS. GIBSON: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Okay. Admission of joint
`exhibits and Staff exhibits that were the subject of
`request for receipt of evidence without a sponsoring
`witness. Is there still an issue as to that?
` MS. CARSON: Rebecca Carson, your Honor. There
`is not an issue. We did prepare a list that we understand
`the Respondents and the Staff have agreed to, so we would
`propose that we would move those into evidence now, if that
`is all right.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Okay. Let's -- as soon as we
`finish with this list, that's probably as good a time as
`any.
`
`Page 16
`Complainant has tried to include evidence in the record
`that Gionee phones, which are not domestic articles, were,
`in fact, sold in the United States. To the extent they do
`try to advance that testimony at the hearing, we intend to
`use this exhibit solely for impeachment purposes, because
`Gionee specifically states that it does not sell devices in
`the United States.
` So those are the exhibits at issue, your Honor.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Okay. Let's start with the last
`one first. Why is that one -- is that on -- let me ask the
`first question.
` Is that on the exhibit list?
` MS. GIBSON: We added it to the exhibit list
`this week, your Honor, and we propose to use it only for
`impeachment purposes, if Complainant does advance the
`testimony that we expect them to advance. And we can put
`the exhibit up on the screen, your Honor, so you can see
`it.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Well, I don't think -- if it's
`not on the exhibit list, then I'm not going to allow it,
`even for impeachment purposes.
` MS. GIBSON: Just to be clear, your Honor, we
`added it to the exhibit list this week for this reason. Is
`that too late?
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Yes, too late.
`
`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 15
`
` MS. CARSON: Excellent.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Thank you.
` Immersion's objection to an exhibit that
`Respondents produced this week. Is that still an issue?
` MS. CARSON: Yes, your Honor, that is still an
`issue. There were three exhibits that Respondents
`disclosed to us on just Monday evening of this week, and we
`would request that your Honor strike those from the record.
` There was no explanation for why they were
`produced after the deadline in the scheduling order. One
`of them, for example, appears to be a printout of a public
`Web site, and there's no reason that those weren't
`disclosed according to the schedule. So we would request
`that they be struck.
` MS. GIBSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Sure.
` MS. GIBSON: Your Honor, there were three
`exhibits. Two of them were recent IPR institution
`decisions on the '488 and the '260 patent. Those IPRs,
`those decisions were issued in early April, so we've added
`them to the exhibit list so that we can cross-examine their
`experts with them, because the findings are inconsistent
`with their expert testimony.
` And the third one was a public printout from the
`Gionee company corporate Web site. We've seen that
`
`Page 17
` MS. GIBSON: Okay. So, your Honor, would the
`same rule apply to Complainants, who added an exhibit last
`night?
` JUDGE BULLOCK: Let me just -- if you all want
`to agree that they all -- that they can be used, that's
`fine, but yes, it would apply to that as well. So I'm
`offering a solution there.
` MS. GIBSON: All right.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: If the parties want to meet and
`confer about that. And that would include the three IPRs.
`If you want to meet and confer and come back, or if you all
`feel you're pretty locked into your positions.
` MS. CARSON: Thank you, your Honor.
` MS. GIBSON: Thank you, your Honor.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: You will meet and confer, is
`that where we are?
` MS. CARSON: We'll meet and confer, yes.
` JUDGE BULLOCK: All right, thank you.
` Let's see. The parties have agreed that
`Mr. Green may appear once to offer both direct and rebuttal
`testimony. That's fine.
` Do we have any other matters before we proceed
`to opening statements?
` Hearing none, let's proceed.
` MR. CHU: Good morning again, your Honor.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p7
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`Page 18
`
`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
`
`Morgan Chu on behalf of Immersion.
` Since the very founding of Immersion, it has
`been focused with a laser-like focus on haptics, the
`science of touch. It brought new technologies involving
`haptics to a wide variety of different industries.
` It brought it to the medical field, to the
`automotive industry, to the field of industrial controls,
`to high-end video games and increasingly today, to
`smartphones such as the iPhones that are sold by Apple.
` Let me give you an example. About 1-1/2 years
`ago, with great fanfare, Apple introduced a brand-new set
`of features that had never appeared before in any of its
`smartphones or other products before. One of those
`features they referred to as three-dimensional or 3D touch.
` Here's an example of 3D touch. A 5 foot 1 inch
`petite woman is scrolling through her e-mail, she sees an
`e-mail from mom, and before this feature was introduced,
`she could say to herself, well, I want to keep scrolling
`through my stack or I'm going to open the e-mail, read it,
`close it, maybe delete it, maybe respond to it.
` With the introduction of 3D touch, she can press
`in a certain way and indicate to the iPhone I want to peek
`at that e-mail to see the beginning of the e-mail. The
`e-mail might be two pages long or three pages long. She
`can peek. And if she wants to read the entire e-mail with
`
`Page 19
`a change in the pressure from her thumb, cause it to pop.
`That particular feature, of course, or features called peek
`and pop.
` She could also decide that the e-mail from mom
`is just asking about whether I'll be over for dinner at
`6:00 for dad's birthday three weeks from today, and she can
`respond to it later today.
` What is nifty about this, utilizing Immersion
`technology, is the 280 pound left tackle with the exact
`same device can peek and peek and pop, can communicate
`through a thumb, with different amounts of pressure, the
`intent of the user. And we will get into peek and pop, 3D
`touch and other features that are infringing in greater
`detail.
` These are topics we're going to cover during
`opening statement. Immersion has been developing this
`technology for over two decades, and it is headquartered in
`San Jose.
` TouchSense is a product, and it's a proprietary
`product, that's promoted by Immersion. TouchSense for
`pressure-enabled devices involve all of these different
`products or services.
` Here are Immersion partners. These are major
`companies worldwide, and these are partners with respect to
`mobile devices.
`
`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
`
`Page 20
` Here's a quick look at the patents. The '507
`patent has this elegant simplicity in using a combination
`of these three things that has enabled Apple to have the 3D
`touch peek and pop as an example.
` Using these factors in combination, Apple is
`able to serve that 5 foot 1 inch woman or our left tackle.
`The '051 has a haptic feedback system with stored effects.
`The '260 has haptic effects for pressure sensitive input
`devices.
` The '356 has haptics using lookup tables, and
`the '710 is the system for haptic confirmation of commands.
` Now, what we've done, your Honor, is -- have we
`distributed the hard copy?
` We're going to give to the Court, Staff and
`opposing counsel confidential versions. So whatever we've
`blacked out, you can see the actual information. But
`rather than excuse people from opening statement, we
`thought it would be easier just to black it out and I won't
`mention the specifics of that information.
` What's clear is Apple has been well aware of
`Immersion. The top line is public information, but other
`Apple executives have admitted that they were well aware of
`Immersion.
` As one example, a manager at Apple heavily
`involved in technology was on the Immersion board of
`
`Page 21
`
`directors for some number of years.
` We're on to what is slide 14. There's also
`information in the record that Apple had knowledge of a
`number of the Immersion patents that are involved in this
`suit.
` This is a document from Immersion that discusses
`improving mobile user experience, and it discusses a new
`way to interact with phones, to improve user performance,
`to increase user satisfaction.
` The copyright on this is 2007. By coincidence,
`that is the year that Apple introduced the very first
`version of the iPhone.
` Here's some of the evidence --
` (Video played.)
` "We introduced a whole new way to interact with
`technology. Tapping, swiping and pinching have forever
`changed the way we navigate --"
` (Video stopped.)
` MR. CHU: We're going to go back, and let me
`just say, your Honor, this was the introduction of 3D Touch
`by Apple. It was September 2014, with the 6s iPhone and
`related products.
` The voice is that of Jony Ive, who is world
`famous as being the chief designer of Apple for many, many
`products, including the infringing products here. And it's
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p8
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`Page 22
`an introduction with great fanfare, with large crowds and
`the like. And the video lasts two or three minutes.
` (Video played as follows.)
` With iPhone and multitouch, we introduced a
`whole new way to interact with technology. Tapping,
`swiping and pinching have forever changed the way we
`navigate and experience our digital world.
` Until now, these gestures have been defined by a
`singular plane in two-dimensional space. For iPhone 6s and
`6s plus, we're introducing an entirely new interaction and
`a whole new dimension to the way you experience your
`iPhone.
` It's made possible by a technology called 3D
`Touch. This is the next generation of multitouch. For the
`first time, along with recognizing familiar gestures,
`iPhone also recognizes force, enabling new gestures, peek,
`and pop.
` 3D Touch works on the home screen, giving you
`shortcuts to the things you do frequently. It also works
`inside applications themselves. Press lightly and it gives
`you a peek at the content. Continue pressing, and it pops
`you into the content itself.
` Senses embedded in the display read how hard
`you're pressing and react in a smooth, linear way. This is
`a dynamic system, deeply integrated into IOS 9.
`
`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 24
`
`experience.
` This is the next generation of multitouch. It
`makes this iPhone the most advanced iPhone we have ever
`created.
` (Video Stopped.)
` MR. CHU: We give credit to Apple to bringing
`what they dubbed 3D Touch to their products. Credit also
`belongs to the hard working, creative engineers at
`Immersion, who developed the enabling technologies.
` This is from an Apple commercial, discussing the
`iPhone 6s. "So pretty much everything you do feels
`different."
` This is documentation from Apple, being
`addressed to its app developers, telling them about this
`brand-new technology that they called 3D Touch.
` These are different aspects about how Apple made
`haptics a key feature across product lines.
` The home button on the iPhone 7 is really quite
`interesting. The home button in the earlier iPhone models
`was a mechanical button, and it happens because it was
`mechanical, it had two deficiencies. One was that it was a
`part of the iPhone that had a high failure rate. It was a
`pretty good mechanical button, it certainly could go
`through lots and lots and lots of presses, but there were
`frustrated consumers who would have their home button fail.
`
`Page 23
` You can dip in and out of where you are without
`losing a sense of your context. It provides distinct,
`tactile feedback for your actions, letting you know exactly
`what you've done and what to expect.
` While the way that you use 3D Touch is simple,
`the engineering behind it is some of our most advanced. At
`its heart, our capacitive sensors integrated into the back
`light of the retina HD display. With each press, these
`sensors measure microscopic changes in the distance between
`the cover glass and the back light. These measurements are
`then combined with signals from the touch sensor and
`accelerometer to provide fast, accurate and continuous
`response to finger pressure.
` For a truly communicative experience, we had to
`develop a more precise level of haptic feedback. Where the
`vibrating system on a typical more requires 10 or more
`oscillations to reach full power, the taptic engine in
`iPhone 6s reaches peak output in one cycle and stops just
`as quickly.
` This allows us to create shorter, more distinct
`feedback events, like a mini tap lasting just 10
`milliseconds, and a full tap, which lasts 15 milliseconds.
` Perhaps more than any other system we've
`designed, 3D Touch is a clear example of how hardware and
`software developed together can work to define a singular
`
`Page 25
` It also was susceptible to allowing moisture or
`water into the iPhone. With the iPhone 7, they introduced
`what they called a solid-state home button. When you
`depress it, because of the haptic effects, it feels as if
`it is a mechanical button, but it is not.
` In fact, there is nothing mechanical about it.
`It's a solid button and uses haptic effects to simulate the
`feel and the click of a mechanical button.
` Some of these infringing features have been
`incorporated into the Apple Watch and various Macbooks.
`Here's an example of the infringing products.
` The peek and pop infringes the particular
`patents mentioned here. There's another feature called
`quick actions. For example, if one wants to go to the
`camera, in the past if you wanted to take a selfie, you'd
`have to open up the camera screen, then you'd have to
`change which camera lens was looking either in front of the
`user or at the user.
` Here using one's thumb, one can get a menu of
`quick actions, decide to take the selfie immediately,
`decide to take a video immediately. And this is an example
`of quick actions on the screen.
` The iPhone 7 solid-state home button is depicted
`here. The single atom haptic effects of the small Apple
`Watch is shown here.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`202-737-3638
`
`Immersion Ex. 2004 - p9
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`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
`
`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 28
`Immersion's domestic industry investments. Throughout this
`case, Apple has taken the position that somehow the rules
`for the ITC should be different for Immersion because it is
`a small company.
` Yes, it's a small company, it's about 130
`employees, many of them are engineers developing R&D. They
`don't make their own smartphones. They do create enabling
`technologies and help companies incorporate those
`technologies.
` And I dare say, before the ITC, as well as any
`other tribunal in the United States, a small company should
`stand on equal footing with a very large company