`
`REPORTER'S RECORD
`
`VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES
`
`TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-19-009205
`
`IN THE COUNTY COURT
`
`AT LAW NO. 1
`
`TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`CYWEE GROUP LIMITED
`
`********************************************************
`
`MOTION RULE 202 DEPOSITION
`
`********************************************************
`
`On the 5th day of December, 2019, the following
`
`proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled
`
`and numbered cause before the Honorable Todd T. Wong,
`
`Judge presiding, held in Austin, Travis County, Texas:
`
`Proceedings reported by machine shorthand.
`
`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
`
`SONY 1051
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`2
`
`ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`Mr. Michael Shore
`SBOT NO. 18294915
`SHORE CHAN DePUMPO LLP
`11411 Strait Lane
`Dallas, Texas 75229
`Phone: 214-593-9110
`
`ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`
`Ms. Paige Amstutz
`SBOT NO. 00796136
`Mr. Sameer Hashmi
`SBOT NO. 24101877
`SCOTT DOUGLASS McCONNICO
`300 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Phone: 512-495-6300
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`INDEX
`
`VOLUME 1
`
`Motion Rule 202 Deposition
`
`December 5, 2019
`
`PAGE VOL.
`
`Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1
`
`Argument by Mr. Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1
`
`Argument by Ms. Amstutz . . . . . . . . . . . 41 1
`
`Argument by Mr. Hashmi . . . . . . . . . . . .61 1
`
`Argument by Mr. Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 1
`
`Argument by Mr. Amstutz . . . . . . . . . . . 99 1
`
`Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 1
`
`Court Reporter's Certificate . . . . . . . . 104 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`December 5, 2019
`
`THE COURT: C-1-CV-19-9250. Counsel, if
`
`you would go ahead and make your appearances for the
`
`record.
`
`MR. SHORE: Michael Shore from Shore,
`
`Chan, DePumpo on behalf of CyWee, petitioner.
`
`MS. AMSTUTZ: Paige Amstutz and Sameer
`
`Hashmi with Scott, Douglass, and McConnico on behalf of
`
`the respondent, Google LLC.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you very
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`much.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`matter.
`
`All right.
`
`MR. SHORE: A little housekeeping here
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Shore. Of course.
`
`MR. SHORE: We filed our response, and I
`
`believe they filed an opposition yesterday. I don't
`
`know if you've had those on the system, but if you
`
`don't, I don't mind taking a 15- or 20- or 30-minute
`
`break to give you a chance to read those before we get
`
`22
`
`started.
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Hold on just a second. Let me
`
`24
`
`see.
`
`25
`
`Yeah. The special appearance and plea to
`
`
`
`5
`
`the jurisdiction was filed on the 2nd. Is there
`
`anything else since the 2nd?
`
`MS. ANSTUTZ: We filed our response to
`
`that and then they filed their response to the 202
`
`petition.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me do this -- let
`
`me do this: Let me -- let's take a recess for
`
`10 minutes. I'll come back at 9:40ish. Let me take
`
`another look at that.
`
`MR. SHORE: Take as long as you want.
`
`THE COURT: That's all right. I'm sure
`
`you guys are going to be very efficient on the time.
`
`MR. SHORE: But all the pleadings are in
`
`the notebook I gave you together with exhibits.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you very
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`much.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(Court in recess.)
`
`(Open court, on the record.)
`
`THE COURT: I've got the motion to take
`
`202 deposition from CyWee, and then I've got a number of
`
`responses including special appearance by Google, also
`
`claims against jurisdiction, et cetera. So what I'd
`
`like to do is to kind of get an overview from CyWee as
`
`to why they seek a deposition. And then I want to go
`
`through the entirety which, I think, that means I am
`
`
`
`6
`
`going to go more than an hour, one to two hours on the
`
`special appearance, et cetera, reasons why they don't,
`
`that you have jurisdiction, that I don't have any
`
`jurisdiction, or these courts don't have any
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`In looking at the proposed deposition
`
`request, I also need counsel to address directly why
`
`this is the avenue that you seek or your client seeks,
`
`and why it wasn't addressed in previous litigation that
`
`was ongoing or was denied in previous cases, why this
`
`Court would have some unique power over this particular,
`
`not party but entity. Okay.
`
`And feel free to be as elementary as
`
`possible. Don't feel like you're talking down to me
`
`because you're not. I just need for you to tell me
`
`where we are, and you can explain it in the most
`
`simplest terms. I have some familiarity with
`
`technology. So this, somewhat. Still I think it's
`
`appropriate that the record reflect some more basic
`
`information so we can go from there.
`
`So you're not insulting me if you talk
`
`down to me. I'm looking way up from the pit, okay. So
`
`we'll go from there. I know all three of you are
`
`familiar exactly with this and have spent a lot of time
`
`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
`
`on it.
`
`
`
`7
`
`So that being said, counsel, if you'll
`
`proceed and tell me why you're seeking to take a
`
`deposition on potential claims under Rule 202.
`
`MR. SHORE: Your Honor, just to start, I
`
`want to make clear on the record, we're not considering
`
`-- the fact that we're not taking up the jurisdictional
`
`issues first as any waiver by Google of jurisdictional
`
`argument.
`
`MS. AMSTUTZ: I appreciate that, Your
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Honor.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Understood. Understood.
`
`MR. SHORE: I'm not a tricky lawyer.
`
`So, anyway, I guess we'll start from the
`
`beginning in the elementary.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`ARGUMENT BY PETITIONER CYWEE
`
`MR. SHORE: So CyWee is -- to give you an
`
`idea who they are. There is an institute in Taiwan
`
`called the Industrial Technology Research Institute,
`
`ITRI. It's sort of like the government-funded research
`
`institute or think tank for the country.
`
`I don't know how familiar you're with
`
`Taiwan. It's 23 million people. It's just off the
`
`coast of China. As a matter of fact, one of the
`
`Taiwanese islands is within artillery range of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`Chinese coast. It is a tiny, little island. That is
`
`like -- I don't know if you've ever seen the poster of
`
`the mouse looking up at the cat and giving it a gesture.
`
`That's kind of the way Taiwan lives its entire life
`
`under the threat of China.
`
`So this Industrial Technology Research
`
`Institute was formed because they understood that they
`
`had to develop technology. This tiny, little island
`
`that had no natural resources had to develop technology
`
`to survive because they had to become an export economy.
`
`So one of the things that ITRI does is
`
`ITRI spins off companies out of the research institute
`
`and they go out and they get funding for them and they
`
`spin them off. Some of the companies that have spun off
`
`of ITRI are Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing company.
`
`The largest semiconductor founder in the world. Asus,
`
`the big computer, they make every laptop other than the
`
`Apple laptops that are made in the world. Big for most
`
`of (indiscernible) groups. I mean, this is the economic
`
`engine for Taiwan.
`
`So ITRI was a tiny little company that,
`
`basically, was nothing but patents. And it spun out and
`
`it was actually funded by another company, SoftBank
`
`China, which is a division of SoftBank Japan. And it
`
`was funded by SoftBank China for the purpose of
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`SoftBank, which was a telephone company, JLO Telephone
`
`Company, and they were going to develop cell phones.
`
`And the ITRI connection was ITRI invented what -- when
`
`you take out your cell phone --
`
`I guess I can take mine out.
`
`You know, the modern cell phone -- the
`
`smart phone came out in 2007. The Apple iPhone, first
`
`smart phone. And what ITRI kind of came up with -- at
`
`the time, was this can be so much for than just a phone
`
`or a smart phone or a computer. It can be what's called
`
`a three-dimensional pointing device. And what that
`
`means is ITRI was the first or CyWee was the first
`
`company to put into these devices sensing elements: an
`
`accelerometer, which basically tells you or tells the
`
`phone how it's moving through space or stopping; a
`
`gyroscope, which tells the position; and magnetometer,
`
`which basically gives it true north.
`
`And by combining these sensing elements
`
`into a single where-all, these sensing data would be
`
`fused. That's what let you -- when you do your
`
`navigation on your phone, you see a dot. And that dot
`
`represents the position of the phone. And as you're
`
`driving down the road at 60 miles an hour, that dot is
`
`moving through a map. That's because the accelerometer,
`
`it tells you what direction you're going. That's
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`because the magnetometer gives it true north. And if
`
`you turn your phone and you get the image on the phone
`
`to turn or you get a different orientation of the phone,
`
`that's the gyroscope telling you that you can move the
`
`phone and use the phone, basically, to create pointing
`
`things on the screen.
`
`CyWee invented that. And I don't really
`
`think that's of any dispute. And so they got a bunch of
`
`patents on it.
`
`Now, give you a little bit of background
`
`on patents. This will be very rudimentary. But a
`
`patent is basically a government-granted monopoly. In
`
`other words, if you invent something -- the idea behind
`
`the patent system, if you invent something, it's good if
`
`you it tell whole world about it because then the whole
`
`world can make improvements to your invention or they
`
`incorporate your invention into other things. And by
`
`publishing these inventions, that advances technology
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`for everybody.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`But in exchange for publishing your
`
`invention to keep people taking it from you, stealing
`
`it, infringing upon it, you're granted a patent. And
`
`what a patent says is by publishing it, by disclosing it
`
`and allowing the rest of the world to build upon it,
`
`society to advance, you can require people to pay you
`
`
`
`11
`
`compensation for the use of your invention. That's
`
`called a license.
`
`Now -- so all the license is the license
`
`is a grant to someone to practice your invention that
`
`you've been given a monopoly by the government. It's a
`
`government-granted monopoly, and you control that
`
`monopoly and you give people license. And they can take
`
`a license or they decide they don't want to take a
`
`license, they infringe. And then you can go sue them to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`either pay you royalties or to stop them from
`
`11
`
`infringing.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`So CyWee and SoftBank, and some other
`
`companies that were investors in CyWee, they came out
`
`with a phone. They figured out that the phone, because
`
`when you started a cell phone company at that point in
`
`time, you're competing against the Apple and Samsung and
`
`these other people who had these massive amounts of
`
`capital. They went, and instead of being a cell phone
`
`company, they designed a software called Sensor Fusion
`
`software that senses the data from the magnetometer, the
`
`gyroscope, and the accelerometer into a single sensing
`
`module. And that software is what allows you to use
`
`your phone as a remote control for a car. You know, you
`
`have a drone -- if you have a drone flying in the air,
`
`you can use your phone to turn it. You can tilt it
`
`
`
`12
`
`forward to accelerate. Tilt it back to brake it. Turn
`
`left, turn right. It can allow you to do navigation on
`
`your phone with a map if you're driving in your car.
`
`So what this was, it became a software
`
`company. And they partnered with ST Micro Electronics
`
`to make the sensing modules. And the idea was that they
`
`were going to sell these to cell phone manufacturers.
`
`And, in fact, they have. HTC is one of their clients.
`
`But then Google came along. And Google --
`
`I think it's a bit explained in our response to their
`
`plea to the jurisdiction. But Google came along and
`
`they bought a company. They did not invent a company.
`
`They bought Android. They bought Android because they
`
`were Google, and they can buy anything they want. And
`
`they bought Android and made Google very smart. And
`
`they realized that smart phones are going to be,
`
`ultimately, one day how everybody accesses the Internet.
`
`We're not going to access on our laptops anymore. We're
`
`not by our PCs. We're going to access by this thing.
`
`And so Android decided -- well, Google decided that they
`
`were going to make Android a free operating system.
`
`Remember, Apple was first. First smart
`
`phone is Apple. Apple's IOS. Apple doesn't share with
`
`anybody. Closed system. Only Apple. Apple only. So
`
`all these other companies who are making flip phones or
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`candy bar phones or whatever it was at the time, they're
`
`desperate for smart phone technology.
`
`The other leading operating system was
`
`Android operating system, AOS. Google ran out and
`
`bought them. And then Google tells everybody, you can
`
`have it for free. And have it for free, it's not really
`
`free. Nothing's free. Because Google builds into their
`
`Android operating system all the links to all the other
`
`Google apps and all the other Google functionality.
`
`Google search. Google maps. Google everything. And so
`
`if you use an Android, you're trapped because all these
`
`companies adopted Android because they had to catch up
`
`with Apple, and Android was the only one out there that
`
`was anywhere close to catching up with Apple. So they
`
`all got snared in the Android web.
`
`And now it's not really open-source. It's
`
`-- normal open-source is like Lynex where everybody can
`
`see it. They can contribute to it. And there's 50,000
`
`different versions of Lynex, and you can pick and choose
`
`whichever one you want and they all will work.
`
`With Android, you either use the Google
`
`version of Android or you can't access the Google apps.
`
`Which means that -- and I think Google now is over nine
`
`million IP addresses that are controlled by Google --
`
`you can't read the New York Times without Google. You
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`can't get an Airbnb. You can't call Uber. You can't
`
`call Lyft. There's more than 12 million or 1.2 million
`
`companies based in the U.S. to access their apps and
`
`their systems. You can't do it without Google.
`
`Google even controls the fonts used on
`
`websites. If you don't use a Google font, your website
`
`loads slower. And why does Google do this? Because
`
`Google -- every time you use a Google app, every time
`
`you use Android, Google sucks all the data out, all the
`
`metadata of all the users, and that's the goal.
`
`Now, the only company so far who's trying
`
`to come up with a different operating system to break
`
`this chain is Huawei. Huawei just came out last year.
`
`And it's now coming out with its own operating system.
`
`They can do it because they're doing it primarily with
`
`their Chinese phones.
`
`So Google is a rampant monopolist. An
`
`unabashed monopolist. That's why they have 93 percent
`
`of the search. Worldwide 93 percent of all searches on
`
`the Internet are Google. Why? Because over 80 percent
`
`of all the cell phones doing the searches are Android.
`
`And you can't use Android unless you're tied in with
`
`Google. So it's a problem.
`
`You know, you may have heard Elizabeth
`
`Warren talk about it. Other people talk about it.
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`Google is now almost a trillion-dollar company and
`
`probably will be a two-trillion-dollar company within
`
`three or four years unless somebody does something about
`
`it.
`
`So why do I tell you all this? So tiny
`
`little CyWee who invented, unquestionably first,
`
`invented sensor fusion software and sensor fusion
`
`applicability to a cell phone. Android, Google, saw,
`
`Wow, that is really cool. That is something that all of
`
`their customers wanted. All the -- when I say
`
`"customers", all the people who used Android got it for
`
`free all the time. They wanted sensor fusion
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`functionality.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`So years after CyWee, Android comes out
`
`with a sensor fusion algorithm. Now the sensor fusion
`
`algorithm is not the only part of CyWee's patents. You
`
`have to have the gyroscope, the magnetometer. CyWee
`
`claimed the entire system to the phone with all the
`
`hardware components. But the key to the hardware
`
`components is the sensor fusion algorithm.
`
`And so when we sued Samsung, LG, Huawei,
`
`ZTE, all these companies, one of the key elements within
`
`those lawsuits for patent infringement, in addition to
`
`the phone, the housing, the sensors, the accelerometer,
`
`the gyroscope, one of the parts of the claims is the
`
`
`
`16
`
`algorithm that runs that system. And so that implicated
`
`Google.
`
`So now to leap forward to sort of a segue.
`
`That's the background of the patent campaign. They have
`
`to step aside. In 2011, since you are alive and in
`
`Texas and a lawyer, you know that the Eastern District
`
`of Texas became a hot bed of patent litigation because
`
`you could get a -- get to trial. It used to be seven or
`
`eight months and then it stretched out to two-and-a-half
`
`years. But, anyway, it's a hot bed of patent
`
`litigation. And there were lot of people filing patent
`
`lawsuits, and they're very expensive to defend. There
`
`were some abuses in the system.
`
`But more importantly than that, there were
`
`also -- we were finding out that some of the big
`
`economic monopolists -- Facebook, 98 percent of the
`
`market share for social media; Google, 93 percent of
`
`search; and Android, 80-plus percent of cell phones.
`
`Microsoft almost owns the operating system for The
`
`Cloud. Them and Amazon web search owns The Cloud --
`
`they also had another fear. And that fear was what an
`
`economic monopolist fears is a patent monopoly because
`
`that's the only thing that can stop them. If somebody
`
`comes up with a better algorithm, Google is out of
`
`business. If someone comes up with a better way to
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`access The Cloud, Microsoft's 100-billion cloud business
`
`is gone.
`
`So what they decided to do is they decided
`
`to go to Congress because they can buy anything they
`
`want. They go to Congress and they ask Congress to pass
`
`this thing called the America Invents Act. And what the
`
`America Invents Act did is it said, if you get sued for
`
`patent infringement or, frankly, even if you don't, if
`
`there's a patent out there you see that you don't like,
`
`you can go to a brand-new procedure at the patent office
`
`called patent trial and appeal board before three
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`judges.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`They're called administrative patent
`
`judges. They're not confirmed by the Senate. They're
`
`just hired by the patent office. And you can attack the
`
`patents on one ground and one ground only, validity.
`
`And the validity is -- in other words, if you can show
`
`that someone else had invented the invention before,
`
`through showing anticipating art or obvious art -- in
`
`other words, they go out and they try to find other
`
`articles or patents or whatever to show that someone
`
`else invented it first, the PTAB judges will look at
`
`that evidence and that's the only thing they look at.
`
`They don't look at damages. They don't look at
`
`infringements. They don't look at anything. They only
`
`
`
`18
`
`look at whether or not the patent is valid. And if the
`
`patent is not valid, they kill the patent and patent is
`
`dead for all time.
`
`Now, who -- now that they have a system to
`
`avoid the courts to avoid Article III judges, avoid
`
`juries, avoid all that, the next step in the process is
`
`they have to have the executioners, the administrative
`
`patent judges. So what happens is --
`
`Unbelievably, the head of patent strategy
`
`at Google, a woman named Michelle Lee, magically becomes
`
`the director of the patent office. She is put in charge
`
`of hiring all these administrative patent judges. She's
`
`in charge of doing the regulations on how these
`
`administrative patent judges are going to handle these
`
`invalidation proceedings. The head of patent strategy
`
`at Google. After tens of millions of dollars of
`
`lobbying by Google and their other economic monopolists,
`
`suddenly the head infringers of the world become the
`
`head at the patent office.
`
`And so they go out and they, basically,
`
`recruit these administrative patent judges who are not
`
`confirmed by the Senate. They're not subject to code of
`
`judicial conduct. They're not -- they have no ethical
`
`rules that apply to them at all. They go out and they,
`
`basically, hire senior associates and junior partners
`
`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
`
`
`
`19
`
`from big law firms that have been representing Google
`
`and Facebook and Microsoft and these other companies.
`
`Some of them, they basically rented out from these law
`
`firms. They would only go and come in to be
`
`administrative patent judges for two or three years,
`
`then they go back to representing the big infringers.
`
`So this was an execution. And so --
`
`again, these companies are not afraid of bad patents
`
`because bad patents they can get rid of for nuisance
`
`value. They're afraid of the good patents. So they
`
`hire all these executioners called administrative patent
`
`judges. Hired by Michelle Lee, former head of patent
`
`strategy at Google. And then she goes one step further.
`
`When they set up the procedures when you
`
`try to invalidate a patent in district court with an
`
`Article III judge, your patent is presumed to be valid
`
`because it was issued by the patent office. You pay the
`
`filing fee. You went through a prosecution. It's
`
`presumed to be valid. At the IPR's -- these are called
`
`Inter partes reviews. These are the proceedings at the
`
`PTAB -- your patent is not presumed valid. There's no
`
`presumption of validity.
`
`At the district court case in front of an
`
`Article III judge and a jury, the standards to
`
`invalidate a patent is clear and convincing evidence.
`
`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
`
`
`
`20
`
`Well, they decide the standard at the PTAB is going to
`
`be preponderance of the evidence.
`
`So here's a patent. You got a patent.
`
`You've got investors. You built a business. The
`
`business is getting big enough to threaten Google or
`
`Facebook or whoever. Got millions of dollars invested.
`
`You have all your little employees, your 80 or 100
`
`employees. And they can take your patent, put it in
`
`these IPRs heard by judges who used to represent the
`
`people who are attacking your patent. No jury. No
`
`Article III judge. No preponderance of the evidence.
`
`No presumption of validity. And surprise, surprise.
`
`Whereas patents in district courts are invalidated at a
`
`rate of about 24 percent. Patents in the PTAB are
`
`invalidated at a rate of about 80 percent.
`
`So how do you get -- so basically to
`
`believe that this is not a rigged game, you have to
`
`believe that the only patents that ever get enforced are
`
`patents that are no good and that people -- the only
`
`ones that want to go out and spend millions of dollars
`
`on patent litigation and try to enforce their patents
`
`are people with bad patents. 80 percent kill rate. And
`
`for Google, it's even higher than 80 percent.
`
`So there is a huge incentive to avoid, if
`
`you can, IPRs. I represent universities and we've
`
`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
`
`
`
`21
`
`claimed sovereign immunity from the process for
`
`university. That's in front of the Supreme Court now.
`
`But so that's -- that is the context.
`
`Now, one thing that is in the IPR statute
`
`that says there's no -- by the way, there's no limit to
`
`how many IPRs somebody can file either. So there's some
`
`patent families that have 125 IPRs filed against them.
`
`And remember, the patentee, the owner of the patent,
`
`they can't win. They can't get damages. They can't get
`
`infringement. The only thing they can do is not lose
`
`their patent. And then they can go out and file another
`
`IPR or they can get a friend to file an IPR or they can
`
`get a business association to file an IPR. There's no
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`limit.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`But the one limit they did put on it is
`
`they said, if you file an IPR, you're under a legal duty
`
`to disclose who will benefit from you filing this IPR.
`
`Who is your -- who are your real parties in interest?
`
`And if a real -- so -- and it's an
`
`affirmative duty to disclose the real parties in
`
`interest. And real parties in interest are anybody
`
`who's participating in the IPR behind the scenes,
`
`anybody who would benefit from the IPR invalidating the
`
`patent who is in privity with the person by contract or
`
`otherwise with the person who is filing the IPR which is
`
`
`
`22
`
`called the petitioner. But it's an affirmative duty to
`
`disclose.
`
`There is no need for discovery in the
`
`PTAB. There's not supposed to be any need for it
`
`because this is supposed to be all voluntarily
`
`disclosed. And the other thing is, if you sue someone
`
`like Google or someone else for infringement, they have
`
`one year from the date they're served with a complaint
`
`to file an IPR. Because what they didn't want to have
`
`happen was have people file an IPR and they get right up
`
`to the eve of trial and then they run and file an IPR
`
`and stay the trial. And that's -- at least they viewed
`
`that as being a little bit over the top unfair. So you
`
`have one year -- not only do you have one year to file
`
`from the date you're sued, you have one year from the
`
`date any other IPR, real party in interest. Any time
`
`within one year.
`
`So CyWee files these cases. And we didn't
`
`know any of this at the time. We filed the cases in
`
`2018. And almost immediately -- we did not know this --
`
`Google, even though they're not sued, they haven't been
`
`put on notice of suit, no letters, nothing. Google --
`
`we find out later -- joined Samsung, Huawei, and LG in a
`
`joint defense agreement. And another agreement which
`
`they call a common interest agreement.
`
`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
`
`
`
`23
`
`Now, it's not really a joint defense
`
`agreement because Google is not being sued. So they're
`
`not jointly defending themselves because they haven't
`
`been sued. The only people who have been sued were
`
`Huawei, Samsung, LG, ZTE, and Motorola. And we're not
`
`sure who all was in this group. But when Google filed,
`
`you know, they filed their IPR, they did not list LG,
`
`Samsung, ZTE, or any of these companies except Huawei as
`
`real a party in interest.
`
`And it's interesting that they named
`
`Huawei because Huawei was not time-barred. Because they
`
`filed on the day before the one-year anniversary of the
`
`Huawei suit. So they named Huawei. Did not name LG.
`
`Did not name Samsung. And we didn't know this.
`
`Well -- so Samsung moves to stay their
`
`case based upon the Google IPR. Everybody moves to stay
`
`their case based upon the Google IPR. And we were about
`
`to win the Samsung case. We had already won every
`
`preliminary motion. And I think what happened was -- I
`
`don't know this. It's one of the things that I want to
`
`find out -- is Google waited to file their IPR to see if
`
`we won claims construction or lost. We won. To see if
`
`we won a motion to dismiss our motion for summary
`
`judgment. We won. And they thought that maybe they
`
`wouldn't have to do it if we lost those motions in the
`
`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
`
`
`
`24
`
`Samsung case. They would haven't to do it. They
`
`wouldn't have to go through the trouble. But we won all
`
`those motions. And we're getting ready to go to trial.
`
`We're less than 90 days of trial.
`
`So they name Huawei, but they don't name
`
`anybody else. They don't disclose to the PTAB they have
`
`joint interest agreements -- joint common interest
`
`agreements. They don't disclose to the PTAB they have
`
`any of these agreements at all.
`
`And we ask them in a letter, Why did you
`
`name Huawei as a real party in interest and not name
`
`anybody else? Because we knew all these other companies
`
`were Android, you know. Huawei is Android, too. So we
`
`were wondering why didn't you name these other people?
`
`And they wrote us a letter and they said,
`
`Well, we named Huawei because Huawei makes one of the
`
`phones for Google. One of the pixel phones for Google
`
`that you sued us on. Because we had recently sued
`
`Google. Okay. Well, they named Huawei because they
`
`make a phone for Google. That's accused in the lawsuit.
`
`THE COURT: Where was that lawsuit filed?
`
`MR. SHORE: Seattle, I think.
`
`MS. AMSTUTZ: Delaware.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. SHORE: Now, the other cases -- the
`
`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
`
`
`
`25
`
`Samsung case, they were jointly defending, was filed in
`
`Marshall, Texas. The Huawei case, they were jointly
`
`defending, was filed in Marshall, Texas. ZTE, one of
`
`the members of their joint defense group is based in
`
`Plano, Texas. Huawei USA is based in Dallas, Texas.
`
`That's in our papers. So there's lots of Texas
`
`connections.
`
`And, of course, one of the reasons why we
`
`believe they filed these cases, their IPR, is they were
`
`seeking to stay the Samsung case which was getting ready
`
`to go to trial. They didn't want that case going to
`
`trial. We don't know this. We think Samsung had
`
`demanded indemnity from them. And so they were trying
`
`to avoid that indemnity by hijacking the Samsung case in
`
`Texas and the Huawei case in Texas by filing these IPRs.
`
`Now, in order to get their cases stayed,
`
`these other defendants, Samsung, ZTE -- ZTE filed their
`
`own IPR. But Huawei, Samsung, and LG sought to join the
`
`Google IPR because they -- that's what they believed
`
`they had to do to get their cases stayed. So they filed
`
`motions to join the Google IPR.
`
`When LG filed its motion to join the
`
`Google IPR, they put down in their joinder motion that
`
`they were a real party in interest. Well, if you can
`
`image, we went, Oh, my, God. Then if they're a real
`
`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
`
`
`
`26
`
`party in interest, then this IPR is time-barred because
`
`they filed it more than a year after LG was sued. And
`
`-- so we asked the LG lawyer, Why did you --
`
`You know, we took his -- we were actually
`
`given the ability to take his deposition by the PTAB.
`
`And the PTAB -- so we took his deposition and he
`
`basically gave some excuses that were laughable. And
`
`then we realized that LG makes at least one, maybe two,
`
`of the phones that are accused in the Google case. We
`
`checked with FCC. The FCC registration for those Google
`
`phones came back to LG.
`
`So they didn't tell us that LG --
`
`remember, they said they named Huawei as a real party in
`
`interest because Huawei made one of the phones. LG
`
`makes at least one of the phones. They didn't tell us
`
`because they knew if they told us, they would have been
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`time-barred.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Well, by this time, by the time LG seeks
`
`to join the IPR, the deadline for discovery in the IPR
`
`is over. And remember, discovery in IPRs is very
`
`limited because there's only one issue, validity. And
`
`when we had the hearing asking for the discovery from
`
`PTAB, they said, Hey, you know, we just found this out.
`
`And what they basically said was,