1
`
`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
`
`
`
`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,
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
