throbber
1
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT ) Docket No. W 18-CA-207 ADA
`MANAGEMENT, LLC
`)
` )
`vs.
` ) Waco, Texas
` )
`DISH NETWORK, LLC
`) April 26, 2019
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Mr. Benjamin R. Johnson
`Mr. Aakash S. Parekh
`Mr. Jeffrey G. Toler
`Toler Law Group
`8500 Bluffstone Cove, Suite A201
`Austin, Texas 78759
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Mr. G. Hopkins Guy, III
`Baker Botts
`1001 Page Mill Road,
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Mr. Ali Dhanani
`Baker Botts
`One Shell Plaza
`910 Louisiana Street
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Mr. John P. Palmer
`Naman Howell Smith & Lee
`P.O. Box 1470
`Waco, Texas 76703
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`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
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`2
`
`THE CLERK: The Court calls: Waco case
`18-CV-207, Multimedia Content Management, LLC vs. DISH
`Network, for Markman hearing.
`THE COURT: Counsel, if you all would announce,
`
`please.
`
`MR. JOHNSON: Ben Johnson with Aakash Parekh and
`Jeff Toler for Plaintiff Multimedia, LLC, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Mr. Johnson, are you going to be
`doing the majority of the speaking?
`MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay. Great. Good morning.
`MR. GUY: Good morning, your Honor.
`Guy Hopkins with Baker Botts for DISH Network,
`LLC. With me is Thomas Carter, Ali Dhanani and Brad
`Bowling from my firm. And also here with us is Jim Hanft
`and Larry Katzin. Larry Katzin is vice-president and
`associate general counsel. Mr. Hanft is director of
`intellectual property. And also with us is John Palmer.
`THE COURT: Well, let me say, I always appreciate
`it when folks who ask their clients show up. I think it's
`important that the clients see and grade may papers and
`grade your papers and, though, I have no doubts there on
`behalf of Baker Botts. And so, I appreciate anyone taking
`the time to come to court and participating.
`I can't remember, though, did we say we were
`
`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
`
`09:16:45
`
`09:16:49
`
`09:16:56
`
`09:16:57
`
`09:16:59
`
`09:17:01
`
`09:17:04
`
`09:17:08
`
`09:17:10
`
`09:17:11
`
`09:17:12
`
`09:17:13
`
`09:17:14
`
`09:17:17
`
`09:17:24
`
`09:17:29
`
`09:17:34
`
`09:17:38
`
`09:17:42
`
`09:17:44
`
`09:17:50
`
`09:17:55
`
`09:17:59
`
`09:18:02
`
`09:18:05
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`3
`
`going to do a tutorial in this case or not? I just don't
`remember.
`MR. GUY: Your Honor, I believe you commented
`that having gone through the motion to dismiss, that you
`felt that there was no need for a tutorial. We'd be happy
`to go through that, if you'd like, but I believe that as
`we take up the terms, if you'd like, we would also give a
`brief introduction of the technology relevant to that
`term.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. Let's do it that way. That's
`what I thought I said and -- so everyone knows, I've
`carefully gone through everything and let me go on record.
`A couple of y'all were -- yesterday, I was at an
`intellectual property law association meeting here and I
`talked about it.
`Baker Botts provided me with a audio version of
`their Markman briefing. I'm going to make a couple of
`comments about that. Number one, I can't tell you how
`much I appreciate it. It was exceptionally helpful. I
`listened to everything that was submitted. Some of the
`stuff I'm saying just publicly because I'm going to
`actually then -- I think I'm gong to actually enter an
`order.
`
`I was so satisfied with the manner in which the
`audio files were provided to me. I have a new enough
`
`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
`
`09:18:09
`
`09:18:12
`
`09:18:13
`
`09:18:15
`
`09:18:18
`
`09:18:22
`
`09:18:24
`
`09:18:28
`
`09:18:31
`
`09:18:31
`
`09:18:33
`
`09:18:38
`
`09:18:41
`
`09:18:45
`
`09:18:48
`
`09:18:51
`
`09:18:56
`
`09:19:00
`
`09:19:04
`
`09:19:12
`
`09:19:15
`
`09:19:18
`
`09:19:20
`
`09:19:20
`
`09:19:23
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`4
`
`truck that I don't have a CD player, so I couldn't play
`the CD. But I also have a young law clerks who are
`competent enough that they will take what you gave me and
`put it on Dropbox. So I was able to put it on my phone
`and my iPad and listen to it on the drive up because I am
`-- I can use Bluetooth, which still amazes me. But I
`listen to everything that you all submitted.
`And, frankly, it helped both sides because just
`having -- just hearing, you know, y'all's version made it
`much better. It made me -- helped me understand both
`sides' arguments much better, even though yours was, in
`many ways, in the negative of, you know, while they're
`long, it was still very helpful to help me go through it.
`So I was so impressed by what you submitted that
`I believe I'm going to make -- in the future, I'm going to
`make it mandatory for everyone to submit audio versions of
`any -- before I have a Markman hearing. I want you to
`know that it was -- for -- at least for me, it was
`exceptionally helpful, and wanted to say thank you for
`doing it.
`MR. GUY: Thank you, your Honor.
`I've already gotten a number of requests for
`exactly the format you'd like. So if you'd like to say on
`the record that you want it on a jump drive for your
`truck, then that would be very helpful for everybody now.
`
`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
`
`09:19:29
`
`09:19:31
`
`09:19:35
`
`09:19:38
`
`09:19:42
`
`09:19:45
`
`09:19:49
`
`09:19:51
`
`09:19:55
`
`09:20:00
`
`09:20:06
`
`09:20:10
`
`09:20:13
`
`09:20:17
`
`09:20:22
`
`09:20:24
`
`09:20:27
`
`09:20:31
`
`09:20:33
`
`09:20:37
`
`09:20:37
`
`09:20:38
`
`09:20:41
`
`09:20:43
`
`09:20:46
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`5
`
`THE COURT: Jump drive on the truck. Also, I
`will say this on the record and I'm going to put this in
`the order. The one thing I learned from listening to your
`version, what I don't need is case citations. You know, I
`have the case citations in the written briefs, and so, it
`only -- it takes up audio time that's unnecessary for the
`entire case. I would be fine if you made a point or had a
`quote and then, just said, see case citation, because I
`have the written briefs and have reviewed them.
`And so -- and let me add, I think I'm going to
`make it mandatory for all Markman hearings, but that
`doesn't mean that I would not invite it for when you all
`have your motions in limine, when you all have your
`Daubert, whatever you wanted to submit, you know, with my
`current lifestyle where I have hours. And I'm going to
`say this, Mr. Palmer. I don't mean it to come out the way
`it does. I have many hours in Waco where I don't have a
`lot to do. And I love being in Waco, so that comes out
`not the way I mean it, but I fill those hours usually by
`running, or walking, or doing something where I can be
`listening to these things, and I prefer to do that.
`So I have hours where I'm listening to things and
`this is -- it's very -- a very good use of my time. So I
`was very pleased with what you all did. I think it
`benefitted both parties and it was terrific. So thank 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
`
`09:20:48
`
`09:20:51
`
`09:20:53
`
`09:20:55
`
`09:21:01
`
`09:21:06
`
`09:21:10
`
`09:21:15
`
`09:21:18
`
`09:21:21
`
`09:21:24
`
`09:21:30
`
`09:21:34
`
`09:21:37
`
`09:21:41
`
`09:21:48
`
`09:21:50
`
`09:21:53
`
`09:21:58
`
`09:22:02
`
`09:22:06
`
`09:22:09
`
`09:22:13
`
`09:22:18
`
`09:22:21
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`6
`
`for doing that. I really appreciate it.
`And you were the first -- y'all were the first
`folks who -- in a patent case who had done it, and so I
`was -- y'all were the guinea pigs because I thought, well,
`you know, if I listen to it and it's not very helpful, I
`won't keep asking you to do it. But to the contrary, I
`think it was a great asset to the Court.
`So having said all of that, the way I intend to
`move forward today is obviously -- and I'll start with
`disputed term No. 1, which is "to generate controller
`instructions." I am agnostic as to who goes first on each
`of these. If y'all haven't talked about it, I'm happy for
`the plaintiff or defendant to go first. There is no time
`limit on any of the claims. We're going to go back and
`forth on each claim term until I'm satisfied that I know
`what I want to do on it.
`And the only time limit is when I cry uncle and
`say, okay, I think that's all I can absorb. But -- so it
`doesn't matter which order you all go. And there's no
`advantage to going first or last. But I do want it claim
`term by claim term, and once I'm satisfied with one, then
`we'll move on to the next one.
`So with that being said, I invite whichever party
`wants to start with the "to generate controller
`instructions" to go.
`
`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
`
`09:22:27
`
`09:22:30
`
`09:22:32
`
`09:22:37
`
`09:22:39
`
`09:22:41
`
`09:22:44
`
`09:22:46
`
`09:22:50
`
`09:22:59
`
`09:23:05
`
`09:23:08
`
`09:23:11
`
`09:23:15
`
`09:23:18
`
`09:23:23
`
`09:23:26
`
`09:23:29
`
`09:23:32
`
`09:23:35
`
`09:23:40
`
`09:23:44
`
`09:23:45
`
`09:23:48
`
`09:23:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`7
`
`MR. GUY: A little usual, but I'd be happy to
`begin as the defendant.
`MR. JOHNSON: Just a second. Your Honor, we have
`a couple of demonstratives here that have, for example,
`claim 1 and claim 1 blown up large as well as the main
`figure in our patent. Would that be helpful to set these
`over here?
`THE COURT: It would be super helpful to me.
`MR. GUY: Your Honor, we've agreed to alternate
`who goes first. I'll start first, then he'll go first and
`last.
`
`THE COURT: Let me make kind of a generic comment
`on some of these at least and we'll get there. But, for
`example, on No. 2, this is pervasive through the entire
`thing. You know, we have a claim term that says a
`controller node, and each one of you want me to give a
`long sentence of what controller node means. I'm a little
`concerned about that just generically.
`So I want you to know that's overall my general
`way of looking at things is, for better or worse, I'm a
`government major, and I know what a controller node is and
`I figure -- and so, that's just a general comment as
`you're going through, both of you, trying to explain to me
`why I need to say so much in a construction on a couple of
`these terms that say so little. You might keep that in
`
`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
`
`09:23:56
`
`09:23:59
`
`09:24:00
`
`09:24:01
`
`09:24:05
`
`09:24:09
`
`09:24:12
`
`09:24:13
`
`09:24:46
`
`09:24:49
`
`09:24:51
`
`09:24:51
`
`09:24:58
`
`09:25:05
`
`09:25:10
`
`09:25:14
`
`09:25:18
`
`09:25:22
`
`09:25:27
`
`09:25:30
`
`09:25:37
`
`09:25:41
`
`09:25:46
`
`09:25:49
`
`09:25:52
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`8
`
`mind.
`
`Yes, sir.
`MR. JOHNSON: Can you see these at all, your
`Honor? They won't sit on the chairs. They're a little
`too slidy.
`THE COURT: I can't, but let's do this.
`MR. PALMER: Maybe if we do this, your Honor.
`Maybe if we stick them here against this screen?
`THE COURT: That would be great. In fact, that's
`even more helpful because I can see it at that angle much
`better. That's perfect.
`Yes, sir. I've interrupted you twice and I
`apologize.
`MR. GUY: Not at all. Let me begin.
`As an opening comment, see if I can go to full
`screen here. There we go. Both of the patents in this
`case use the same title, same priority date, same
`specification, same drawing to the person of ordinary
`skill in the art will be commenting or depending would be
`as of the same date. Also, to the extent that things
`occur in the prosecution history of the 468 patent, it
`certainly applies to the continuation, as well.
`So in many cases, I'm not going to make much of a
`distinction between the two. We'll be blurring the two
`together. That was on page 2.
`
`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
`
`09:25:56
`
`09:25:57
`
`09:25:58
`
`09:25:59
`
`09:26:02
`
`09:26:02
`
`09:26:06
`
`09:26:08
`
`09:26:10
`
`09:26:12
`
`09:26:15
`
`09:26:46
`
`09:26:47
`
`09:26:48
`
`09:26:54
`
`09:27:00
`
`09:27:05
`
`09:27:09
`
`09:27:14
`
`09:27:18
`
`09:27:21
`
`09:27:25
`
`09:27:28
`
`09:27:30
`
`09:27:34
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`9
`
`Now, I know the Court wants me to pull out the
`slide numbers, and I've practiced, I've tried to do that.
`But hopefully the Court will remind me, from time to time,
`when I make that mistake. So, for the record, we're
`beginning DISH 4 --
`THE COURT: The only time I care if you say the
`slide number is if you were telling me about something on
`it, referring to a slide itself. When I get in the back
`and someone says, you see here on the slide, it says this,
`if they don't say the slide number, history will forget
`which slide you're talking about. But I'll also be paying
`pretty close attention.
`MR. GUY: Well, let's begin with term No. 1, "to
`generate controller instruction" term. What we've done is
`provide at page 4 of our slides is the -- in yellow and
`you'll see this throughout our graphics, the antecedent
`basis is provided, followed by each other occurrence of
`that term in the claim. And in general, we have provided
`both the system claim and the method claim. I believe
`that the same format was followed in the 925 patent, which
`there's a system claim followed by a method claim.
`In addition, at slide 5, we provide side-by-side
`comparisons for the Court in basically the same format
`that we have in our briefing in order to track that to
`allow the Court to do a side-by-side construction.
`
`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
`
`09:27:35
`
`09:27:38
`
`09:27:43
`
`09:27:46
`
`09:27:50
`
`09:27:52
`
`09:27:58
`
`09:28:01
`
`09:28:06
`
`09:28:08
`
`09:28:12
`
`09:28:16
`
`09:28:19
`
`09:28:22
`
`09:28:28
`
`09:28:34
`
`09:28:37
`
`09:28:40
`
`09:28:44
`
`09:28:47
`
`09:28:53
`
`09:28:56
`
`09:29:02
`
`09:29:07
`
`09:29:10
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`10
`
`THE COURT: And explain to me why I need to
`change the word "generate" to "create or bring."
`MR. GUY: Judge, the point of construction is to
`actually construe the term within its plain meaning or
`customary meaning, and that is typically done. So in this
`situation, defining the term with a term itself, we find,
`is unhelpful. I don't think there's any dispute -- and if
`you'll look at their brief and -- reply brief on page 2,
`they said they're willing to accept that construction. So
`we believe that that's an important point.
`More specific is the fact that the word
`"generate" is a bit ambiguous within the specification.
`The word "generate" means that it is created -- and this
`will be with respect to a controller node. It is created
`or brought into being for its first time, comes into
`existence for the first time at the controller node. It's
`then sent from that node.
`It's actually aspect of the invention in that the
`controller instructions are not really just generated and
`passed from place to place. So it is an important point
`of construction because the way in which generate
`controller instructions is used in the claim is with
`respect to the controller node.
`Take, for example, either claim 1 or claim 23 in
`slide 4, it says, controller node comprising a first
`
`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
`
`09:29:13
`
`09:29:15
`
`09:29:20
`
`09:29:23
`
`09:29:26
`
`09:29:32
`
`09:29:36
`
`09:29:39
`
`09:29:43
`
`09:29:45
`
`09:29:49
`
`09:29:53
`
`09:29:57
`
`09:30:01
`
`09:30:05
`
`09:30:10
`
`09:30:14
`
`09:30:15
`
`09:30:21
`
`09:30:26
`
`09:30:29
`
`09:30:32
`
`09:30:35
`
`09:30:38
`
`09:30:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`11
`
`processor configured to generate controller instructions.
`So it is a controller node with the process that's
`configured to generate those instructions. Similarly in
`the method claim, it says generating by a controller node
`coupled to the service provider network controller
`instructions.
`So it is an important point of defining the word
`"generate," as we've done, as creating or bringing into
`being -- I don't think there's any controversy about that
`meaning -- that, in fact, it fits within the claim itself
`as to where that occurs. So generate could be, you know,
`I issue something. That could be one definition that a
`juror might consider.
`THE COURT: Or transmit.
`MR. GUY: But that's too broad in this case.
`THE COURT: Is the fuss at all -- is there an
`issue of whether or not it also could be transmit?
`MR. GUY: Yes. That is exactly the issue. To
`generate could mean to issue or transmit, and we want to
`make sure that it's actually created at that node. I
`think the parties both agree to that.
`THE COURT: And so, your concept which you said
`the plaintiffs agree to is, you need to define generate so
`that the jury would understand that it means create and
`does not mean transmit.
`
`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
`
`09:30:49
`
`09:30:53
`
`09:30:57
`
`09:31:00
`
`09:31:04
`
`09:31:10
`
`09:31:11
`
`09:31:13
`
`09:31:17
`
`09:31:19
`
`09:31:24
`
`09:31:29
`
`09:31:34
`
`09:31:35
`
`09:31:39
`
`09:31:42
`
`09:31:45
`
`09:31:48
`
`09:31:53
`
`09:31:57
`
`09:32:01
`
`09:32:02
`
`09:32:06
`
`09:32:11
`
`09:32:14
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`12
`
`MR. GUY: Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay. I got that down. Is there --
`I'm being picky here. Is there -- because I'd rather use
`field words than more. But if y'all are fine, I'm not
`going to whine, but it seems to me the word "bringing into
`being" is redundant of creating. But if you all feel that
`you need both.
`I mean, I never know which of your really bright
`people wasn't happy with just "to create" and they decided
`it needed to be both and maybe they're -- I'm sure they're
`brighter than I am. But that seems to be redundant. But
`if you all think it's necessary to have it in there, that
`I'm not opposed to, I guess.
`MR. GUY: Actually, it was shorter than the
`alternative, which I think was in the testimony if we go
`to slide 8. Here, this is their expert. I'll go into the
`declaration in a moment. But here, we've actually
`substantially shortened it to two alternative words in
`order to give a precise meaning to a juror that this means
`that it's brought into being or is created at that point,
`as opposed to the long definition there in paragraph 80,
`which was submitted in the patent owner's preliminary
`response in the IP law.
`So there's not a dispute, really, here at all
`about the meaning of the word "generate": "Whether 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
`
`09:32:16
`
`09:32:16
`
`09:32:19
`
`09:32:27
`
`09:32:31
`
`09:32:35
`
`09:32:40
`
`09:32:44
`
`09:32:49
`
`09:32:53
`
`09:32:57
`
`09:33:00
`
`09:33:04
`
`09:33:07
`
`09:33:10
`
`09:33:17
`
`09:33:23
`
`09:33:27
`
`09:33:31
`
`09:33:34
`
`09:33:39
`
`09:33:42
`
`09:33:46
`
`09:33:48
`
`09:33:52
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`13
`
`verb produce, create, or originate is used to describe the
`meaning of generate, what is required for a complete
`understanding with respect to the recited claims of the
`468 patent is that the processor is performing the action
`of producing, creating, or originating, a controller
`instruction and that the controller instruction did not
`exist prior to being generated by the processor."
`So we have actually done exactly what the Court
`is suggesting here. How can we shorten this up? We
`shorten it up to create or bring into being.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. GUY: Let me move on to the other dispute
`which has to do with what a controller instruction is, and
`there's some dispute about that. I believe their main
`complaint is based upon a misguided view of claim
`differentiation. The controller instruction as stated in
`this claim is one in which there's a determination whether
`to transmit or not transmit a content request from a user
`and the service provider network. And, again, that's as
`concise a definition we would provide of a controller
`instruction.
`What -- I don't think there's a real dispute
`there, either, because later in the selectively transmit
`step, they actually go to something of a similar
`construction about whether or not to transmit or do some
`
`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
`
`09:33:59
`
`09:34:02
`
`09:34:03
`
`09:34:07
`
`09:34:10
`
`09:34:14
`
`09:34:17
`
`09:34:20
`
`09:34:22
`
`09:34:27
`
`09:34:33
`
`09:34:37
`
`09:34:39
`
`09:34:43
`
`09:34:47
`
`09:34:51
`
`09:34:57
`
`09:35:01
`
`09:35:07
`
`09:35:12
`
`09:35:15
`
`09:35:15
`
`09:35:20
`
`09:35:23
`
`09:35:30
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`14
`
`other conduct. So I think we're agreement about what a
`controller instruction is generally.
`Our concise definition there is, whether to
`transmit or not is actually a decision in the controller
`instruction with regard to the content request.
`THE COURT: I'll show my technical ignorance
`here. Is there a difference between -- that matters
`between computer-executable instructions and -- which you
`have, and computer processor-executable instructions? Is
`that a meaningful difference?
`MR. GUY: You know, I haven't highlighted that,
`your Honor. You see in one claim, they actually call out
`the processor. So in claim 1 on our slide 4 here, you see
`a first processor is actually doing the generating of the
`controller instructions. And in the second one, it leaves
`it a bit open. You know, we're happy with the processor
`executable instructions. You know, we don't see a
`difference there.
`THE COURT: Okay. Do you?
`MR. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor. I was going to
`ask, if you have questions like that, would you prefer
`that I pop up or wait for Mr. --
`THE COURT: That's fine.
`MR. JOHNSON: Okay. There's no difference,
`either. We're happy with that.
`
`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
`
`09:35:32
`
`09:35:37
`
`09:35:40
`
`09:35:43
`
`09:35:47
`
`09:35:49
`
`09:35:53
`
`09:35:59
`
`09:36:04
`
`09:36:08
`
`09:36:12
`
`09:36:14
`
`09:36:17
`
`09:36:21
`
`09:36:25
`
`09:36:31
`
`09:36:37
`
`09:36:41
`
`09:36:41
`
`09:36:43
`
`09:36:44
`
`09:36:47
`
`09:36:48
`
`09:36:49
`
`09:36:51
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`15
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to add to -- so
`far, to the defendant's processor computer -- okay. And
`if you can continue. I'm sorry.
`MR. GUY: All right. Let me go on to one of the
`things that I think will be a continuing theme in this
`claim construction, at least from our perspective, and
`that is that there were roughly three events that occurred
`which I believe inform the Court as to what the proper
`construction is.
`The first is that there was a prosecution history
`for the specification itself, which we consider there's no
`dispute that that's intrinsic evidence. In a number of
`cases, they made fairly unequivocal statements, were
`absolutely clear, unequivocal statements in the
`prosecution history, and that resulted in our belief in a
`disclaimer of the claim scope, and we're entitled to
`present that to the Court and ask the Court construe the
`term in accordance with that disclaimer.
`What also happened in this case in about 2017 in
`the fall was, there was a petition filed by Unified
`Patents, not us, and an IPR petition, and they challenged
`that petition and they were successful. And so, there
`were two events there. One of them was the argument made
`by MCM in their briefing as well as a declaration by the
`-- by their expert. And that becomes intrinsic 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
`
`09:36:52
`
`09:36:56
`
`09:37:01
`
`09:37:03
`
`09:37:08
`
`09:37:12
`
`09:37:15
`
`09:37:18
`
`09:37:22
`
`09:37:24
`
`09:37:27
`
`09:37:29
`
`09:37:32
`
`09:37:37
`
`09:37:39
`
`09:37:43
`
`09:37:45
`
`09:37:48
`
`09:37:51
`
`09:37:57
`
`09:38:01
`
`09:38:06
`
`09:38:09
`
`09:38:12
`
`09:38:20
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`16
`
`as well, because it is under oath, it was for the purpose
`of defeating a claim of invalidity for which they were
`successful, and it has become part of the public record of
`the patent.
`The third thing is that there was a deposition
`three weeks ago in which that same expert was deposed on
`his December 2017 declaration. It is important for the
`Court to note that the 2017 declaration was what was
`submitted to this court in this claim construction, not a
`new declaration. So it is our view that that is intrinsic
`evidence in the case because they are relying upon an
`intrinsic record that was created in the IPR, and then,
`they, again, rely on that, and nothing else, for claim
`construction.
`At slide 7, we provide the brief description of
`that. It was a 91-page declaration, and 20 pages of it
`were dedicated to claim construction issues. They made
`arguments on many of the same terms that we are in dispute
`today. So you'll see us again to talk about prosecution
`history in the spec. The fast way of talking about it is,
`we'll call it the IPR POPR, which is -- stands for
`P-O-P-R, which is the patent owner's preliminary response.
`You'll see us introducing that in our slide 7.
`So in this situation, our case law, at slide 9,
`as to why a declaration such as this becomes part of 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
`
`09:38:24
`
`09:38:28
`
`09:38:32
`
`09:38:34
`
`09:38:34
`
`09:38:38
`
`09:38:41
`
`09:38:48
`
`09:38:53
`
`09:38:59
`
`09:39:03
`
`09:39:09
`
`09:39:13
`
`09:39:17
`
`09:39:18
`
`09:39:23
`
`09:39:28
`
`09:39:31
`
`09:39:38
`
`09:39:41
`
`09:39:47
`
`09:39:52
`
`09:39:57
`
`09:40:02
`
`09:40:07
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`17
`
`intrinsic record and certainly can be relied upon. In the
`deposition, at slide 10, we provide that which is also
`provided in our reply regarding what generate meant. We
`then asked the expert, two weeks ago, their MCM's expert,
`the questions specifically about the controller
`instructions.
`Question: "Is it your understanding that in the
`context of claim 1, that the controller instructions in
`that case were to determine whether to transmit or not
`transmit a content request?" Then three asterisks there
`that was a deleted instruction, objection, and the answer
`was, "Generally, I would say yes." And that was the
`complete answer.
`So we believe that we have the proper
`construction, that the result here is quite clear that
`there really is no dispute as to what that is. Their
`expert has agreed with us basically.
`Now, if I can address their issue briefly on
`dependent claims. Before we get into whether or not a
`dependent claim under a claim differentiation situation
`should control and that we are offering a construction
`that's too narrow, it's important to recognize what the
`law is under Phillips:
`The presence of a dependent claim that adds a
`particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that 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
`
`09:40:10
`
`09:40:17
`
`09:40:20
`
`09:40:28
`
`09:40:34
`
`09:40:38
`
`09:40:40
`
`09:40:43
`
`09:40:46
`
`09:40:50
`
`09:40:57
`
`09:41:00
`
`09:41:04
`
`09:41:04
`
`09:41:09
`
`09:41:16
`
`09:41:19
`
`09:41:25
`
`09:41:30
`
`09:41:34
`
`09:41:39
`
`09:41:43
`
`09:41:48
`
`09:41:51
`
`09:41:53
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`18
`
`limitation in question is not present in the independent
`claim. Now, that means that I shouldn't take a dependent
`claim and then, read that into the broader independent
`claim. I think we all agree with that.
`Some issues are that, however, if a dependent
`claim adds the word "wherein," they are narrowing that.
`But if they add an additional term, such as "comprise,"
`they add an additional term. So that doesn't mean that a
`construction in the independent claim is necessarily
`incorrect if they added something different. It does
`narrow it, but it narrows it by adding additional an
`supplemental element, even if it happens to be under the
`same rubric of what an instruction is, or the instruction
`further comprises or comprises X. I just want to make
`sure that's clear.
`As a result, your Honor, of the combination --
`this is slide 14 for our generate construction. Again,
`you saw how we tried to limit all of the possible
`definitions of generate to merely creating or bringing
`into being to avoid this idea that it's going to be simply
`a retransmitted instruction. We agree that it could be
`processor or computer-executable instruction.
`And then, their expert agreed on the final
`portion of what a controller instruction was, which is to
`determine whether to transmit or not transmit a content
`
`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
`
`09:41:57
`
`09:42:00
`
`09:42:06
`
`09:42:10
`
`09:42:14
`
`09:42:16
`
`09:42:22
`
`09:42:29
`
`09:42:32
`
`09:42:34
`
`09:42:36
`
`09:42:39
`
`09:42:42
`
`09:42:46
`
`09:42:51
`
`09:42:52
`
`09:42:55
`
`09:43:00
`
`09:43:03
`
`09:43:08
`
`09:43:14
`
`09:43:19
`
`09:43:22
`
`09:43:25
`
`09:43:29
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`19
`
`request from a user to a service provider network. And
`there's no further comments unless there are any
`questions.
`THE COURT: Why don't we do this. I'll hear from
`plaintiff's counsel. I'm curious as to why they want to
`include the language that they have in their amended
`construction that starts after the word "instructions,"
`and then, I'll have you respond to why that's not the
`appropriate language.
`MR. GUY: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Counsel.
`MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I want to start at
`slide 16. Actually, first just to get started, you
`mentioned earlier, the possibility of a tutorial. These
`demonstratives that we brought, which you saw at the one
`hearing with the color coding and the mapping of the
`various -- those are included in the slides in this
`presentation so if you want to refer back.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. JOHNSON: So I have on slide 16, a comparison
`of the MCM's construction with DISH's construction,
`color-coded to match -- roughly match up. As you
`mentioned, we had generate to create or bring into being.
`MCM's position generally on that question would mean that
`going from the combination of generate and "excluding
`
`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
`
`09:43:33
`
`09:43:40
`
`09:43:42
`
`09:43:43
`
`09:43:47
`
`09:43:53
`
`09:43:57
`
`09:44:00
`
`09:44:03
`
`09:44:04
`
`09:44:04
`
`09:44:23
`
`09:44:40
`
`09:44:48
`
`09:44:53
`
`09:44:56
`
`09:44:59
`
`09:45:01
`
`09:45:04
`
`09:45:07
`
`09:45:10
`
`09:45:17
`
`09:45:22
`
`09:45:29
`
`09:45:35
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`20
`
`operations in which the controls instructions are only
`transmitted or are relayed" is roughly equivalent to the
`create or bring into being. So the language there in red
`was intended to address this issue of excluding just
`"transmitted or are relayed" instructions.
`So on that first the question that you had on
`that language there, MCM, I believe, would be comfortable
`going with create or bring into being as DISH has
`suggested there. And the same one, computer-executable or
`computer-processor executable.
`THE COURT: So leaving out for purpose of
`argument what would be on the slide 16 of your brief -- of
`your presentation, your argument is that the red is the
`equivalent in your proposed construction of the purple in
`theirs.
`
`MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. Our argument is that --
`THE COURT: It's the matching up of the?
`MR. JOHNSON: The original question of whether --
`of what does generate mean and whether that means create
`or bring into bein

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket