Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3362 Page 13 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 153
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0222
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3363 Page 14 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 154
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0223
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3364 Page 15 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 155
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0224
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3365 Page 16 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 156
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0225
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3366 Page 17 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 157
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0226
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3367 Page 18 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 158
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0227
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3368 Page 19 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 159
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0228
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3369 Page 20 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 160
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0229
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3370 Page 21 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 161
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0230
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3371 Page 22 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 162
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0231
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3372 Page 23 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 163
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0232
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3373 Page 24 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 164
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0233
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3374 Page 25 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 165
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0234
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3375 Page 26 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 166
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0235
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3376 Page 27 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 167
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0236
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3377 Page 28 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 168
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0237
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3378 Page 29 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 169
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0238
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-4 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3379 Page 30 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A, PAGE 170
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0239
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3380 Page 1 of 22
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 171
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0240
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3381 Page 2 of 22
` 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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`BEFORE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, JUDGE PRESIDING
`
`________________________________
` )
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,, )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 18CV1783-CAB-BLM
` )
` vs. )
` ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND )
`YULONG COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, )
` ) FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2019
` Defendants. )
`________________________________)
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC, )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 18CV1784-CAB-BLM
` )
` vs. )
` )
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Co., LTD., )
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO., )
`LTD., and HUAWEI DEVICE USA, )
`INC., )
` Defendants. )
`________________________________)
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 18CV1785-CAB-BLM
` )
` vs. )
` )
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and KYOCERA )
`INTERNATIONAL INC., )
` )
` Defendants. )
`________________________________)
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 18CV1786-CAB-BLM
` vs. )
` )
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC. )
`ZTE (TX) INC. )
` Defendants.)
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 172
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0241
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3382 Page 3 of 22
` 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
`
`________________________________
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,, )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 18CV2864-CAB-BLM
` )
` vs. )
` )
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG )
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A. INC., and )
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH )
`U.S.A., LLC, )
` )
` Defendants. )
`________________________________)
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`STATUS HEARING
`PAGES 1-21
`
`
`
`
`COUNSEL APPEARING:
`For The Plaintiff: Sadaf Raja Abdullah, Esq.
` Steven W. Hartsell, Esq.
` SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
` Thanksgiving Tower
` 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400
` Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`For The Defendants Thomas Nathan Millikan, Esq.
`Coolpad and Yulong: James Young Hurt, Esq.
` PERKINS COIE, LLP
` 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
` San Diego, California 92130
`
`For The Defendants Joanna M. Fuller, Esq.
`Huawei entities: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 12390 El Camino Real
` San Diego, California 92130
`
` Michael Sobolev, Esq.
` FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
` 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
` Redwood City, California 94063
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 173
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0242
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3383 Page 4 of 22
` 3
`
` 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
`
`For The Defendants David L. Witcoff, Esq.
`Kyocera entities: JONES DAY
` 77 West Wacker
` Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`For The Defendants Jiaxiao Zhang, Esq.
`ZTE entities: McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
` 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 250
` Irvine, California 92612
`
` Charles M. McMahon, Esq. (Telephonic)
` McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
` 444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`For The Defendants Joanna M. Fuller, Esq.
`LG entities: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 12390 El Camino Real
` San Diego, California 92130
`
` Stephen A. Marshall, Esq. (Telephonic)
` Michael J. McKeon, Esq. (Telephonic)
` 1000 Maine Avenue, Suite 1000
` Washington, DC 20024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings reported by stenography, transcript produced by
`computer assisted software
`
`
`Mauralee Ramirez, RPR, CSR No. 11674
` Federal Official Court Reporter
` ordertranscript@gmail.com
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 174
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0243
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3384 Page 5 of 22
` 4
`
` 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
`
` San Diego, California; Friday, April 26, 2019; 2:00 p.m.
`(Matter No. 14 called)
`MS. ABDULLAH: Good afternoon, your Honor. Sadef
`Abullah from Skiermont Derby on behalf of plaintiff, BNR.
`MR. HARTSELL: Good afternoon, your Honor. Stephen
`Hartsell also here with Skiermont on behalf of BNR.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`MR. MILLIKEN: Tom Milliken and James Hurt from
`Perkins Coie, your Honor.
`(Matter No. 15 called)
`MS. FULLER: Joanna Fuller here on behalf of Huawei.
`With me is Michael Sobolev.
`(Matter No. 16 called)
`MR. WITCOFF: Good afternoon, your Honor. David
`Witcoff on behalf of the Kyocera defendants.
`(Matter No. 17 called)
`MS. ZHANG: Good afternoon, your Honor. Jiaxiao Zhang
`in person for the ZTE defendants, and on the phone is Charles
`McMahon.
`MR. McMAHON: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`(Matter No. 18 called)
`MS. FULLER: In person is Joanna Fuller. On the
`phone, we have Mr. Michael McKeon and Mr. Steve Marshall.
`THE COURT: Thank you. This is a status to help the
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 175
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0244
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3385 Page 6 of 22
` 5
`
` 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
`
`Court prepare for the claim construction and to address some
`matters that were raised by the parties in your joint claim
`construction hearing statement; as well as, I want to hear on
`the newest case, the '2864 case, with LG. They're not right
`now consolidated into this case and if they want to be, there
`are two new patents in that case. And so while they could be
`added to the existing case, I would probably be looking at
`scheduling a claim construction on any issues raised on those
`two patents at a future date. So why don't we deal with that.
`So in terms of, Ms. Fuller and Mr. Marshall and
`Mr. McKeon, what do you want to do on that?
`MR. McKEON: Good afternoon, your Honor. Mike McKeon
`on behalf of LG. Our preference, your Honor -- as you know, on
`the schedule, we just answered nine days ago, so we're very
`much behind here.
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. McKEON: So our preference, of course, would be
`not to consolidate it and to have a separate track. And of
`course, we recognize that as a practical matter on the patents
`where there's an overlap -- and my understanding is there is an
`overlap on four patents -- your Honor's rulings on those would,
`again, as a practical matter, be held to LG. But what we would
`ask is we would be on a separate track and on the two patents
`that don't overlap, we would have a separate process on those.
`And to the extent there were particular terms in the four
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 176
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0245
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3386 Page 7 of 22
` 6
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`patents where we had the overlap -- or the six patents rather,
`I should say, where we had an overlap, LG would be able to
`raise those terms that impacted us in particular in that
`process that we had.
`So we recommend a separate process, a separate track
`focusing on the two patents and any additional terms that were
`particularly relevant for LG on the sixth patent, and then, of
`course, on the terms that your Honor deals with in the other
`cases, we would recognize that that would be something that we
`would be held to.
`THE COURT: All right. That sounds reasonable.
`Plaintiffs.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Your Honor, we're fine with that
`approach. You know, it's our preference that we not slow down
`the currently pending cases given that there has been some work
`done, so we're fine with LG being on a separate track and with
`a claim construction hearing as what Mr. McKeon just described.
`THE COURT: All right. And I believe you have an ENE
`scheduled.
`MS. ABDULLAH: That's right, your Honor, for the end
`
`of May.
`
`THE COURT: I will talk with Judge Major on that in
`terms of setting a claim construction case management schedule
`in the LG matter separately. And, yes, in terms of the
`three patents, there's three right now that are currently, as I
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 177
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0246
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3387 Page 8 of 22
` 7
`
` 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
`
`understand it, where claim constructions have been submitted,
`the '156, the '862, and the '450. To the extent that the Court
`construes claims in those matters, you would have to give me
`compelling reasons to revisit those claim constructions with
`regard to the LG case. Generally they will be persuasively
`carried over throughout the litigation. However, if there are
`claim terms that you determine that you think are significant
`to your accused devices that are not covered in the
`constructions that I'm dealing with, then, yes, you would be
`able to introduce additional terms to be construed in those
`three patents.
`So we'll go ahead then and I'll leave LG not
`consolidated and we'll get that case on a separate track so the
`four consolidated cases can continue to go forward.
`So then returning to the claim construction, I have
`received your proposed chart and worksheet, and as I understand
`it, there are three patents, again, the '862, the '450, and the
`'156, for which the parties have jointly submitted claims to be
`construed. I did not see any claims offered for the '889, the
`'554, the '842, the '432, and the '435. But that might have to
`do with your indefiniteness issues that are raised sort of as a
`sideshow here.
`MS. ABDULLAH: I'm sorry, your Honor. I think there
`are additional terms actually. I believe the '889 and '554 as
`well as the '435, and then for the '842, there's at least one
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 178
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0247
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3388 Page 9 of 22
` 8
`
` 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
`
`that doesn't have to do with indefiniteness.
`THE COURT: Well, the materials, unless they're in
`different cases, because I only -- I pulled the worksheet up
`and I've got claim terms from the '862, the '450, the '156 --
`oh, okay. Wait a minute. No. Yes, the '156 and the -- yes.
`Are those numbers just wrong on the top?
`MS. ABDULLAH: Your Honor, I'm not really sure. I
`apologize.
`THE COURT: I'm looking at document 63. And so the
`first set of terms are from claim 9 of the '862, and then
`there's another reference to the '862 in claim 10. Is that
`just an error?
`MS. ABDULLAH: I apologize. So your Honor, the joint
`hearing statement lists the ten most important terms that the
`parties have identified, so the full list is identified in
`appendices A and B. I apologize for not being clear on that.
`THE COURT: Oh, okay. I didn't understand that to be
`a summary. I understood that to be the terms you were
`asserting. Okay. That's fine. So there's a total then of 15
`terms.
`
`MS. ABDULLAH: I think we -- depending on how you
`count some of them, there might be up to 17 that have some sort
`of claim construction issue raised. So it does exceed 15 by a
`couple, or possibly one, depending on how you view it. It was
`BNR's position there was no need to exceed 15, but the
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 179
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0248
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3389 Page 10 of 22
` 9
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`defendants did feel the need to do so. So I think in the end,
`if the Court is okay with it and if the defendants are
`requesting it, we're not going to oppose that request.
`THE COURT: I can live with 17. It's not the end of
`the world. So if in the appendices it's 17 terms or phrases,
`that's fine. We'll proceed with that. So I'll go back and
`look at that again and organize that in a way that is more
`clear to me.
`Okay. Then the only other issue I had was with regard
`to a clarification on my comments about indefinite arguments.
`So indefiniteness is part of the claim construction
`consideration and so it's raised in the context of claim
`construction usually, but it could be dispositive. So rather
`than just construing the claim one way or the other, which is
`the general result of claim construction when someone is
`raising an indefinite argument, and I think to carve it out for
`purposes of preserving appellate issues, they're more
`appropriately addressed in a motion that I would like filed in
`conjunction with the claim construction indicating that, in
`fact, there could be a dispositive ruling on whether or not
`this claim is valid.
`So with the opening claim construction briefs that are
`due on May 24th, the defendants should identify any claim terms
`that they are challenging based on indefiniteness, whether or
`not that's because it's a 112(6) analysis that has no structure
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 180
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0249
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3390 Page 11 of 22
` 10
`
` 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
`
`supporting it or just there's nothing in the patent that
`defines it. However, I don't want like 20 briefs. I want it
`all in one brief with the terms identified. You don't need to
`spend a lot of time on background because it will be covered
`generally in the construction of the patents. I'll just focus
`on what the term is, what's not present in the specification,
`and why a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't be able
`to figure it out. And I would like to keep that brief limited
`to 20 pages tops.
`I don't know how many terms you're talking about, but
`I just got buried in another case where they filed 28 motions
`for summary judgment, and that's not happening in the future,
`just so you know. So if you file yours on the 24th with your
`claim construction opening brief, your response, in addition to
`your claim construction responses, will also be a reply brief
`of 15 pages in response to their indefiniteness arguments.
`There won't be any reply. We'll just deal with it in argument
`then. Is that more clear? Because I know there was confusion.
`MS. FULLER: Well, I just wanted to talk through. So
`there's seven terms for construction, six terms that have been
`argued are indefinite, and six more terms that have been argued
`are means-plus-function, and the defendants don't all agree on
`the terms for all of these and so we're hoping that we could
`get additional pages beyond -- initially we were thinking it
`was 25 under the rules, and we're going to ask to maybe moving
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 181
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0250
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3391 Page 12 of 22
` 11
`
` 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
`
`it up to 40 pages.
`THE COURT: You know, it really shouldn't take 40
`pages. If it's there, it's there. If it's not, it's not. If
`the claim can be construed, it's probably not indefinite. The
`problem is it can't be construed because there's nothing
`supporting it in the specification or generally known in the
`art. So I think you're going to need to figure out how you're
`going to present them and maybe focus on the ones that are most
`important and reserve perhaps on others if we need to come back
`and visit them, but I'm not going to do 45 pages on
`indefiniteness, or 40 pages. I'll give you 25 total. So try
`to figure it out between you which ones you think are the most
`significant ones to raise.
`And as I've said before, even with the claim
`constructions, obviously I'm trying to prioritize this to get
`to the most important stuff. I recognize your due process
`rights to address your claims and defenses after the
`constructions issue. If you feel in light of that and other
`discovery that you need to raise new issues going forward, I'll
`accept application for additional construction on claims in the
`future. But generally, I've found that when people are
`required to focus, we get to the heart of it and there's a lot
`of stuff that doesn't end up being an academic exercise for the
`Court to figure out what a term is.
`I have said this before: I am very wary of plain and
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 182
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0251
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3392 Page 13 of 22
` 12
`
` 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
`
`ordinary meaning as a proposed construction. As one federal
`circuit judge said: Construction can go on indefinitely
`because you can construe the words that you used to construe
`the words to construe the words, and at some point, everyone
`has to reach an agreement on what a word means. It's not
`sufficient, for me, for you to just say "plain," particularly
`given the level of complexity of these patents. If there's a
`plain and ordinary meaning, it has to be that to a person of
`skill in the art.
`So you have to be a little bit more specific as to
`what the proposed plain and ordinary meaning is beyond the
`words used, if necessary. It may not be necessary, but if it
`is, then maybe can you reach an agreement. But you guys just
`saying plain and ordinary meaning and then them saying
`something completely different isn't helpful to me.
`Okay. Questions? Yes.
`MR. SOBOLEV: Were you saying that it's a 25-page
`limit just for the separate indefiniteness briefing?
`THE COURT: You need to address everything you need to
`address. And while I don't want you to be overly verbose, I'm
`not putting any limit on your claim construction briefs, just
`on the indefiniteness where you're focusing on that and why
`those particular claims might render the claim invalid.
`MR. SOBOLEV: Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. WITCOFF: Your Honor, can I ask one question?
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 183
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0252
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3393 Page 14 of 22
` 13
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. WITCOFF: I think I understand. Just to make
`sure: Six of these terms, as you've heard, we contend are
`means-plus-function terms and we further contend they're
`indefinite for the lack of supporting structure. Are you
`contemplating we argue the means-plus-function aspect in the
`claims construction briefing and then argue in the separate
`indefiniteness briefing?
`THE COURT: You can do that. If your position is it's
`means-plus-function and there's no means to support it, go
`ahead and do that in your indefiniteness brief.
`MR. WITCOFF: In the indefiniteness brief. I'm just
`thinking about the 25 pages now.
`THE COURT: Whether or not it qualifies as a 112(6),
`it either does or it doesn't. So I don't need the history of
`112(6). Don't waste pages on the legal. I know what the legal
`standard is.
`MR. WITCOFF: We know.
`THE COURT: So focus on, you know, why you believe if
`the word "means" isn't used, why this is nonce word or has no
`meaning, and then why there's nothing in the specification that
`explains what it is.
`MR. WITCOFF: That make sense. That way it's all in
`one place.
`THE COURT: A lot of it can be very much done in the
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 184
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0253
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3394 Page 15 of 22
` 14
`
` 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
`
`way it charts. Here's the claim term, here's the function,
`here's the only place it's mentioned in the specification, and
`it's just a black box. If it's that simple, then it shouldn't
`take a lot of pages. If it's more complicated, then there may
`be a bigger problem.
`MR. WITCOFF: I understand. I just wanted to make
`sure we understood what you were saying. Thank you.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Your Honor, given that they get five
`extra pages, we'll try to fit it in 15.
`THE COURT: You get 20 now.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Thank you.
`THE COURT: I'll hate myself in the morning, but okay.
`Anything else? Okay. I have you scheduled for your claim
`construction on June 19th and 20th. I think you indicated you
`might need to spill into a third day. I, at this point, can't
`give you a third day in June because the 21st is normally my
`Friday where I do my criminal calendar. If we don't get it all
`done, then we'll schedule a follow-up day. I might be
`exhausted after two days, anyway, of this and might not even be
`able to do a third day. If you can work together on the
`tutorial and make it truly a tutorial and not a sideways
`advocacy thing, then maybe we can cut down some time that's
`needed for that.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Your Honor, for claims construction, we
`had a proposal which patents to cover together on a day. And
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 185
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0254
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3395 Page 16 of 22
` 15
`
` 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
`
`we did share it with defendants but I'm not sure they've
`responded to us yet. So if I could share that with you, we
`were thinking that the '842, the '862, the '450, and the '156
`could go together.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Those are all WiFi related in some
`capacity, also the math patents are within that, and then the
`remainder, which would be the '889, the '554, the '435 and --
`what am I leaving out? The '432 -- I apologize. I messed that
`up. The first set should be '842, '862, '450, and '432, and
`then the second day, whether it be first or second, would be
`the '156, the '435, the '889, and the '554.
`THE COURT: Okay. I can't really respond to that
`right now.
`So you've got her proposed grouping. If you think a
`different grouping makes more sense in terms of order of
`presentation, then why don't you all try to communicate on
`that. It would be helpful to the Court if I know what you're
`planning on the order of presentation by a week before just so
`I can organize my thoughts. If that grouping works for you,
`that would be fine with the Court. It breaks the patents up
`evenly, and it would be helpful. If they are distinctly
`separate in terms of subject matter, then also consider doing a
`tutorial just addressing the first four patents and their
`relationship and then start the second day on the other four
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 186
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0255
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3396 Page 17 of 22
` 16
`
` 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
`
`patents and their relationship just so that I don't have to try
`to remember it overnight.
`MR. WITCOFF: That's fine, your Honor. We'll discuss
`among ourselves, work with them, and get back to you with a
`joint proposal.
`THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Your Honor, we do have a couple of
`other issues that are not, I guess, directly related to claims
`construction. If you would like to hear those now?
`THE COURT: Well, it depends. Go ahead.
`MS. ABDULLAH: So the first one, I'm going to let my
`colleague address the Court.
`MR. HARTSELL: Good afternoon, your Honor. As you're
`probably aware, Judge Major a couple of days ago determined
`that our expert, Dr. Madisetti, cannot be an expert for ZTE.
`THE COURT: That matter is still pending in front of
`her for consideration, isn't it?
`MR. HARTSELL: Well, we've asked for clarification to
`understand how it impacts the consolidated -- like the claims
`constructions since the Court has consolidated those. And it's
`my understanding that ZTE believes that Dr. Madisetti shouldn't
`be --
`
`THE COURT: You know what? I get it. But that's her
`ruling and until it's final and you can then brief it to me as
`a matter of appealing her ruling, although the standard is
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 187
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0256
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3397 Page 18 of 22
` 17
`
` 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
`
`clearly erroneous, so it's pretty tough. But I'm not going to
`hopscotch over her and take it out of her hands. It's in her
`hands. I'm aware it's on the docket, but I have not read the
`briefs. I don't really know what the issue is. It's for her
`decision, so I'm not going to address that today.
`MR. HARTSELL: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Anything else?
`MS. ABDULLAH: One last question, your Honor, and
`hopefully this is just a matter of seeking clarification. In
`the invalidity contentions that the defendants served, your
`Honor had limited them to ten obviousness combinations per
`patent during the case management conference, and so what they
`have done is they've identified ten combinations of prior art,
`but then, in many other instances, they also say, you know,
`this prior art reference to the extent it doesn't disclose X
`limitation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to
`supply that limitation. It's our view that that should count
`as a combination because essentially you're combining the
`knowledge of the reference. The defendants have taken the
`opposite view. So obviously under our interpretation, they
`would have exceeded the ten combinations by quite a bit.
`THE COURT: But it's a single reference where they're
`saying a missing element was something that someone of skill in
`the art would know?
`MS. ABDULLAH: Yes, basically.
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 188
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0257
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3398 Page 19 of 22
` 18
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`THE COURT: I'm not going it prohibit that. You know
`what the reference is, and how do -- this isn't like pull from
`this and pull from that. They're making an assertion that
`someone would know it. Obviously, at some point, they'll have
`to support that. And there's really not a whole lot. It's not
`like you have to go read something.
`MS. ABDULLAH: In some of the cases, they actually did
`cite another article or two showing what a person of skill in
`the art would know. It's kind of unclear. They're not
`directly relying on that reference, but then they're relying on
`the knowledge which is shown by that reference, so.
`THE COURT: The limitations are designed to keep this
`from becoming just a flood of unnecessary paperwork that's
`exchanged between the parties. And at some point, obviously if
`the case proceeds first to summary judgment and then to trial,
`they're not going to put on a hundred different prior art
`references. So trying to give people the top ten combinations
`to start with is my intent to try to focus people. But I've
`also told them if they have art that they think is relevant,
`they need to identify it so they could potentially use it later
`if they have to adjust their combinations in light of claim
`construction and other things.
`At this point, I appreciate your concern. I think
`it's a little premature. I think after the claim construction,
`there will be an opportunity again to focus on the invalidity
`
`EXHIBIT B, PAGE 189
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1019-0258
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 87-5 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.3399 Page 20 of 22
` 19
`
` 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
`
`arguments and prior art combinations they want to make, and
`maybe we can look at those combinations again and address your
`issue.
`
`I understand the concern, but I'm not precluding it
`right now if it's simply really just identifying art that's out
`there and saying any missing element, somebody would have
`understood, and if it's backed up by a written -- I mean, that
`is a combination if you're using a written document to support
`the missing element, but it's not quite the same as here is one
`patent and another patent and you have to put them together to
`get all the pieces. I hear what you're saying, but we'll
`address those issues again, both the number of asserted claims
`and the number of prior art references, after the claim
`construction is issued.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Anything else? Otherwise discovery is
`moving along? Everything is good? Okay, good. Great.
`The only other thing that -- it's in the rules, but
`the sooner the better, if you can get a glossary of terms to my
`court reporter, it is of tremendous assistance to her that she
`can put those things into the computer before the hearing so
`she has a leg up on trying to keep up while you guys