throbber
Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 131 PageID #: 16220
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VS.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
` )(
` )(
` )(
` )(
` )(
` )(
` )(
` )(
`NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC.
` )(
`TEKTRONIX COMMUNICATIONS, )(
`AND TEKTRONIX TEXAS LLC
` )(
`
` CIVIL DOCKET NO.
` 2:16-CV-230-JRG
`
` MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
` OCTOBER 10, 2017
` 8:36 A.M.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Mr. Paul J. Skiermont
`Ms. Sadaf R. Abdullah
`Mr. Steven K. Hartsell
`Mr. Alexander E. Gasser
`Mr. Steve J. Udick
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Ms. Shelly Holmes, CSR, TCRR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced on CAT system.)
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 2 of 131 PageID #: 16221
`
`2
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
` Mr. William E. Davis, III
` THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
` 213 N. Fredonia Street
` Suite 230
` Longview, Texas 75601
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ms. Melissa Smith
` GILLAM & SMITH
` 303 South Washington Avenue
` Marshall, Texas 75670
` Mr. Eric Kraeutler
` MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
` 1701 Market Street
` Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
` Mr. Michael Lyons
` Mr. Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman
` Mr. Michael F. Carr
` Ms. Karon N. Fowler
` Mr. Thomas Y. Nolan
` MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
` 1400 Page Mill Road
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` Mr. Adam A. Allgood
` MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
` 1000 Louisiana Street
` Suite 4000
` Houston, Texas 77002
` Mr. Charles E. Phipps
` Mr. Paul D. Lein
` LOCKE LORD LLP
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 2800
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` Mr. Scott D. Wofsy
` LOCKE LORD, LLP
` 1 Canterbury Green
` 201 Broad Street
` Stamford, Connecticut 06901
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 3 of 131 PageID #: 16222
`
`3
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`(Jury out.)
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`THE COURT: Be seated, please.
`Good morning, Counsel.
`I understand, Mr. Skiermont, you'll be
`doing opening statements for Plaintiff; is that correct?
`MR. SKIERMONT: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Would you like a warning on
`
`your time?
`
`MR. SKIERMONT: Five minutes, please.
`THE COURT: Okay. And how about opening
`statements for Defendant?
`MR. KRAEUTLER: Eric Kraeutler for the
`Defendants, Your Honor. And I will not need a warning.
`THE COURT: All right. And do I
`understand, Ms. Abdullah, that you are expecting a baby;
`is that correct?
`MS. ABDULLAH: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. Because of that
`condition, should you need to excuse yourself for any
`reason during the course of the trial, you may simply
`walk behind counsel tables and go in and out that side
`door as you might need to.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Thank you. I appreciate
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 4 of 131 PageID #: 16223
`
`4
`
`it. I will do my best not to disrupt the proceedings.
`THE COURT: That -- that latitude applies
`to you only. Unless there's somebody else in a similar
`condition that I'm not aware of. Okay.
`MS. ABDULLAH: Thank you.
`THE COURT: All right. Counsel, unless
`either side has something else we need to take up before
`I bring in the jury, we'll bring the jury in and begin
`with opening statements.
`All right. Then bring in the jury,
`
`please.
`
`jury.
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise for the
`
`(Jury in.)
`THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and
`gentlemen. Welcome back. Please have a seat.
`Members of the jury, you'll recall that
`last week we selected and seated you as the jury in this
`case, and I gave you my preliminary instructions. We
`are now prepared and at the proper place to begin with
`opening statements from both Plaintiff and then
`Defendant.
`
`I remind you of all the instructions I
`gave you earlier. That will apply throughout the trial
`until such time as I discharge you from your position as
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 5 of 131 PageID #: 16224
`
`5
`
`jurors.
`
`With that, we'll now hear opening
`statements beginning with the Plaintiff.
`MR. SKIERMONT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: You may proceed,
`Mr. Skiermont.
`MR. SKIERMONT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`May it please the Court.
`Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
`My name is Paul Skiermont, and it's my
`great honor to represent Packet Intelligence and present
`our opening statement to the members of the jury and
`this honorable Court.
`This is an important case. It's
`important to the owner of the patents, Packet
`Intelligence, whose owners took a risk to leave their
`businesses and start a new one investing substantial
`resources, time and money, to build their licensing
`business.
`
`And it is important to the inventors of
`the patents, including the first listed inventor, Mr.
`Dietz, who you will hear from today is the first
`witness, and he's in the courtroom.
`Mr. Dietz, if you'll stand up.
`(Witness complies.)
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 6 of 131 PageID #: 16225
`
`6
`
`
`
`MR. SKIERMONT: And it's also important
`to Mr. Maixner, one of the -- one of the other inventors
`who y'all also will hear from today.
`Mr. Maixner, if you could stand up.
`(Witness complies.)
`MR. SKIERMONT: Thank you.
`The inventors, Mr. Maixner, Mr. Dietz,
`and their co-inventors, did the hard work to create the
`inventions that you'll hear about today. On behalf of
`the entire Packet Intelligence team, we know that your
`service on this jury is a tremendous burden to each of
`you, and we want -- deeply grateful and appreciate your
`service.
`
`In a nutshell, this case is about a big
`corporation that is using property without permission
`that it does not own, and the owner of that property is
`standing up for its rights.
`The property is in your binder. It's the
`three United States patents, Tabs 1, 2, and 3 behind the
`patents. And what I'm holding up are the official
`certified copies of the three United States patents that
`are the same -- other than the cover and the gold seal,
`are the same as the ones that are in your binder.
`The big corporation that is using the
`property without permission is the Defendant in this
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 7 of 131 PageID #: 16226
`
`7
`
`case, NetScout. And the owner for the -- of the
`property standing up for their rights is the Plaintiff,
`Packet Intelligence.
`Now, before I give you a roadmap of the
`opening statement, I want to introduce you to Packet
`Intelligence.
`In 2008, Mr. Brad Brunell, who's sitting
`at counsel table, and Mr. Phil Vachon, who's in the
`gallery, went into a patent licensing business together
`after having been introduced by a mutual friend. Both
`had been senior executives at two of the world's largest
`and most demanding computer technology companies. Mr.
`Brunell was the general manager for intellectual
`property at Microsoft, and Mr. Vachon worked for Oracle
`and ran the organization, licensing software to large
`telecommunications companies.
`Both chose to leave behind the financial
`security and prestige of their jobs at Microsoft and
`Oracle to take a risk and start their own business.
`They saw a market opportunity to create a
`new business, to use the experience they had gained at
`Microsoft and Oracle in licensing to start their own
`licensing business, and they took the lead.
`While they set out hoping to build a
`successful business, and, of course, make money, another
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 8 of 131 PageID #: 16227
`
`8
`
`one of their priorities was to be able to spend more
`time with their then young families. That was almost 10
`years ago. The kids are grown. They have remained
`partners in their successful business and are now good
`friends.
`
`In my opening today, I want to cover a
`little bit about U.S. patent laws and the background. I
`want to introduce you to the three patents in the case.
`And I want to preview the witnesses and evidence that
`you will hear during the trial that we think will
`establish three things.
`No. 1, Packet Intelligence, which we'll
`refer to throughout the trial by its abbreviation, PI --
`PI's patents are foundational and have received great
`respect for many years and in many different ways.
`No. 2, we think the evidence at trial
`will show that NetScout is using PI's property without
`permission and in reckless disregard for PA's -- PI's
`property rights.
`And, 3, we think the evidence will show
`that NetScout's excuses for using PI's property without
`permission are not credible.
`As you heard a little bit on the video
`last week from Judge Fogel, patents are property and
`have some similarities to what we normally think of as
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 9 of 131 PageID #: 16228
`
`9
`
`property, like a house or land or a deed.
`A common analogy is that a patent is like
`a deed. A deed is to real property, and it sets out the
`metes and bounds or boundaries of the land that is
`owned.
`
`We call patents intellectual property.
`And like the deed to -- to a house, the numbered
`paragraphs that appear at the end of each of the three
`patents in your binder, called claims, define the
`boundaries of the intellectual property in the patent
`that has been granted by the United States Government to
`the patent owner for a limited time.
`If you own your -- if you own or rent
`your home, you have rights inside the walls of your
`residence. Someone who doesn't have permission can't
`come into your house. If they do without your
`permission, they would be a trespasser. And if someone
`is trespassing, you can call the police.
`If you own a patent, you have rights to
`the invention described in the claims. And if someone
`is using the patented invention without your permission,
`that's called infringement. But unlike for trespassers,
`you cannot call the police on patent infringers.
`Instead, you can take infringers to Court
`under our patent laws and present your infringement case
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 10 of 131 PageID #: 16229
`10
`
`to a jury like the eight of you. And that's why we're
`here.
`
`As Judge Fogel explained on the video you
`saw last week, in exchange for creating an invention and
`disclosing it to the world in a published patent, the
`owner of the patent receives some rights from the U.S.
`Government. The -- the patent owner gets to keep all
`others from using the invention described in their
`claims for a period of 20 years from the date they first
`apply for the patent.
`This is the fundamental bargain,
`disclosure of the invention to everyone for the rights
`to the exclusive use to that invention for a limited
`time.
`
`At the end of that limited term, anybody
`who wants to use the inventions disclosed in the patent
`can do so, and they can do so for free. But for that
`20-year patent term, there is a promise, a promise made
`by the U.S. Government to patent owners that the
`invention will be protected for the limited term.
`It was intended that our patent system
`would create the greatest innovative economic engine in
`the world, and it has. In fact, patents are so vital to
`our country, it is the very first article of the U.S.
`Constitution.
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 11 of 131 PageID #: 16230
`11
`
`Then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson
`was the first director of the U.S. Patent Board, and,
`indeed, he was the first patent examiner, who you'll
`hear about a little bit in this trial.
`And one fun fact to leave you with about
`patents before I move on to talk about the three patents
`in this case, the first United States patent was Patent
`No. X00001. It was examined by Mr. Jefferson himself,
`and as you can see on your screens, it was signed by
`President George Washington.
`Let's talk about the three patents that
`are in this case that I showed you the certified copies
`of.
`
`What's interesting is that the original
`copy of every patent comes with a cover page that I'm
`displaying on your screens. And what's -- what it says
`that is interesting is right at the top, it says: The
`director of the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office has received an application for a patent for a
`new and useful invention. The title and description of
`the invention are enclosed. The requirements of law
`have been complied with, and it has been determined that
`a patent on the invention shall be granted under the
`law.
`
`That cover page was the cover page to all
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 12 of 131 PageID #: 16231
`12
`
`three of the United States patents at issue in this
`case. The three patents in the case that are in your
`jury note -- juror notebook are in order. The first one
`is the '725 patent, the second one is the '751 patent,
`and the third one is the '789 patent.
`And we refer to patents, even though
`they -- we are now in the million -- we saw Patent No.
`X1, and we are now into -- in this case, the patents are
`in the six millions. So I'm showing on your screen
`there's three patents in the case, and on the cover of
`the patent, you can see we'll refer to the '725 patent
`as the last three digits of that patent number. And
`I've highlighted for you the inventors of that patent
`and the dates that -- it was filed and the date it was
`issued.
`
`On the right-hand side of this -- on the
`screen, you can see that the '725 patent, there were two
`United States patent examiners, a primary and an
`assistant. And then you will see there are references
`cited on the face of the patent. And let me just take a
`moment to -- to tell you what the references cited is.
`References cited are older patents,
`patents that issued before the application of the
`invention being applied for that are related or relevant
`or precedent somehow for the patent that is being
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 13 of 131 PageID #: 16232
`13
`
`applied for. There are primarily two sources of the
`references cited, either the applicant can cite previous
`patents in describing their invention and explaining how
`it is an advance over the -- over the previous patents.
`And United States patent examiners, when
`examining patents, search for previous patents that
`might be related to or relevant to the patent they are
`examining to determine if someone else had patented
`these ideas first.
`And so every patent in this case has a
`references cited section. We'll talk a little bit more
`about that later in the opening.
`I turn now to the snapshots of the '751
`patent. You'll see highlighted, again, are the
`inventors and the references cited. And there's a
`different examiner of this patent than there was for the
`'725 patent.
`
`And the '789 patent is now on your
`screen, and you'll see there, there are a number of
`inventors on the '789 patent. You'll notice that Mr.
`Dietz was the first listed inventor on each one. And
`this one also contains references cited document, and
`had a third patent examiner that examined this patent.
`Four patent examiners on three United States patents.
`You'll hear from several witnesses today
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 14 of 131 PageID #: 16233
`14
`
`who are here to explain the patented invention. At a
`very high level, what you will hear is that the
`invention is directed to fundamental improvements to
`network monitors that analyze traff -- data traffic
`traveling over a network. And the analysis allows
`network operators, like AT&T or Verizon, to make
`critical decisions about the security, performance, and
`cost of their network.
`The inventors, you will hear, came up
`with special techniques for analyzing network data and
`developed a way to track network data based on a user's
`activity. You'll hear that they were the first ones to
`figure out how to track network data in this way. And
`they coined a phrase that they use in their patents
`called "conversational flows" to describe some of these
`special techniques. The details of how are set forth in
`the claims that are at issue in this case, and there are
`two claims from each patent that are at issue in this
`trial.
`
`In the '725 patent, that's Claims 10 and
`17. In the '751, it is Claims 1 and 5. And then the
`'789 patent, it is Claims 19 and 20.
`And what I'm putting up on your screen is
`the -- an -- an exemplary claim, the Claim 19 of the
`'789 patent. And you'll notice that there are a lot 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
`
`EX 1068 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 15 of 131 PageID #: 16234
`15
`
`words in that claim, and I'll explain how we're going to
`go through those during the trial a bit later, but the
`important thing for now to -- to understand is that the
`details or the how of how the inventors went about
`classifying network data traffic in this novel way are
`described in these lengthy claims that we will go
`through during the trial.
`Packet Intelligence's, or PI's, patents,
`the evidence presented during trial will reveal that
`those inventions have received industry respect over
`many years in many different ways.
`Mr. Dietz was the first -- the first
`inventor listed. He co-founded a company with three of
`his friends in the late 1980s. And in the mid to --
`from the mid '90s to 2000, Mr. Dietz served as the chief
`technology officer of the company he founded called
`Technically Elite.
`During this time, Mr. Dietz and his team
`of co-inventors worked to develop their invention, filed
`for patent applications, and realized the importance of
`the inventions and what they were doing which was
`tracking user activity. And another way -- word you'll
`hear is "tracking user activity" means tracking the
`applications that a user uses, like the ESPN website or
`Netflix or Skype or another application.
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 16 of 131 PageID #: 16235
`16
`
`And because of what their inventions were
`about and the work they were doing, they changed their
`name, the company name, from Technically Elite to
`Apptitude, A-p-p, Apptitude.
`In August of 2000, Mr. Dietz and his
`co-founders sold Apptitude to a publically-traded
`company called Hi/Fn, H-i-f-n, for millions of dollars.
`In connection with the purchase, Hi/Fn acquired
`ownership of the then pending patent applications that
`are at issue in this case that Mr. Dietz and his team
`had filed while at Apptitude. Mr. Dietz became vice
`president and chief technology officer of Hi/Fn and
`continued to work on the inventions and filed additional
`patent applications.
`In 2009, he -- they -- I'm sorry, they
`applied for and were granted the three bolded patents
`that are on the timeline on the right-hand side in the
`yellow bold. And they also applied for and received
`patents from other large companies from around the
`world, including receiving patents on their inventions
`in China, Japan, Germany, and Australia.
`In 2009, a company called Exar purchased
`Hi/Fn, and Exar acquired ownership of the patents at
`issue in this case. The evidence at trial will show,
`and you will hear, that Exar ultimately decided to focus
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 17 of 131 PageID #: 16236
`17
`
`on unrelated technology, and did not have the capability
`or interest in investing the resources to build a
`licensing program for the patents that it acquired from
`Hi/Fn, and that is where Packet Intelligence enters the
`picture.
`
`Mr. Brunell and Mr. Vachon had worked for
`years to find valuable but overlooked intel --
`intellectual property. And when they found Mr. Dietz's
`patent portfolio was not being used by Exar, they
`conducted extensive research to verify the quality of
`the inventors, the quality of the patents, and they
`spent additional time and money researching network
`communication vendors and whether they were using the
`inventions described and claimed in the Dietz patents.
`After their due diligence, they invested
`a considerable amount of their hard earned money to
`purchase the patent portfolio from Exar that -- that are
`at issue in this case.
`The evidence at trial will also
`establish, we believe, that one of the reasons Mr.
`Brunell and Packet Intelligence was confident in the
`value and strength of the patents they were purchasing
`was based on a patent quality metric, in part, called
`forward citation analysis. And let me explain just a
`little bit about what a forward citation is.
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 18 of 131 PageID #: 16237
`18
`
`As I just mentioned during the patent
`application process, I put up the '751, again, just so
`you can see the references cited.
`During the patent application process,
`both the applicant and examiner -- patent examiner cites
`to previous patents they consider relevant. And those
`appear in this references cited portion of the patent.
`So forward citations means citations that appear in
`later patents filed by other companies who have cited
`the Dietz's patents in their own patent applications,
`either the company cites it or a patent examiner when
`examining a patent filed by another company found the
`Dietz patents and cited it against the application that
`they were examining.
`And as it turns out, PI's patents in this
`case appear in the references cited section in hundreds
`of patents issued to major technology companies. The
`three patents-in-suit are cited by leading technology
`companies, and not only just one time or even five
`times. IBM has cited to the patents-in-suit 76 times;
`AT&T, 64; Cisco, 59; Amazon, 22; Microsoft, 21. And you
`can see the forward citations of the other highly
`regarded companies on the slides.
`In addition, last but certainly not
`least, the Defendants in this case, NetScout, Tektronix,
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 19 of 131 PageID #: 16238
`19
`
`and the companies that NetScout has acquired have also
`filed patent applications that cite to the Dietz
`patents, and those patent applications include those
`filed by Tektronix and companies NetScout acquired like
`Fluke and Network General.
`Now, to be clear, forward citations do
`not establish infringement, and they do not establish
`that the patent is valid. But they do show awareness
`within the industry of the cited patents, and they can
`be a signal that the highly cited patent may be
`foundational or otherwise valuable.
`So what did Packet Intelligence do after
`they acquired the patents? They launched their
`licensing program based on research into companies that
`appeared to be using the patented inventions. To date,
`PI has licensed these patents in this case to two major
`companies in the networking industry.
`In 2000 -- in March of 2014, Huawei
`agreed to pay slightly more than 2.5 percent of relevant
`U.S. revenue for a license to PI's patents. PI had sued
`Huawei for patent infringement in this Court, and before
`the case went to trial, Packet Intelligence granted a
`license to Huawei, meaning they gave Huawei permission
`to use their patented invention, in exchange for Huawei
`paying a 2.5 percent royalty.
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 20 of 131 PageID #: 16239
`20
`
`You will also hear in March of 2005, Cisco
`agreed to pay millions of dollars to license PI's
`patents. PI had sued Cisco in this court for patent
`infringement. And before the lawsuit ended, before the
`case went to trial, Packet Intelligence granted
`permission to Cisco to use the patented invention in
`exchange for a Cisco payment of millions of dollars.
`And Mr. Brunell will walk through these
`agreements with you and talk more about them when he
`takes the stand today.
`The patents in the United States, the
`worldwide patents in Japan, Germany, Australia, and
`other places, the Apptitude and Hi/Fn acquisitions, the
`forward citations, the licenses by Huawei and Cisco,
`those are all signs of respect and acknowledgement of
`the patents that are in this case and that you're going
`to hear about during trial.
`So that brings us to NetScout. The
`evidence will show that NetScout is generating enormous
`revenue and profits from its use of PI's patented
`property without permission.
`The accused products in this case, there
`are two of them, both of these products are -- were
`originally developed and sold by a company called
`Tektronix. And in 2015, NetScout acquired Tektronix and
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 21 of 131 PageID #: 16240
`21
`
`acquired the two products you see on the screen.
`On your left is the GeoProbe G10, and
`that's a network monitor. And on the right, it will be
`referred to as the GeoBlade. And so you will hear the
`GeoProbe G10 often referred to as the G10, and the
`GeoBlade is the GeoBlade.
`You're going to hear testimony that
`NetScout's products infringe PI's patents from Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth, who is in Court today. He will testify later
`today. He's an independent expert witness, meaning he's
`not an employee of Packet Intelligence. He doesn't have
`any ax to grind. When he started his infringement
`analysis, he wasn't leaning one way or the other like
`you were asked about during jury selection.
`Dr. Almeroth is a professor at the
`University of California Santa Barbara. He has a
`Bachelor of Science, a Master's, and a Ph.D., in
`computer science, all from Georgia Tech. And he is a --
`an award winning teacher. He will explain all of the
`analysis he conducted and the methodology he employed to
`reach his conclusion and his opinion, that in his expert
`opinion NetScout's two products infringe the six
`asserted claims in this patent.
`So what did Dr. Almeroth do to determine
`that those product -- products infringe? During a
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 22 of 131 PageID #: 16241
`22
`
`process known as pre-trial discovery, Packet
`Intelligence and Dr. Almeroth were able to gain access
`to NetScout's highly confidential internal company
`documents, including the source code or the computer
`instructions that run the two accused products and make
`them do what they do.
`He was able to review those documents,
`the internal ones. He was able to review the marketing
`documents that the Defendants use to sell their
`products. I mentioned the source code. And he was also
`able to review the testimony of witnesses from
`depositions that the Packet Intelligence attorneys took
`during discovery.
`What -- and Judge Gilstrap talked a
`little bit about a deposition last week. But as a
`reminder, what a deposition is, is both parties get the
`opportunity to cross-examine the other side's witnesses
`under oath. And it is videotaped and transcribed, like
`these -- like the proceedings here are transcribed
`verbatim word-for-word by the talented court reporter in
`this courtroom. And based on the transcripts of those
`depositions, Mr. Almeroth was able to read how the
`NetScout engineers and other employees describe the
`operation of their infringing products.
`And Dr. Almeroth will testify 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
`
`EX 1068 Page 22
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 23 of 131 PageID #: 16242
`23
`
`evidence establishes all the things he looked at that I
`just described that NetScout's products contain and use
`each one of those little paragraphs of each of the
`asserted claims in the patents.
`THE COURT: Five minutes remaining.
`MR. SKIERMONT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`To give you a sense of that infringement
`analysis, what Dr. Almeroth will do, as you see on the
`right-hand side of the slide, he's going to break up the
`elements of Claim 19, for example, into kind of bite
`size pieces and on the left side he's going to explain
`the evidence that was produced in this case in the form
`of documents and witnesses to explain infringement.
`You'll also hear that the sales and
`profits of the GeoProbe and G10 (sic) have been
`enormous. From the time damages start in this case
`through trial, NetScout's revenue on the accused
`products exceeds $400 million, and their gross profit
`approaches $225 million.
`Let's talk about NetScout's excuses.
`First, NetScout may -- may tell you there's no
`infringement at all. They hired a consultant,
`Mr. Waldbusser, and we think that when you're able to
`observe and compare the methods that Dr. Almeroth used
`and Mr. Waldbusser's methods, that you will find 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
`
`EX 1068 Page 23
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 24 of 131 PageID #: 16243
`24
`
`Dr. Almeroth's testimony is more credible. And as Judge
`Gilstrap will tell you, it will be up to you, after you
`see all the evidence and hear the testimony of those two
`experts, to decide who you think is more credible.
`And importantly, remember, that the
`burden of proof for infringement on Packet Intelligence
`is the preponderance of the evidence or more likely than
`not, the Scales of Justice tip slightly in favor of
`infringement.
`
`Second -- and we think that will be more
`than satisfied after you hear Dr. Almeroth.
`Second, NetScout will say, well, if you
`don't like our non-infringement excuse, then all three
`of PI's patents are invalid. NetScout's burden of proof
`on invalidity, recall, is higher than Packet
`Intelligence's burden of proving infringement.
`To prove invalidity, they must prove by
`clear and convincing evidence, meaning that you must
`have an abiding conviction that the patents are invalid
`after you hear all the evidence in this case. We don't
`think they will be able to satisfy that burden.
`NetScout is going to assert that Mr.
`Dietz and his team allegedly got the idea for their
`invention from an industry working group called the RMON
`Working Group, and you'll hear a lot about that during
`
`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
`
`EX 1068 Page 24
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00230-JRG Document 244 Filed 10/17/17 Page 25 of 131 PageID #: 16244
`25
`
`the trial, but you're going to hear from Mr. Dietz
`himself. And you're going to hear from the other
`inventors, and you're going to hear from othe

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