Page 1592
` UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
` Washington, D.C.
` Before the Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
` Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of: )
` ) Investigation No.
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO ) 337-TA-1158
`RECEIVERS, BROADBAND GATEWAYS, )
`AND RELATED HARDWARE AND )
`SOFTWARE COMPONENTS )
`
`
` United States
` International Trade Commission
` Hearing Room A
` 500 E Street, SW
` Washington, D.C.
` Tuesday, January 28, 2020
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
` Volume VI
`
` The parties met, pursuant to notice of the
`Administrative Law Judge, at 9:30 a.m.
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1222
`
`
` UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
` Washington, D.C.
` Before the Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
` Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of: )
` ) Investigation No.
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO ) 337-TA-1158
`RECEIVERS, BROADBAND GATEWAYS, )
`AND RELATED HARDWARE AND )
`SOFTWARE COMPONENTS )
`
`
` United States
` International Trade Commission
` Hearing Room A
` 500 E Street, SW
` Washington, D.C.
` Tuesday, January 28, 2020
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
` Volume VI
`
` The parties met, pursuant to notice of the
`Administrative Law Judge, at 9:30 a.m.
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1222
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 1593
`
`For Complainants Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guides,
`Inc.:
` DOUGLAS A. CAWLEY, ESQ.
` HOLLY E. ENGELMANN, ESQ.
` JONATHAN POWERS, ESQ.
` RICHARD A. KAMPRATH, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER BOVENKAMP, ESQ.
` McKool Smith, P.C.
` Crescent Court, Suite 1500
` Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`-and-
`
` JOHN B. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
` JOSHUA W. BUDWIN, ESQ.
` LEAH BURATTI, ESQ.
` PETER M. HILLEGAS, ESQ.
` McKool Smith, P.C.
` 300 W. Sixth Street, Suite 1700
` Austin, Texas 78701
`
`CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1594
`
`APPEARANCES (continued):
`
`-and-
`
` MITCHELL VERBONCOEUR, ESQ.
` McKool Smith, P.C.
` 1999 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
`
`-and-
`
` JOSHUA NEWCOMER, ESQ.
` McKool Smith, P.C.
` 600 Travis Street, Suite 7000
` Houston, Texas 77002
`
`-and-
` MATTHEW RIZZOLO, ESQ.
` Ropes & Gray LLP
` 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
`
`CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES (continued):
`
`Page 1595
`
`For Respondents Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications
`Management, LLC, and Comcast Holdings Corporation:
`
` BERT C. REISER, ESQ.
` JAMIE D. UNDERWOOD, ESQ.
` Latham & Watkins LLP
` 555 Eleventh Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20004
`
`-and-
`
` MICHAEL A. DAVID, ESQ.
` STEPHEN D. O'DONOHUE, ESQ.
` Latham & Watkins LLP
` 885 Third Avenue
` New York, New York 10022
`
`CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES (continued):
`
`Page 1596
`
`For Respondents Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications
`Management, LLC, and Comcast Holdings Corporation:
` ASHOK RAMANI, ESQ.
` DAVID J. LISSON, ESQ.
` MICAH G. BLOCK, ESQ.
` SERGE VORONOV, ESQ.
` IAN HOGG, ESQ.
` PHILIP T. SHENG, ESQ.
` Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
` 1600 El Camino Real
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
`CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1597
`
`APPEARANCES (continued):
`-and-
`For Respondents Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications
`Management, LLC, and Comcast Holdings Corporation:
` MENGYI XU, ESQ.
` ALLEGRA M. BIANCHINI, ESQ.
` KAIYA ARROYO, ESQ.
` JAMES Y. PARK, ESQ.
` Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
` 450 Lexington Avenue
` New York, New York 10017
`
`-and-
`
` DANIEL R. MCNEELY, ESQ.
` SARANYA RAGHAVAN, ESQ.
` Winston & Strawn LLP
` 35 W. Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1598
`
`APPEARANCES (continued):
`
`-and-
`
` KRISHNAN PADMANABHAN, ESQ.
` Winston & Strawn LLP
` 275 Middlefield Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
`For Office of Unfair Import Investigations:
` CORTNEY C. HOECHERL, ESQ.
` U.S. International Trade Commission
` 500 E Street, SW
` Washington, DC 20436
`
` *** Index appears at end of transcript ***
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1599
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` O P E N S E S S I O N
` (In session at 9:30 a.m.)
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Good morning, everyone.
`Please be seated.
` So I have the time in front of me. Do we have
`any issues?
` MR. DAVID: Good morning, Your Honor
`Michael David for Comcast. We have no issues on the
`time. We agree. We only note that for total on the
`record time Rovi has used about two and a half more
`hours on the record than Comcast. We have conferred
`with Rovi. They have budgeted for about two hours of
`on the record time today. If they are held to that,
`we don't think there are any issues completing the
`case today. We just want to make sure Comcast has
`rebuttal time to put on its case, if necessary.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Understood. Ms.
`Engelmann?
` MS. ENGELMANN: Yes, that's our
`understanding as well. And I believe that we spoke
`about having a little shorter lunch today in order to
`accommodate the testimony.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Sure. If there's any
`other accommodation that we need, let me know 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
`
`
`
`Page 1705
` MR. RAMANI: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`There are some evidentiary issues that the parties
`are resolving, and we expect that those will all be
`worked out before the record closes. However,
`subject to that, Comcast rests.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: All right. Thank you
`very much.
` MR. KAMPRATH: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Richard Kamprath for Rovi. And with that we would
`like to begin our rebuttal case, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Very good. Thank you.
` MR. KAMPRATH: We call Dr. Jones to the
`stand.
` MARK JONES, Ph.D.,
` having been previously duly sworn and/or
`affirmed on his oath, was thereafter examined and
`testified further as follows:
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Dr. Jones, you're still
`under oath so you can just be seated.
` THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. KAMPRATH:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Jones.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Are deck slides in here,
`Mr. Kamprath, and if so --
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1743
`
`Dr. Chatterjee put it, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. But in your analysis in this investigation
`you did not identify how any circuit that performs
`the task of receiving a MoCA frame operates, true?
` A. Beyond the MoCA standard, no.
` Q. Let's put up Dr. Jones' deposition -- his
`deposition was taken October 19th, 2019 -- page 225,
`lines 12-15.
` "Question. Have you identified how any
`circuit that performs the task of receiving a MoCA
`frame operates?
` "Answer. No."
` You were asked that question and gave that
`answer, Dr. Jones?
` A. Yes.
` MR. RAMANI: Thank you, Your Honor. Pass
`the witness.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you very much.
` Mr. Kamprath?
` REDIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. KAMPRATH:
` Q. Dr. Jones, I want to start out on the last
`point and then go back to the first point, so kind of
`opposite of what we just heard.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1744
` I want to ask you first, counsel made a big
`deal about frames and packets and the distinction
`between the two. Do you recall that?
` A. I do.
` Q. May I have Dr. Chatterjee's opening
`report, page 163, paragraph 304?
` MR. RAMANI: Your Honor, I object. This
`is use of Dr. Chatterjee's report on invalidity,
`which is out of the case.
` MR. KAMPRATH: It is his report on
`invalidity, but it goes to this exact point that
`counsel just made, and it's contrary to the point
`counsel was making. It's Dr. Chatterjee's testimony
`in his report.
` MR. RAMANI: If they wanted to make the
`point, Your Honor, they could have crossed
`Dr. Chatterjee on it, if it's a claim scope question.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Well, it may be, but the
`point of it is that, as a lay person, I want to hear
`that provisionally, and I recognize that you have an
`objection to it, and it may require some briefing.
`I'll let you know whether it falls within my scope
`motion to strike requirements, but I want to hear
`this provisionally.
` MR. RAMANI: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1745
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you, Mr. Ramani.
` Q. May I please have page 163, paragraph 304
`of Dr. Chatterjee's opening invalidity report. Thank
`you.
` Dr. Jones, do you see paragraph 304, the
`second sentence says:
` That although packets and frames
` refer to concepts and means of
` transporting data, a POSITA would
` understand that either can be used
` for transmitting information in a
` network as claimed in the '855
` patent, such that disclosures as to
` one effectively disclose the other
` as well.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Do you agree with Dr. Chatterjee's expert
`report where he states that disclosures of packets
`are the same or effectively disclosed -- let me start
`that over.
` Do you agree with Dr. Chatterjee's expert
`report at paragraph 304, Dr. Jones, the second
`sentence?
` A. I think it would depend on the context.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 1746
`People use the terms "packet" and "frames" often to
`refer to the same thing. Sometimes people make
`distinctions. It depends on the context.
` So I would say, at a high level, yes, they are
`often used interchangeably, but I don't know that I
`could agree with a complete blanket statement. I
`would really have to see more.
` Q. Dr. Jones, I want to now ask you about the
`HTTP Get as a data frame.
` Can we see claim 59, please?
` Dr. Jones, claim 59 of the '855 patent states:
` Framing data of each of the selected
` channels into a frame that includes
` header section and a data section,
` wherein the header section includes
` at least one of, and it goes on from
` there.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Claim 59 explicitly requires a frame that
`has a header section and data section, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. This is a dependent claim?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it's dependent on -- claim 59 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
`
`
`
`Page 1747
`
`dependent on what claim?
` A. Claim 53.
` Q. Can we see claim 53, please?
` And I want to concentrate on the receiving
`from a plurality of clients limitation, please.
` Dr. Jones, we see here on the third line it
`says, identifying a data frame at one of the specific
`time intervals. Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there a requirement in claim 53 that
`the data frame that is identified contain a header
`section and a body or payload section?
` A. No.
` MR. KAMPRATH: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Thank you. Mr. Ramani?
` MR. RAMANI: The first thing I'm going to
`say that Dr. Jones may be happy with, Your Honor, I
`have no further questions.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Oh. Thank you very much.
` All right. Dr. Jones, you may step down. And
`I gather --
` THE WITNESS: I just dropped three million
`binders.
` JUDGE McNAMARA: Okay. It didn't fall on
`you. I think that's it for today, so I gather 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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
