`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE, LLC
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-505 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Waco, Texas
` )
`APPLE, INC.
`) October 23, 2020
`__________________________________________________________
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE, LLC
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-507 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Waco, Texas
` )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., )
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS )
`AMERICA, INC.
`) October 23, 2020
`
`
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For Apple, Inc.:
`
`Mr. Philip J. Graves
`Hagens, Berman, Sobol,
`Shapiro, LLP
`301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
`Pasadena, California 91101
`Mr. Craig D. Cherry
`Haley & Olson, P.C.
`100 North Ritchie Road, Suite 200
`Waco, Texas 76712
`
`Ms. Betty H. Chen
`Fish & Richardson, PC
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 1
`
`
`
`2
`
`(Appearances Continued:)
`For Samsung Electronics: Mr. John M. Guaragna
`DLA Piper, LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`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-aided transcription.
`
`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
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 2
`
`
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon. It's Alan Albright.
`Ms. Miles, would you call the case, please.
`THE CLERK: Sure.
`Telephonic scheduling conference in Civil Action
`6:20-CV-505, styled, Neonode Smartphone, LLC vs. Apple,
`Incorporated; and Case No. 6:20-CV-507, styled, Neonode
`Smartphone, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Company, Limited
`and Samsung Electronics America, Incorporated.
`THE COURT: Welcome, everyone.
`If I could hear announcements from counsel,
`please, starting with the plaintiff.
`MR. CHERRY: Your Honor, this is Craig Cherry
`with Haley & Olson on behalf of plaintiff, and Philip
`Graves of the Hagens Berman law firm. And Mr. Graves will
`be speaking on behalf on all points this afternoon, your
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Welcome. Thank you.
`MR. GRAVES: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`This is Philip Graves on behalf of plaintiffs.
`THE COURT: And for defendant?
`MS. CHEN: Good afternoon, your Honor --
`MR. GUARAGNA: John Guaragna --
`MS. CHEN: Hi, John.
`This is Betty Chen of Fish & Richardson on behalf
`of Apple.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:29:54
`
`13:30:00
`
`13:30:02
`
`13:30:03
`
`13:30:05
`
`13:30:10
`
`13:30:17
`
`13:30:20
`
`13:30:25
`
`13:30:26
`
`13:30:27
`
`13:30:31
`
`13:30:33
`
`13:30:35
`
`13:30:39
`
`13:30:43
`
`13:30:43
`
`13:30:49
`
`13:30:50
`
`13:30:53
`
`13:30:58
`
`13:30:59
`
`13:31:02
`
`13:31:03
`
`13:31:07
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 3
`
`
`
`4
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And are there any issues we
`need to take up?
`MR. GUARAGNA: Your Honor, John Guaragna, just in
`case I was cut off there, for Samsung Defendants.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. GUARAGNA: At least from the defendants, your
`Honor, we do have a couple of issues we'd like to take up
`with respect to some pre-Markman items.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. GUARAGNA: And speaking for Samsung, your
`Honor, there are a couple of areas of third-party
`discovery that we'd like leave to commence prior to the
`Markman hearing. And I'm going to address one of those
`issues, and I think Ms. Chen's going to address another
`one.
`
`With respect to the first issue, your Honor, we
`believe that there are material prior art references
`located with Sony, and we would like leave to commence
`that third-party discovery of Sony to identify and
`hopefully obtain the evidence with respect to those
`third-party products that we think are going to be
`important pieces of prior art in this case. We'd like to
`commence that discovery as soon as possible.
`We're hopeful but, unfortunately, we think there
`may be a need to seek some of the discovery from Sony
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:31:08
`
`13:31:10
`
`13:31:13
`
`13:31:15
`
`13:31:18
`
`13:31:23
`
`13:31:25
`
`13:31:27
`
`13:31:30
`
`13:31:33
`
`13:31:35
`
`13:31:40
`
`13:31:44
`
`13:31:47
`
`13:31:49
`
`13:31:50
`
`13:31:53
`
`13:32:00
`
`13:32:04
`
`13:32:10
`
`13:32:14
`
`13:32:18
`
`13:32:20
`
`13:32:24
`
`13:32:26
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 4
`
`
`
`5
`
`overseas. And as your Honor obviously has experience,
`that can take some time and will take likely even longer
`during the pandemic. So with your Honor's permission,
`we'd like to commence that discovery of Sony. Hopefully
`we won't need to go through the Hague and go overseas, but
`it looks like that is probably the case; but we'll avoid
`it if we can.
`But, in essence, we'd just like to get those
`documents, no deposition. Just simply documents and get
`that perhaps started now so we'll have it because it will
`matter in the litigation.
`THE COURT: Yeah. Let me tell you what I'm
`trying -- and, Mr. Guaragna, as part of my committee, this
`is an issue I think we're going to try and address on a
`more permanent basis because it's coming up a good bit,
`especially worse with the COVID situation and the
`inability to travel.
`So I am absolutely fine with you commencing
`anything that is going to make the case go more smoothly.
`If you are subpoenaing things for -- I'm not sure exactly
`what format you're using to try and obtain what it is
`you're trying to obtain from Sony, the only thing I would
`suggest that you do is, make sure that the plaintiffs are
`given a chance to -- if there's something they also need
`from Sony or anyone else you're going to be sending 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
`
`13:32:31
`
`13:32:36
`
`13:32:39
`
`13:32:43
`
`13:32:45
`
`13:32:47
`
`13:32:51
`
`13:32:53
`
`13:32:56
`
`13:32:59
`
`13:33:01
`
`13:33:03
`
`13:33:05
`
`13:33:09
`
`13:33:12
`
`13:33:15
`
`13:33:20
`
`13:33:22
`
`13:33:26
`
`13:33:32
`
`13:33:37
`
`13:33:41
`
`13:33:44
`
`13:33:52
`
`13:33:55
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 5
`
`
`
`6
`
`request to, that they be able to cross-subpoena -- or if
`they choose to. They can do whatever they want. But
`we've got a couple of cases recently where one side was
`concerned because the other side had subpoenaed some
`things, but not everything.
`So I'm actually fine for you to do that. Also,
`just at a more macro level that may or may not apply to
`what y'all are doing here, I think what I'm going to start
`doing is -- and encouraging, actually. And, of course,
`with lawyers of y'all's caliber, I probably don't need to
`encourage, that you're probably going to do it without
`that.
`
`But, you know, anything that you can do in terms
`of either documents, possible art, or inventors for sure
`that are foreign, I'm going to allow those efforts to take
`place immediately in terms of trying to get them arranged.
`But I don't think I'm going to allow the discovery, for
`example, the deposition to take place until, you know,
`after the Markman.
`But anything that a party wants to do to
`accelerate the process of getting discovery done once the
`Markman has taken place, I'm probably going to be okay
`with.
`
`MR. GUARAGNA: Thank you, your Honor.
`I think to your point about collaboratively
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:33:59
`
`13:34:03
`
`13:34:07
`
`13:34:10
`
`13:34:14
`
`13:34:15
`
`13:34:19
`
`13:34:24
`
`13:34:27
`
`13:34:31
`
`13:34:35
`
`13:34:37
`
`13:34:37
`
`13:34:41
`
`13:34:48
`
`13:34:53
`
`13:35:00
`
`13:35:04
`
`13:35:09
`
`13:35:10
`
`13:35:16
`
`13:35:19
`
`13:35:22
`
`13:35:25
`
`13:35:27
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 6
`
`
`
`7
`
`approaching this, I think the parties have already agreed
`to coordinate discovery in this case generally. And so,
`we would certainly welcome an opportunity to make it as
`easy as possible on Sony. And to the extent the plaintiff
`has any issues it intends to seek doing that in
`conjunction or doing that collaboratively, I think, is
`certainly fine with us and makes a lot of sense. So we
`appreciate that, your Honor.
`We will -- we do intend to issue subpoenas.
`Hopefully we can issue them just to the U.S. entity and
`obtain any information we need. If we don't, we will move
`forward with the overseas efforts. And we will hold off
`on any depositions until after the Markman hearing, as
`your Honor has indicated.
`THE COURT: Now, of course, if -- and that -- and
`by the way, that is sort of a generic concern. If you
`were to find out, for some reason, that you needed to take
`some -- actually take some kind of discovery because it
`might not still exist, you know, if there's a person that
`might no longer be with Sony, for example, or I guess
`worse situation. But if there's any need to take
`discovery because there's no -- it may not be available
`after the Markman, just, you know, try and work that out
`yourselves. But if you can't, certainly bring it to my
`attention, and on a micro level, I'm happy to deal with
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:35:33
`
`13:35:35
`
`13:35:38
`
`13:35:42
`
`13:35:44
`
`13:35:48
`
`13:35:51
`
`13:35:53
`
`13:35:56
`
`13:35:59
`
`13:36:05
`
`13:36:07
`
`13:36:10
`
`13:36:13
`
`13:36:13
`
`13:36:16
`
`13:36:21
`
`13:36:26
`
`13:36:31
`
`13:36:34
`
`13:36:41
`
`13:36:42
`
`13:36:44
`
`13:36:48
`
`13:36:50
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 7
`
`
`
`8
`
`any issues you all have of whether or not to allow
`discovery. But I will probably always err on the side of
`making sure that the discovery is able to be taken.
`But for the generic discovery that, Mr. Guaragna,
`you're talking about, hopefully my plan works. If you
`find, by the way, that there is some problem that's kind
`of baked in that I'm just missing, please let me know
`because, as I think everyone on the call knows, my goal is
`to make this as user or lawyer-friendly as possible, and
`if something I'm not allowing you to do or allowing you to
`do, or we need to do it some other way that's more
`efficient for you all, that is my ultimate goal.
`So that was Mr. Guaragna. Does Ms. Chen need to
`take up anything for her client?
`MS. CHEN: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
`So I think here, we have the exact situation that
`you're talking about where it is a unique situation, and
`we would ask to take discovery and depositions before
`Markman for certain foreign entities and the foreign
`inventor.
`And so, if I can give you some of the facts so
`you understand the situation here, we have an entity
`called Neonode, Inc., and that entity was original
`assignee of the patents when they were issued. Neonode,
`Inc. is located in Sweden, and it still has profit-sharing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:36:54
`
`13:36:57
`
`13:37:01
`
`13:37:04
`
`13:37:08
`
`13:37:12
`
`13:37:17
`
`13:37:22
`
`13:37:26
`
`13:37:32
`
`13:37:37
`
`13:37:39
`
`13:37:43
`
`13:37:51
`
`13:37:53
`
`13:37:54
`
`13:37:59
`
`13:38:03
`
`13:38:07
`
`13:38:13
`
`13:38:13
`
`13:38:15
`
`13:38:20
`
`13:38:25
`
`13:38:29
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 8
`
`
`
`9
`
`rights with monetization of these patents. So Neonode has
`at least six foreign subsidiaries and various joint
`ventures. They range from places in Japan and South
`Korea, Taiwan and Sweden.
`And from looking at the public documents so, for
`example, Neonode, Inc.'s 10-K, it looks like some of these
`entities have rights to develop and license touchscreen
`technologies. But to be honest, it's just a hodgepodge of
`foreign entities, and we can't figure out who does what
`from just looking at the public documents.
`And so, what we had is this multiple layer of
`entity -- foreign entity discovery. We have to first
`conduct the discovery to figure out which entities are --
`have which rights. And then, we have the second layer of
`foreign discovery to obtain licensing assignment and
`conception, valuation documents. And so, if we were to
`start in April on the depositions, I just don't think we
`have enough time within a seven-month period of discovery.
`So for the entities, we would ask to take the
`depositions and collect documents in advance. So
`separately, we also have --
`THE COURT: Let me --
`MS. CHEN: -- the coinventor -- okay.
`THE COURT: Let me hear if there's any objection
`to that from the plaintiff.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:38:33
`
`13:38:37
`
`13:38:42
`
`13:38:45
`
`13:38:47
`
`13:38:50
`
`13:38:54
`
`13:38:58
`
`13:39:01
`
`13:39:04
`
`13:39:05
`
`13:39:11
`
`13:39:14
`
`13:39:18
`
`13:39:21
`
`13:39:29
`
`13:39:31
`
`13:39:36
`
`13:39:40
`
`13:39:43
`
`13:39:49
`
`13:39:51
`
`13:39:53
`
`13:39:54
`
`13:39:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`MR. GRAVES: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
`This is Phil Graves.
`We do object for several reasons. First, it's
`not accurate to suggest that Neonode, Inc. is a foreign
`entity. It's actually a Delaware corporation with a place
`of business in San Jose, California. Second, you know,
`the ownership -- it's a little unclear what bearing any
`information concerning ownership or licensing would have
`on any issues that need to be addressed prior to the
`Markman.
`We're fine with Apple commencing the process of
`obtaining foreign discovery against, you know, whatever
`foreign Neonode-affiliated entities they think may have
`discoverable information. But we just don't think it's
`efficient to conduct depositions and undertake, you know,
`significant intensive discovery on these issues prior to
`the Markman.
`So we do object to this request, but, you know,
`we're fine commencing the process as Samsung has
`requested, right, but we just don't think it's efficient.
`And we don't think it's going to yield anything useful for
`Apple to be, you know, running all over the world, taking
`depositions of a bunch of entities that really are
`unlikely to have any material information or evidence in
`any event.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:40:02
`
`13:40:03
`
`13:40:05
`
`13:40:09
`
`13:40:15
`
`13:40:19
`
`13:40:25
`
`13:40:30
`
`13:40:33
`
`13:40:37
`
`13:40:38
`
`13:40:43
`
`13:40:45
`
`13:40:51
`
`13:40:54
`
`13:40:59
`
`13:41:04
`
`13:41:05
`
`13:41:08
`
`13:41:14
`
`13:41:17
`
`13:41:21
`
`13:41:23
`
`13:41:26
`
`13:41:31
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 10
`
`
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Well, let me ask this. It sounds to
`me like maybe the place to jump off on this is to allow
`Apple to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of the United States
`entity and we can -- and that person should be prepared to
`tell us whether or not the information that they're
`seeking with regard to licensing, and the other
`assignments, and the other issues is available from
`someone in the United States or whether or not everyone
`will have to go to a foreign country to do that.
`And then, it seems to me, we can make a more
`informed decision at that point, the extent of dis --
`whether or not we actually need to do discovery right now
`or whether or not we just need to allow -- I need to allow
`the defendant to lay the predicate, as it were, to get the
`discovery done once the Markman takes place.
`So, Ms. Chen, is there a downside to that I'm
`missing?
`MS. CHEN: I don't see a downside. That works
`
`for us.
`
`THE COURT: What is the relationship -- and I'm
`not asking a legal relationship. Just if I were to allow
`the deposition of that entity to take place, does the
`plaintiff's counsel have the ability to coordinate that
`kind of deposition or does -- or are they a pure third
`party that -- what's the situation there?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:41:31
`
`13:41:37
`
`13:41:45
`
`13:41:52
`
`13:41:57
`
`13:42:03
`
`13:42:05
`
`13:42:09
`
`13:42:13
`
`13:42:19
`
`13:42:23
`
`13:42:26
`
`13:42:29
`
`13:42:33
`
`13:42:39
`
`13:42:41
`
`13:42:47
`
`13:42:48
`
`13:42:50
`
`13:43:00
`
`13:43:02
`
`13:43:05
`
`13:43:07
`
`13:43:12
`
`13:43:17
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 11
`
`
`
`12
`
`MR. GRAVES: Yes, your Honor.
`Neonode, Inc. is a third party. We are not
`representing -- we are not counsel for Neonode, Inc.
`THE COURT: Okay. Well, in that case, I'll allow
`-- I will allow that discovery to take place. I assume
`that they will cooperate with what I'm asking to be done;
`if not and if Apple needs to come back to the Court for
`some kind of order, I'm happy to do that, as well. Just
`let me know.
`So does that resolve that issue as far as
`everyone's concerned?
`MS. CHEN: From Apple's side, yes, your Honor.
`MR. GRAVES: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. And, Ms. Chen, I interrupted
`you earlier. What is the next issue?
`MS. CHEN: Sure.
`So it's similar in that the sole inventor of the
`patent, someone named Magnus Goertz, is located in Sweden.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. CHEN: And Neonode in this case has claimed a
`priority date of May 25th, 2000. The first patent in the
`case was filed on December 10th, 2002. And as far as
`we've seen so far, Neonode hasn't produced any conception
`or reduction to practice documents dating back to the May
`25th, 2000 date. We've asked Neonode to confirm that it's
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:43:19
`
`13:43:22
`
`13:43:25
`
`13:43:29
`
`13:43:33
`
`13:43:40
`
`13:43:45
`
`13:43:49
`
`13:43:51
`
`13:43:52
`
`13:43:55
`
`13:43:58
`
`13:44:03
`
`13:44:03
`
`13:44:05
`
`13:44:09
`
`13:44:10
`
`13:44:14
`
`13:44:20
`
`13:44:21
`
`13:44:25
`
`13:44:29
`
`13:44:34
`
`13:44:38
`
`13:44:42
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 12
`
`
`
`13
`
`produced all conception, reduction to practice documents,
`and it says it has, but Mr. Goertz might have more.
`So here, you know, again, we feel like we're put
`in a distinct disadvantage by not being able to conduct
`discovery of Mr. Goertz before the Markman, and we'd ask
`to be able to take a deposition of him and be able to
`collect documents because we need to prepare invalidity
`contentions and understand this purported priority date
`that goes back to 2000.
`THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure if the plaintiffs
`have given you that date and they've acted in good faith,
`in other words, if you have a lawyer on their side who is
`-- who has represented to you what that date is, it seems
`to me that you do your invalidity contentions based on
`that, and if it turns out that in -- there wasn't a
`good-faith basis for that to be made, then you can raise
`that with me again.
`Here's the only reason I say that is basically,
`you know, I think you should get -- you're going to get
`one opportunity to speak through deposition to the
`inventor. And so, you know, if you -- if I were to allow
`you to take the deposition of the inventor now, that would
`be your -- you know, your one opportunity. And that may
`be fine with you, and if it is -- and it sounds to me like
`you'll probably be doing it by Zoom, then I'm open to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:44:47
`
`13:44:50
`
`13:44:55
`
`13:44:59
`
`13:45:04
`
`13:45:08
`
`13:45:12
`
`13:45:16
`
`13:45:20
`
`13:45:22
`
`13:45:26
`
`13:45:29
`
`13:45:33
`
`13:45:38
`
`13:45:40
`
`13:45:44
`
`13:45:47
`
`13:45:48
`
`13:45:54
`
`13:45:57
`
`13:46:02
`
`13:46:06
`
`13:46:10
`
`13:46:13
`
`13:46:19
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 13
`
`
`
`14
`
`hearing that, as well.
`But with the understanding that this would be the
`only deposition that would be allowed of the inventor,
`what would -- what would your preference be?
`MS. CHEN: Well, with that understanding, that
`what I would ask for is for the May 25th, 2000 date to be
`-- to be stricken, quite honestly, because we don't have
`any of the documents, any documents at all from the
`plaintiff to support that date.
`And they've said that they've provided us with
`all documents, but I believe the document that goes back
`the farthest is May 2001. And so, without any documents
`that support that early date, then it's really hard for us
`to be able to prepare our case and our defense with a date
`that has no support.
`THE COURT: Well, how about -- how about this.
`My recollection was that -- my recollection is that it was
`a legitimate 30(b)(6) topic to -- a legitimate 30(b)(6)
`topic for someone to ask for that they -- the plaintiff
`produce someone who would testify and bind the company
`with respect to the date of conception. What if I allowed
`you to have a deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness -- I can't
`imagine it would take longer than an hour -- of the
`plaintiff who you would then have a 30(b)(6)
`representative who would be telling you what they believe
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:46:22
`
`13:46:24
`
`13:46:30
`
`13:46:32
`
`13:46:37
`
`13:46:38
`
`13:46:48
`
`13:46:50
`
`13:46:52
`
`13:46:55
`
`13:46:57
`
`13:47:00
`
`13:47:05
`
`13:47:10
`
`13:47:13
`
`13:47:16
`
`13:47:21
`
`13:47:28
`
`13:47:37
`
`13:47:41
`
`13:47:44
`
`13:47:48
`
`13:47:53
`
`13:47:56
`
`13:48:00
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 14
`
`
`
`15
`
`the date of conception to be, and we would go from there.
`MS. CHEN: That works for us. Thank you, your
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. GRAVES: Your Honor, might I respond?
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`MR. GRAVES: So the -- so, first of all, the date
`that we've provided in our disclosure of preliminary
`infringement contentions and priority date does have a
`good-faith basis. We have informed defense counsel that
`the plaintiff here, Neonode Smartphone, has produced all
`materials in its possession, custody or control that
`evidence conception or reduction to practice. That has
`been done.
`But Neonode Smartphone does not control the
`inventor, Mr. Goertz. So we've also informed defense
`counsel, Mr. Goertz may have additional materials that
`bear on conception or reduction to practice and obviously
`has information along those lines. But again, since
`Neonode Smartphone does not control Mr. Goertz and can't
`necessarily obtain information from him, complete or
`otherwise, that would enable it to respond to an inquiry
`at a 30(b)(6) deposition, you know, it doesn't appear to
`me that that would be, you know, the most effective way to
`get at these issues. I mean, we're --
`THE COURT: Well, don't you have -- you just said
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:48:03
`
`13:48:07
`
`13:48:09
`
`13:48:09
`
`13:48:12
`
`13:48:13
`
`13:48:18
`
`13:48:22
`
`13:48:25
`
`13:48:31
`
`13:48:36
`
`13:48:40
`
`13:48:45
`
`13:48:45
`
`13:48:52
`
`13:48:56
`
`13:49:03
`
`13:49:06
`
`13:49:11
`
`13:49:16
`
`13:49:22
`
`13:49:25
`
`13:49:30
`
`13:49:35
`
`13:49:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 15
`
`
`
`16
`
`you had provided to defendants a good-faith basis. And my
`sense of what you would be saying, if I were in your
`shoes, is that we've given them the best date we have, but
`it could very well be that they get -- that when the
`inventor talks, it could be an even earlier date because
`he might be able to say -- to have additional information.
`Is that what you're saying?
`MR. GRAVES: That's certainly one aspect of what
`I'm saying. Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Well, in that case, you know, it
`seems to me that we probably ought to allow the defendant
`to take a deposition, if they could get one arranged, with
`the inventor to find out what he's going to say about the
`invention date. Because if the only thing the plaintiff
`is able to do is give a good-faith effort and I'm forcing
`the defendants to give invalidity contentions, it seems to
`me that they ought to have the benefit of that information
`from the inventor.
`And by the way, I understand what you're saying
`about the 30(b)(6) and I wouldn't want someone -- I
`wouldn't want to force you to have a 30(b)(6) from a
`witness who, you know, really would feel uncomfortable
`because he doesn't have any better information than what
`y'all have.
`So what is your proposal for a solution to 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
`
`13:49:43
`
`13:49:48
`
`13:49:51
`
`13:49:56
`
`13:50:01
`
`13:50:04
`
`13:50:07
`
`13:50:09
`
`13:50:13
`
`13:50:15
`
`13:50:21
`
`13:50:25
`
`13:50:28
`
`13:50:33
`
`13:50:36
`
`13:50:42
`
`13:50:48
`
`13:50:49
`
`13:50:51
`
`13:50:53
`
`13:50:57
`
`13:50:59
`
`13:51:03
`
`13:51:06
`
`13:51:06
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 16
`
`
`
`17
`
`before I tell you what mine is?
`MR. GRAVES: Well, your Honor, so -- you know,
`it's plaintiff's perspective that, you know, that
`testimony regarding the conception and reduction to
`practice doesn't really bear on the issues to be addressed
`at claim construction. The claim construction should just
`go forward, construing the claims based on the intrinsic
`and whatever extrinsic evidence bears on those issues.
`But with respect to, you know, the issue of a
`30(b)(6) versus a declaration or a deposition, rather, of
`Mr. Goertz, you know, it would be our position that a
`30(b)(6) would be fundamentally unfair to the plaintiffs
`due to constraints on the plaintiff's ability to obtain
`complete information regarding the evidence --
`THE COURT: Well, let me interrupt you because
`maybe I wasn't clear.
`I'm not going to make -- I get that. I'm not
`going to make you do a 30(b)(6). So I'm trying to figure
`out -- I'm trying to figure out what an alternate method
`is because I do think that -- I do think that the
`defendants ought to have a reliable date. And if you've
`given them a date, but you can't provide them in good
`faith -- I'm going to assume it is. But if you can't
`provide to them any information -- unless you have and you
`could tell me if you have -- that backs that date up, then
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:51:10
`
`13:51:16
`
`13:51:19
`
`13:51:25
`
`13:51:27
`
`13:51:30
`
`13:51:33
`
`13:51:37
`
`13:51:42
`
`13:51:45
`
`13:51:48
`
`13:51:51
`
`13:51:57
`
`13:52:01
`
`13:52:04
`
`13:52:06
`
`13:52:07
`
`13:52:10
`
`13:52:12
`
`13:52:15
`
`13:52:23
`
`13:52:29
`
`13:52:34
`
`13:52:36
`
`13:52:42
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 17
`
`
`
`18
`
`it seems to me that the person -- only person that really
`has that information is the inventor, and we might need to
`have him -- if he will make himself available, we might
`need to have him deposed.
`MR. GRAVES: And, your Honor, we or plaintiff
`would not oppose, you know, efforts to obtain a deposition
`of Mr. Goertz, of course, as long as, you know, all
`parties are provided an opportunity to ask some questions
`at that deposition.
`THE COURT: Well, I think that's -- you know,
`maybe I've been off the bench too long, but that's my
`recollection of how these things work. So -- unless they
`changed the rules and I missed it. So yes. If we're
`going to go the deposition route, yes, everyone would get
`to ask questions.
`So it sounds to me like we have a suggestion from
`the defendant and no opposition from the plaintiff. And
`so, that being said, I'm not sure exactly, Ms. Chen, how
`you go about arranging this deposition of the inventor,
`but I will tell you that, as far as I'm concerned, you are
`free to do so.
`MS. CHEN: Thank you, your Honor.
`One clarification. So with that, are we still
`limited to just the one deposition of the inventor?
`THE COURT: You know, number one, I'm not sure
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:52:46
`
`13:52:50
`
`13:52:53
`
`13:52:57
`
`13:53:00
`
`13:53:02
`
`13:53:08
`
`13:53:12
`
`13:53:19
`
`13:53:20
`
`13:53:23
`
`13:53:26
`
`13:53:31
`
`13:53:35
`
`13:53:40
`
`13:53:44
`
`13:53:48
`
`13:53:52
`
`13:53:56
`
`13:54:01
`
`13:54:04
`
`13:54:06
`
`13:54:07
`
`13:54:12
`
`13:54:16
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 18
`
`
`
`19
`
`that you'll be able to persuade this guy to give you one,
`to begin with. And so, what I would suggest you do is
`make this a full deposition of him, since he's -- unless
`-- let me start over.
`If you could get in agreement that you think you
`could trust and rely on that he would make himself
`available again -- I'm assuming this will be by Zoom. If
`you can get an agreement from him that you're sanguine
`with that he would appear again, then I would limit the
`deposition to just the issues of -- you're worried about
`with the date of conception.
`If you have a legitimate concern that he might
`not voluntarily appear again, then you are free to ask him
`whatever questions you can ask, and then, we'll just deal
`-- I will not say right now that I'm going to prohibit you
`from taking the deposition. All I'm saying is, you know,
`you may or may not -- you know, he may or may not agree to
`do it. But I would allow in this situation another
`deposition.
`MS. CHEN: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Any other issues we need to take up?
`MS. CHEN: Yes, your Honor. Sorry. If I could
`indulge you with one more issue.
`So --
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13:54:18
`
`13:54:21
`
`13:54:29
`
`13:54:34
`
`13:54:35
`
`13:54:39
`
`13:54:43
`
`13:54:46
`
`13:54:50
`
`13:54:54
`
`13:55:00
`
`13:55:03
`
`13:55:08
`
`13:55:12
`
`13:55:15
`
`13:55:18
`
`13:55:24
`
`13:55:26
`
`13:55:28
`
`13:55:29
`
`13:55:33
`
`13:55:37
`
`13:55:38
`
`13:55:41
`
`13:55:43
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00145 (US 8,812,993)
`Neonode Ex. 2006 - Page 19
`
`
`
`20
`
`MS. CHEN: -- the issue is this. So these
`patents in the suit are user interface patents. So, for
`example, one of the patents, the 879 patent, Neonode has
`accused glide or swipe typing, and the Apple iPhone, the
`feature's called QuickPath. And what happens is when you
`open up the keyboard, you can create words by moving your
`finger across the keyboard without ever lifting your
`finger up.
`So that's a feature that Apple developed and
`created. It's native to the phones when you buy them.
`Neonode has accused and allegedly charted this. But what
`Neonode has also done is it's accused ten apps that are
`entirely created by third parties, and it hasn't charted a
`single one of them.
`So all it's done is, it's included one screen
`shot for one app keyboard, and that's for one single
`limitation; and then, it just concludes that the program
`code for all third parties' s