`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS
`* June 22, 2021
`*
`VS.
`* CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`*
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.
`* W-20-CV-142
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL W-20-CV-468
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`DISCOVERY HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Michael W. Shore, Esq.
`William D. Ellerman, Esq.
`Corey Martin Lipschutz, Esq.
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Charles L. Ainsworth, Esq.
`Robert Christopher Bunt, Esq.
`Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
`100 East Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, TX 75702
`For Defendant Asustek Computer:
`Jonathan K. Waldrop, Esq.
`Marcus A. Barber, Esq.
`Jack Shaw, Esq.
`Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Allen Franklin Gardner, Esq.
`Allen Gardner Law, PLLC
`609 S. Fannin
`Tyler, TX 75701
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`2
`
`For Defendant Dell, et al:
`Jonah D. Mitchell, Esq.
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Peter J. Chassman, Esq.
`Reed Smith LLP
`811 Main Street, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`Roger J. Fulghum, Esq.
`Baker Botts LLP
`One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana
`Houston, TX 77002
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`3
`
`(June 22, 2021, 10:32 a.m.)
`DEPUTY CLERK: Discovery hearing in Civil Actions
`W-20-CV-142, styled UNM Rainforest Innovations versus Asustek
`Computer, Incorporated, and Case No. W-20-CV-468, styled UNM
`Rainforest Innovations versus Dell Technologies Incorporated
`and others.
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements from counsel. I
`see Mr. Waldrop, perhaps he's going to speak up.
`MR. WALDROP: Good morning, Your Honor.
`MR. AINSWORTH: Judge, this Charley Ainsworth, Michael
`Shore, Will Ellerman and Chris Bunt for the plaintiffs, and
`we're ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Ainsworth.
`MR. AINSWORTH: Sorry to interrupt.
`THE COURT: No problem.
`MR. GARDNER: Your Honor, Allen Gardner and Jonathan
`Waldrop for Asus, and we are ready to proceed as well. Jack
`Shaw as well.
`THE COURT: I think I saw Mr. Fulghum in there. Anyone
`
`else?
`
`MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Jonah
`Mitchell with Reed Smith on behalf of Dell. I know you just
`noted Mr. Fulghum from Baker Botts here on behalf of Dell as
`well. A colleague of mine from Reed Smith, Pete Chassman, is
`on as well, as well as our client, Lauren Hoffer from Dell, 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`4
`
`here as well.
`THE COURT: Welcome to anyone who's attending who's not
`outside counsel. I appreciate them taking the time to attend.
`I'm happy to take -- you all have caught me. I'm waiting
`for the jury, but I'm done with the week-long trial. I'm happy
`to help. What can we take up?
`MR. SHORE: Your Honor, I think the primary issue or first
`issue is the sequence and timing of the deposition of Mr. Wang,
`the ITRI corporate representative and an individual deponent.
`And I guess to give you a slightly more color than the position
`statements, is that the defendants -- I think all but Dell,
`maybe Dell also -- are attempting to force the deposition of
`Mr. Wang this month, actually next week.
`In one of the cases discovery hasn't even opened yet, the
`D-Link case. But Mr. Wang's counsel -- and I'll let him speak
`for himself in a minute, but he's made it clear that Mr. Wang
`is only going to appear one time. I believe he's only saying
`that ITRI as a corporate representative is only going to appear
`one time across all these cases. And they've also said that
`we're only going to get three and a half hours of deposition
`time with Mr. Wang across all of these cases, which is
`ridiculous.
`They have -- now, they'll say that they agreed to give
`seven hours, but of course the seven hours is with an
`interpreter. So every question has to be interpreted, every
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`5
`
`answer has to be interpreted. They're saying they're not going
`to allow any extra time. They're only going to allow 14 hours
`total, seven hours per side across all of these cases, which
`basically gives us three and a half hours of deposition time
`which we think is crazy.
`But setting that aside, there's -- the other problem in
`that, we have sent discovery to all of the defendants asking
`them for their communication with ITRI and Mr. Wang, including
`communications between counsel for ITRI and counsel for
`Mr. Wang and all of these defendants.
`They have not produced a single piece of paper. They have
`said that all of their communications with Mr. Wang are
`privileged. All of their communications with ITRI are
`privileged, which is bizarre since each of these defendants is
`trying to invalidate all of these patents that ITRI claims it
`owns.
`So how they can be aligned when ITRI says we own these
`patents, which they don't. And we've already proven they don't
`through unequivocal assignments to Sino Matrix that disclaimed
`all contrary agreements or contracts and then a subsequent
`unconditional assignment to UNMRI from Sino Matrix.
`But they're trying to say that there is this secret -- and
`they admit it's secret. And we actually produced a declaration
`from Mr. Wang in another lawsuit in New Mexico where he
`literally says all of these agreements are secret. They're
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`6
`
`trade secrets, they've never been shared with anybody, they've
`never been shared with the public, they've never been filed.
`They basically admitted that the bona fide purchaser for value
`defense is valid, because none of these documents that they're
`claiming establish ITRI's rights, they're all secret. They're
`so secret they have to be filed under seal. And they can't be
`disclosed to the public which is completely at odds with the
`entire, you know, system of notice through assignments with the
`Patent Office.
`But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, this is
`the same conspiracy among Taiwanese defendants and ITRI. They
`told -- they have made -- they made the point in a meeting when
`we sued Apple they didn't care, when we sued Broadcom they
`didn't care. But when we sued Taiwanese defendants they
`actually stated -- Mr. Wang stated in a meeting, we have
`witnesses to it, it's in our pleadings -- that ITRI would do
`anything to help Taiwanese defendants defeat these claims.
`And that's what this is. This is -- and there's -- and
`Mr. Wang and ITRI are cooperating with these defendants. They
`don't even need his deposition. They have unfettered access to
`him. So what they're trying to do is they're trying to bum
`rush this deposition before we get documents showing the
`collusion between these defendants and ITRI, showing how this
`entire -- the participation of ITRI was contrived. And it's a
`scheme, it's a civil conspiracy to defraud and deprive my
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`7
`
`client of the rightful ownership of these patents.
`They refused to disclose what they've been saying to one
`another. They refused to disclose any e-mails between them,
`any cooperation. And they -- and I cannot see how they could
`need the deposition before we get the documents.
`They also produced about ten days ago or so a two-hour
`secretly-recorded conversation between Mr. Wang and a man named
`Mr. Chang who is the CEO of Sino Matrix. He's an elderly man,
`he's disabled. But Mr. Wang and two lawyers representing ITRI
`in Taiwan basically hot boxed him in a conference room, knowing
`he was represented by counsel without getting permission of
`counsel to talk to him. Told him on the recording they were
`not recording the conversation then threatened him with civil
`and criminal liability if he didn't cooperate with ITRI. Told
`him that he couldn't trust his lawyers, told him that his life
`might even be in danger.
`And this is the recording that we first have to get
`interpreted because, you know, statements are interpreted. And
`after it's interpreted from Chinese into Mandarin characters,
`then we have to get it translated from the Mandarin characters
`into English. We got a date when we think we can do that. We
`got word back it'll be the end of next week, we believe, that
`we can get certified translations.
`And, of course, to be admissible in court, they have to be
`certified translations because we are -- you know, our court
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`8
`
`system does everything in English by law. And so we have to
`translate -- we have to interpret then translate those.
`We also got, which is strange, I believe it was Asus made
`a request upon ITRI for documents. Not a subpoena, nothing
`issued from this Court or any other court, just a request for
`documents. And ITRI produced about 200 pages of Mandarin
`documents which we are in the process also of having certified
`translated.
`Now, when we send ITRI a request for documents, we get a
`refuse -- we get no response, not even object -- just no
`response. When we send these defendants requests for documents
`between them and ITRI we get, oh, this is privileged, we have a
`joint defense, even though we're claiming all these patents are
`invalid, which is completely contradictory to ITRI's interest
`that they did on the patents.
`ITRI is not a defendant in the case. There's no joint
`defense agreement -- there can't be a joint defense agreement,
`there's no claims to jointly defend. They are just trying to
`hide from us the collusion, the civil conspiracy and the
`attempt of Mr. Wang and ITRI to do exactly what Mr. Wang said
`he was going to do, which was do anything that he could do to
`help Taiwanese industry if these patents were asserted against
`Taiwanese companies.
`So what we're proposing, Your Honor, is that they not be
`allowed to bum rush us into these depositions, that we take 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`9
`
`depositions after we have the Court decide what documents we
`can get from the defendants that they exchanged between them
`and ITRI, the defense lawyers for ITRI and the lawyers for
`these defendants to get to the bottom of how did ITRI first
`find out about this? How did they get involved in this? And
`how are they coordinating these efforts to literally try to
`steal these patents from my client? Or to cloud title to the
`patents of my client. And get those documents, get them
`translated where necessary. Get the secretly-recorded illegal
`meeting that was conducted between Mr. Wang and Mr. Chang,
`which is illegal under Taiwanese law to contact and talk to --
`illegal may be a strong word. It's unethical for an attorney
`in Taiwan to contact someone represented by counsel and then
`talk to them on the subject matter of the case, much less tell
`them that they can't trust their counsel and that their
`counsel's working against them, which is exactly what happened.
`So we want the documents from these defendants. We want
`the documents from ITRI. We want to get the certified
`translations. We want to get the certified interpretations.
`Because all of this is going to be used in Mr. Wang's
`deposition, especially if he's only going to be deposed one
`time.
`And then once we get all those documents, we can have an
`intelligent conversation with the other side about how long we
`need. But I don't really think we can even have a conversation
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`10
`
`about how much time we need for his deposition until and unless
`we see the documents so we know what the full subject matter of
`his testimony's going to be.
`And I don't know if Your Honor -- I know Your Honor's got
`a super busy docket, but you might recall this is the same
`Mr. Wang who provided voluntarily to the defendants, provided
`declarations in three cases, saying exactly what he thought
`that he needed to say to cloud title of these patents. And
`then we brought forward to Your Honor evidence -- one of the
`things that he said was that the person who signed the
`assignments from ITRI to Sino Matrix had no authority to do so.
`And then we produced a letter that Mr. Wang signed that he sent
`in to the European Patent Office, where he said the person who
`signed the assignments had all the power and authority to bind
`ITRI in contracts or the assignments.
`So, I mean, this is a very clumsy attempt at fraud upon
`the Court and fraud upon my client. And this is a very
`important deposition, it's a critical deposition. It's going
`to go to the credibility of all these defendants. It's going
`to go to the -- it's going to -- I believe this is going to
`make -- establish the case as exceptional for attorneys' fees
`for my client.
`And we want to make sure that we have the ability to take
`this deposition fully and completely prepared to take it and
`under circumstances where we're not likely to be back in front
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`11
`
`of you during the deposition or immediately after the
`deposition because they cut off our ability to talk or to ask
`questions after only three and a half hours, when part of what
`the deposition's going to cover is a two-hour audio tape of a
`meeting, a two-hour -- they want to have -- to limit us to
`almost as little time deposing this guy as to what he spent hot
`boxing Mr. Chang with two lawyers unrepresented by counsel.
`So first stage, give us the discovery that we need to
`prepare for the deposition, translate the documents so they can
`be admissible and admissible form in a federal -- U.S. federal
`court. And we can take his deposition probably in July or
`August. There's no reason to take it next week. And
`there's --
`I don't even know why these defendants want his
`deposition, because as I said before, it's been established
`they have full unfettered access to him. They can get him to
`sign declarations. They can get him to align himself with
`companies that are trying to invalidate the IP that originated
`at ITRI.
`They don't care -- ITRI doesn't care anymore if these
`patents are held invalid. They don't care if they're held
`unenforceable. All they care about is protecting Taiwanese
`industry. And that has become readily apparent in this bum
`rush into a deposition that we're not ready for and don't have
`the documents for, is part and parcel to that plan to try 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`12
`
`help protect Taiwanese industry from the current lawful owner
`of these patents, the University of New Mexico.
`THE COURT: Okey dokey. Any response?
`MR. WALDROP: May it please the Court. My name is Jon
`Waldrop and I represent Asus in this case.
`This is a case in which Asus' efforts to obtain important
`third-party deposition discovery from ITRI concerning threshold
`standing and ownership issues should not be frustrated by the
`plaintiff. On the one hand plaintiff runs into court seeking
`to delay our months-pending deposition, and then on the other
`hand is filing state court actions against ITRI to quiet title
`involving the same issues that Asus and other defendants have
`been complaining about for months.
`This is prejudicial and untenable. We request that the
`Court deny plaintiff's motion to quash, that the Court also
`allow the deposition of Mr. Wang to go forward under the three
`14-hour depositions and not be forced to sit for three 14-hour
`depositions. And if the Court denies plaintiff's request, the
`deposition be ordered to occur during the hours when the Court
`is open since Taiwan is 13 hours ahead of this Court's local
`time.
`Now, Your Honor, given the Court's case schedules, the
`issues with scheduling foreign depositions, Asus must go
`forward. And plaintiff's restrictions are without merit and
`totally designed to frustrate resolution of this 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`13
`
`Now, I listened patiently and I won't respond to all of
`the invective from Mr. Shore, but I want to make sure the Court
`understands the facts of the case. The fact is that this
`deposition notice of ITRI has been pending since January.
`Documents from ITRI were produced three months ago in March.
`The audio tape that Mr. Shore is categorizing -- even though I
`don't know if he speaks Mandarin -- it -- characterizing, was
`produced over a month ago. We produced it in due course as
`soon as we got it. So we have observed and followed our
`discovery obligations in this case to the fulsome, Your Honor.
`This is against the backdrop, Your Honor, of a case
`schedule that this Court has set that we're trying to comply
`with. In the Asus case our fact discovery ends on August 2nd.
`The Dell case -- and you'll hear from Mr. Mitchell later, their
`discovery deadline I believe is July 16th. These issues are
`ripe. They're important and they are compelling.
`We believe, Your Honor, that there is -- if there's any
`flimflamming or any inconsistent positions, it is plaintiff
`coming in and making, I think, fairly serious allegations
`against members of the bar, members who appear before your
`court, about collusion and fraud -- very strong words -- versus
`a case schedule versus them filing state court actions
`regarding ownership and standing, Your Honor.
`The defendants are in a unique position of being forced to
`try an entire case in which they believe, and the original
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`14
`
`owners of patents believe, is without merit. That it cannot be
`brought against Taiwanese defendants or non-Taiwanese
`defendants. I know Mr. Shore is making some, I don't know,
`national origin argument regarding the Taiwanese origin of our
`companies. But Dell, I don't believe, Your Honor, originated
`in Taiwan. They are a U.S. company and they're fully in
`support of our position.
`So this is bigger than whatever nationalistic or foreign
`argument that Mr. Shore is making. This is about threshold
`issues, and this is a serious issue that we have been alerting
`the Court to in our motions to stay from the very beginning.
`We don't believe, Dell doesn't believe, ITRI doesn't
`believe that the plaintiff has the right to proceed in this
`case. And we are faced with a monstrous outcome of, one, going
`forward to the mat on a case before your court -- and I love
`being in your court. But going to the case -- to the mat in a
`case in which it should have never been brought. And plaintiff
`is not sure it should be brought either because they're filing
`state court actions a month ago to supposedly quiet title. And
`we're joined by ITRI's lawyer who's on this phone who also
`believe that this case should have never been brought.
`Now, I'm not going to make any allegations about fraud or
`any allegations about conspiracy. I believe everybody's doing
`their very best they can. But the very best that we can do,
`Your Honor, is to resolve these threshold and standing issues
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`15
`
`immediately or come with some mechanism by which this case
`is -- this case and other cases don't proceed in manners that
`don't promote judicial economy and are not consistent with the
`law.
`And so we are amenable to accommodating the plaintiff in
`terms of information that they need. That is fine, Your Honor.
`But we cannot do that, Your Honor, in the context of looming
`discovery deadlines, both fact discovery and expert discovery,
`and in a situation where plaintiff has been on notice for
`months about what is going -- it's had documents for three
`months, has known about the notice for six months. And they
`get to come in a week before the deposition and upset the apple
`cart.
`The final thing I would say, Your Honor, before I would
`like to stop and figure out how the Court wants to deal with
`one big issue is, there are motions to stay pending in this
`case, Your Honor. And I know that the Court has entertained
`those motions. We believe if there was ever a case where
`there's a threshold issue in which a motion to stay should be
`allowed to be addressed and heard and ruled upon, is in this
`case.
`This is a mess. It is a mess of the plaintiff's making,
`we believe. It is a mess from the outset. I think it goes to
`diligence on the plaintiff's part. And the fact that we have
`three parallel litigations going on, this case before Your
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`16
`
`Honor, cases in New Mexico regarding the same patents and
`ownership, cases in -- a case in Taiwan regarding similar
`issues, an injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from assigning
`these patents or having access to these patents, Your Honor.
`If there was ever a situation where there needed to be some
`clarity, it is in this case, under these facts with these
`looming deadlines.
`And so I don't know how the Court wants to deal with that.
`I'm very much focused on the discovery dispute which is the
`deposition dispute. Mr. Mitchell, who's Dell's counsel, may
`want to weigh on that since all those motions have been fully
`briefed.
`But we are -- we cannot -- we are willing at the Court's
`direction to permit some kind of accommodation. But under this
`case schedule with this movement and these deadlines, Your
`Honor, we have to proceed and defend our client and defend the
`merits of the case.
`The only thing I will end with, Your Honor, is as to the
`communications between parties, Your Honor, there is a common
`interest. The parties are fully aligned. The original owner
`of the patents believe that plaintiff shouldn't have them.
`Asus believes that they shouldn't have them. Dell believes
`they shouldn't have them. They shouldn't be being asserted in
`this case.
`And communications between counsel is privileged, Your
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 16 of 44
`
`
`
`17
`
`Honor. And I'm shocked that Mr. Shore needs them because he
`doesn't need them to win his case, and we don't need to
`disclose them to win our case. We believe that the ITRI
`deposition will provide a lot of clarity about what was said
`and when it was said.
`And I'll stop there, Your Honor, without going further.
`I'll stop and if the Court has any questions. Mr. Mitchell may
`want to move on, talk about some of the stay issues. But I
`believe, Your Honor, that a stay would be helpful to the Court,
`given the kind of three ring circus we have going on now
`through no fault of our own, I believe, Your Honor.
`MR. SHORE: Your Honor, if I can respond to the issue of a
`stay, since that wasn't brought up.
`THE COURT: Let me ask you this first: Where's Mr. Wang
`located? And is the deposition going to be by Zoom?
`MR. SHORE: Well, he's located in Taiwan. He has a home
`in the United States. So I don't know why he can't come to his
`home in the United States to get his deposition. He's also
`filed multiple declarations in U.S. federal courts seeking to
`change the outcome of a case.
`But as far as a stay goes, this is not a mess of the
`University of New Mexico's making. This is a mess of ITRI and
`these Taiwanese defendants' making. Because as you'll recall,
`you know, the whole idea is ITRI owns these patents. These are
`ITRI's patents not because they owned them at the time 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 17 of 44
`
`
`
`18
`
`suit was filed, but that they demanded that they be returned to
`them after this suit was filed. They demanded that Sino
`Matrix, the entity that assigned them to the University of New
`Mexico, somehow Sino Matrix is supposed to get the patents back
`from New Mexico and then convey them back to ITRI.
`So ITRI is not claiming that they currently own anything.
`They're claiming that an ex parte, the order that they got in
`Taiwan which they never served on the University of New Mexico.
`They never served the University of New Mexico with any
`lawsuits in Taiwan. They have no jurisdiction over the
`University of New Mexico in Taiwan. The University of New
`Mexico has sovereign immunity over any action to take these
`patents back by anybody.
`There is zero chance that that Taiwanese court is going to
`be able to do anything, and they know that. But they filed
`that case. They did not serve it. They did not provide the
`University of New Mexico any notice of it. The University of
`New Mexico has not participated in it, has not been compelled
`to participate in it. The injunction order they're talking
`about was never served on the University of New Mexico, because
`of course it has no force and effect because the University of
`New Mexico is a sovereign entity subject to sovereign immunity.
`It has no privity with ITRI, has no contract with ITRI, has
`never done any business with ITRI. It is a sham lawsuit which
`they dare not even serve on the University of New Mexico.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 18 of 44
`
`
`
`19
`
`And as to the lawsuit in New Mexico, we have been trying
`to license these patents to several entities, and all of them
`come back and say, well, there's this ownership issue. And if
`there wasn't this ownership issue, we'd pay you tens of
`millions of dollars.
`And so what they've basically done is slander the title to
`these patents. And so when we had sued them in New Mexico for
`slander of title and a bunch of other torts, and one of the
`components in a slander of title is you have to prove
`ownership. So the only reason why there's ownership
`allegations or quiet title allegations in New Mexico is you
`have to do that to win a slander of title suit.
`And that suit will be heard in New Mexico, but it will be
`seeking damages. And it will be seeking millions of dollars in
`damages from ITRI. And to the extent -- and one reason why I
`think they don't want to turn over the documents in this case
`between all these defendants and ITRI is because they're afraid
`they're going to get added to the lawsuit in New Mexico on
`slandering title through a civil conspiracy.
`Now, I'm not saying any of these lawyers participated in
`it, but I can tell you right now there's executives in Taiwan
`who participated in it. There are people at ITRI who
`participated in it, and we know that. And we know that
`because, Your Honor, again, we've already caught Mr. Wang in a
`bald-faced lie. He filed a perjurious affidavit with 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 19 of 44
`
`
`
`20
`
`Court saying that the person who signed the assignment on
`behalf of ITRI had no power to do so. Which flatly contradicts
`his letter to the European Patent Office where he reassured the
`Patent Office the assigner the assignments -- the same person
`had all the power to bind ITRI necessary to do so. We've
`already caught the guy in a lie, just a bald-faced lie.
`So what we want is we want to do this in an orderly
`fashion. We're happy to take this -- these depositions in
`August. But before the depositions are taken, we need time to
`get documents translated. And we need to get the documents
`from these defendants and these lawyers that they exchanged
`with ITRI's lawyers.
`And they are not aligned as to interest. Even if you
`assume ITRI somehow owns these patents, which they don't and
`there's no order from any court that says they do, not even a
`court in Taiwan. But if you even assume that, then how are
`they aligned and have a like interest when they're filing IPRs
`against the patents that ITRI claims it owns? They're seeking
`to invalidate the patents that ITRI claims it owns.
`They're taking contrary -- they took contrary claim
`construction positions to devalue the patents. ITRI doesn't
`care anything about these patents. ITRI cares nothing about
`these patents. ITRI cares only about protecting these
`Taiwanese defendants. They didn't care about protecting Apple.
`They got a subpoena in the Apple case, and they literally told
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Ex. 1035
`Page 20 of 44
`
`
`
`21
`
`Sino Matrix that they didn't care if you sue American
`companies. You can sue Broadcom. You can sue Apple, you can
`sue anybody you want to. But if you touch a Taiwanese
`defendant, we're going to do anything it takes to protect them,
`because the Taiwanese industry has demanded that we do so.
`So that is the backdrop. And I think that Mr. Wang --
`frankly I think he ought to be -- since he filed declarations
`here he ought to be required to be deposed here, so that if we
`have a problem we can get to the Court. Because I know we're
`going to have a problem. We're going to have lots of problems.
`He's going to refuse to answer almost any questions, because I
`don't think he's going to want to incriminate himself.
`THE COURT: Who is going to be presenting Mr. Wang?
`MR. SHORE: Li Chen.
`MR. CHEN: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Li Chen.
`I'm the counsel for ITRI.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MR. SHORE: And by the way, Mr. Chen also represents
`Realtek that is a Taiwanese chip maker who's implicated in this
`case. And I believe Mr. Chen was actually hired because he
`really represents Realtek. And this is the same Mr. Chen who
`has been telling my firm in writing that we are unethical and
`that we should be disqualified from repr