throbber
1
`
`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

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