`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD, . 4:20-CV-02624
`AGENT OF GWEE, . HOUSTON, TEXAS
` . JANUARY 6, 2021
`PLAINTIFF, . 10:30 A.M.
`VS. .
` .
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS .
`COMPANY, LTD, ET AL, .
` .
`DEFENDANTS. .
`................................
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF DISCOVERY HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALFRED H. BENNETT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARED BY ZOOM
`
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`
`Alistair B. Dawson
`Michael E. Richardson II
`BECK REDDEN LLP
`1221 McKinney
`Suite 4500
`Houston, Texas 77010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1110
`
`
`
` 2
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`APPEARANCES - CONTINUED
`
`
`
`
`
`ALSO FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`Barrett Reasoner
`Michael R. Absmeier
`GIBBS BRUNS LLP
`1100 Louisiana Street
`Suite 5300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Ernest W. Boyd, Jr.
`Jeremy R. Stone
`BUTCH BOYD LAW FIRM
`2905 Sackett Street
`Houston, Texas 77098
`
`John J. Edmonds
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER PLLC
`1616 South Voss Road
`Suite 125
`Houston, Texas 77057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`
`Benjamin Elacqua
`Kathryn Quisenberry
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`One Houston Center
`1221 McKinney
`Suite 2800
`Houston, Texas 77010
`
`
`
`
`Jin-Suk Park
`Paul Margulies
`ARNOLD PORTER
`601 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`2
`
`
`
` 3
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED
`
`
`
`
`
`ALSO FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`
`John H. Barr, Jr.
`PATTERSON SHERIDAN LLP
`24 Greenway Plaza
`Suite 1600
`Houston, Texas 77046
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`Aaron Huang, In-House Counsel for Apple
`
`
`
`OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
`
`
`Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
`U.S. Courthouse
`515 Rusk
`Room 8004
`Houston, Texas 77002
`713-250-5787
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography. Transcript
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`
` 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
`
`3
`
`
`
` 4
`
` 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
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. This is Cause Number
`
`4:20-CV-2624, GUI Global Products LTD versus Samsung
`
`Electronics Company LTD, et al.
`
`First, is the court reporter on the line and and
`
`able to record today's hearing?
`
`THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor. Mayra Malone.
`
`THE COURT: Very well.
`
`Counsel for the plaintiff, would you please make
`
`your appearance for the record?
`
`MR. DAWSON: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning. Alistair
`
`Dawson with Beck Redden for the plaintiff, and along with me in
`
`the room today is Michael Richardson and Butch Boyd and John
`
`Edmonds.
`
`We also have, I believe, on the video conference,
`
`Jeremy Stone and Barrett Reasoner for the plaintiff, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Very well. Good morning, Counsel.
`
`Will counsel for the defense please make their
`
`appearances for the record?
`
`MR. ELACQUA: Good morning, Your Honor. Benjamin
`
`Elacqua from Fish & Richardson. With me in the office here is
`
`Kathryn Quisenberry, also from Fish & Richardson.
`
`Also on the line is counsel from Apple, Mr. Aaron
`
`Huang.
`
`1 0 : 3 0
`
`1 0 : 3 0
`
`1 0 : 3 0
`
`1 0 : 3 0
`
`1 0 : 3 1
`
`4
`
`
`
` 5
`
`1 0 : 3 1
`
`1 0 : 3 1
`
`1 0 : 3 1
`
`1 0 : 3 2
`
`1 0 : 3 2
`
`1 0 : 3 3
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Very well. Good morning, Counsel. Good
`
`to see you again. Happy New Year.
`
`Counsel, you have alerted me to several discovery
`
`disputes through numerous filings with the Court. I'm hoping
`
`that you will be able to succinctly distill some of these
`
`disputes down such that I can get you some rulings this morning
`
`such that you can continue to move forward on your case.
`
`So let me tell you what I have before me just by
`
`way of notification.
`
`Mr. Redden -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Dawson sent a
`
`letter, dated December 29th.
`
`Let me go back even further.
`
`The first letter was dated December 9th from
`
`Mr. Edmonds, followed by another letter, dated December 10th.
`
`And I'm sorry. Is it eco-a-war?
`
`MR. ELACQUA: El-lock-wa.
`
`THE COURT: Elacqua. From Mr. Elacqua, on
`
`December 10th. There was a subsequent letter on December 14th.
`
`Mr. Edmonds's letter -- I'm sorry -- was the 11th.
`
`Mr. Dawson's letter was the 29th. And then another letter,
`
`follow-up letter, I believe, December -- I'm sorry --
`
`January 5th of this year.
`
`So let's start with the first in time,
`
`December 9th, and hopefully, again, we can succinctly distill
`
`these down to a few points that I can deal with.
`
`5
`
`
`
` 6
`
`1 0 : 3 3
`
`1 0 : 3 3
`
`1 0 : 3 3
`
`1 0 : 3 4
`
`1 0 : 3 4
`
`1 0 : 3 4
`
` 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
`
`So, Counsel, you are up first.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Yes, Your Honor. Before I begin, I would
`
`want to alert the Court that Samsung's counsel is on the line
`
`and has not yet made their appearance. I don't know if you
`
`want their appearance before I commence.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate that. And so,
`
`Counsel for Samsung, would you like to make your appearance for
`
`the record?
`
`MR. BARR: Yes, Your Honor. This is John Barr. I'm
`
`here with Jin Park and Paul Margulies, also for Samsung.
`
`We had alerted the Court that we understood this
`
`hearing related only to Apple, but the clerk suggested that you
`
`may have some scheduling issues that you wanted to take up that
`
`related to both cases, so we are on that reason,Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Very well. And my memory is fuzzy, but I
`
`believe this is the first time you have appeared before me in
`
`this case. Is that correct?
`
`MR. BARR: No, Your Honor. We were here -- there was
`
`a prior hearing when all parties talked about potentially
`
`consolidating for discovery purposes.
`
`THE COURT: The consolidation hearing. I apologize.
`
`Thank you. Well, welcome back.
`
`With that being said, Mr. Dawson?
`
`MR. DAWSON: Your Honor, I think I can summarize all
`
`the letters and kind of lay out the disputes for you without
`
`6
`
`
`
` 7
`
`1 0 : 3 4
`
`1 0 : 3 4
`
`1 0 : 3 5
`
`1 0 : 3 5
`
`1 0 : 3 5
`
`1 0 : 3 6
`
` 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
`
`going through each letter systematically.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`MR. DAWSON: As you may recall, Apple has filed a
`
`motion to transfer under 1404(a). And as the Court knows,
`
`there are a number of factors that the Court will have to apply
`
`in determining whether to transfer under 1404(a).
`
`What we are here about is really venue discovery
`
`disputes, and I will tell the Court that I looked and tried to
`
`find some case law on addressing the issue of what is the scope
`
`of discovery for venue, any cases talking about that. And as
`
`you might expect, I couldn't find any cases. But I would
`
`respectfully submit to the Court that the scope of discovery
`
`and venue should be anything that will reasonably assist the
`
`Court in ruling on the 1404(a) motion. And the Court will have
`
`to go through the evidence that's submitted to you and
`
`determine based on -- and weigh that evidence and determine
`
`based on the weight of the evidence that's submitted to you,
`
`does that -- for each of the individual factors, does that
`
`weigh in favor of transfer or against transfer?
`
`And really we're here, Your Honor, because we
`
`want to make sure that the Court has a complete record of all
`
`the evidence when it does its work and has to go through the
`
`analysis for each of the factors and weigh the evidence. We
`
`want to make sure the Court has a complete record.
`
`Apple's motion is predicated on their assertion
`
`7
`
`
`
` 8
`
`1 0 : 3 6
`
`1 0 : 3 6
`
`1 0 : 3 6
`
`1 0 : 3 7
`
`1 0 : 3 7
`
`1 0 : 3 7
`
` 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
`
`that certain relevant witnesses and documents are located in
`
`the Northern District of California. And we believe we're
`
`entitled to test that and we believe that we are also entitled
`
`to determine what evidence and what witnesses exist in Austin.
`
`And the courts say, many of the courts -- and
`
`Mr. Elacqua I think will agree -- that lots of times in a
`
`1404(a) motion in a patent infringement case, the evidence
`
`relevant to the 1404(a) inquiry for the Court often comes from
`
`the alleged infringer. They have control of that evidence.
`
`And what we're really about here today, the big
`
`dispute is: Are we entitled to venue discovery relating to the
`
`relevant witnesses and the relevant documents that are located
`
`in Austin?
`
`And so that the Court knows, beginning in 1992,
`
`Apple has had a significant office and presence in Austin.
`
`Apple reports that they have 6,000 employees in Austin. The
`
`public reports say there are 7,000 employees. And two years
`
`ago, they announced that they were going to build a new billion
`
`dollar facility and that they would have up to 15,000 employees
`
`in Austin. We know from public records that their America's
`
`Operation Center is in Austin and we know that the Intrinsity
`
`Chip Design Group is in Austin. And we believe that that
`
`Intrinsity Chip Design Group, which Apple acquired and is
`
`located in Austin -- we believe that they make some of the
`
`chips that are used in the accused products in this case.
`
`8
`
`
`
` 9
`
`1 0 : 3 7
`
`1 0 : 3 8
`
`1 0 : 3 8
`
`1 0 : 3 8
`
`1 0 : 3 9
`
`1 0 : 3 9
`
` 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
`
`We understand that certain revenue reporting and
`
`accounting functions are handled in Austin, and we believe
`
`that's relevant to damages in this case. We believe that there
`
`are a number of engineers in Austin who work on the AirPod
`
`products that are the accused products in this case. And we
`
`believe that there are a number of engineers who worked on
`
`the -- what's called a system on a chip, SOC, which is one of
`
`the chips that Apple uses and we believe are used in the
`
`accused products in this case.
`
`Now, as Your Honor will note, two of the private
`
`interest factors that you will consider when you rule on the
`
`1404(a) motion, one of them is the relative ease of access to
`
`sources of proof and another is the cost of attendance for
`
`willing witnesses.
`
`And the Fifth Circuit has said in the Volkswagen
`
`case that where witnesses reside outside the 100-mile rule --
`
`and I'm quoting -- quote: The factor of inconvenience to
`
`witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional
`
`distance to be traveled, end quote.
`
`So, in other words, the Fifth Circuit has said if
`
`you're outside the 100-mile rule, the more you have to travel,
`
`that's -- we take that into consideration in evaluating the
`
`inconvenience to the witness.
`
`So Apple has asserted that there are certain
`
`witnesses that they have identified that are located in the
`
`9
`
`
`
` 10
`
`1 0 : 3 9
`
`1 0 : 3 9
`
`1 0 : 3 9
`
`1 0 : 4 0
`
`1 0 : 4 0
`
`1 0 : 4 1
`
` 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
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`What we want to know is: How many relevant
`
`witnesses are located in Austin? If it turns out that there
`
`are 10 witnesses in the Northern District of California but
`
`there are 50 witnesses in Austin, we believe that's a factor
`
`that you should take into consideration when you rule on the
`
`1404(a) motion.
`
`The other thing that we have been trying to get
`
`is what is the Apple policy and procedures with respect to
`
`remote access to documents? Apple says, All our documents are
`
`located in the Northern District of California. That may be
`
`true. But if the facts show that all the people in Austin can
`
`have access to those documents, they can remote in or get into
`
`those documents, which I'm sure is true in this day and age
`
`with what we've been going through the last year, we believe
`
`that's a factor the Court should consider in evaluating the
`
`1404(a). In other words, if they have remote access, the fact
`
`that they are located -- we believe the fact that they may be
`
`physically located in the Northern District of California, we
`
`believe is less important.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Dawson, pardon the interruption.
`
`What you have said by way of factors doesn't seem
`
`very controversial to me about what I should consider. What
`
`creates the question in my mind at this time is: What is the
`
`dispute? I would assume the way that you're framing this is
`
`10
`
`
`
` 11
`
`1 0 : 4 1
`
`1 0 : 4 1
`
`1 0 : 4 1
`
`1 0 : 4 2
`
`1 0 : 4 2
`
`1 0 : 4 2
`
` 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
`
`that there has been a refusal to disclose the identity of
`
`witnesses who are actually in Austin and there has been a
`
`failure to identify or disclose the ability to remotely access
`
`documents.
`
`Because I don't think -- I hope there is not a
`
`dispute -- with the way that you are framing the factors, how
`
`far witnesses have to travel, how many are located here versus
`
`California, the ability to access relevant documents, I hope
`
`there's not a dispute about those basic things. I think what
`
`you're probably framing is a failure to disclose that
`
`information such that it can be presented to me.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Essentially that summarizes it, Your
`
`Honor. Apple has taken the position that we're not entitled to
`
`discovery of who the relevant witnesses are, who the relevant
`
`engineers are, et cetera, from Austin.
`
`And I will let Mr. Elacqua speak to it. He
`
`refers to two cases that speak to that issue in a different
`
`context. There is a Federal Circuit case that says that -- as
`
`you may recall, under 1404(a), one of the factors is a local
`
`interest factor. And the Federal Circuit and also Judge Atlas
`
`has said, When analyzing a local interest factor, you don't
`
`need to look outside the district. And we are asserting this
`
`on a different basis, and it's the inconvenience of the
`
`witnesses.
`
`THE COURT: Well, given the size of the case and all
`
`11
`
`
`
` 12
`
`1 0 : 4 2
`
`1 0 : 4 3
`
`1 0 : 4 3
`
`1 0 : 4 4
`
`1 0 : 4 4
`
`1 0 : 4 4
`
` 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
`
`the moving parts, I appreciate that, but obviously the parties
`
`know this is not the first time that I have had a motion to
`
`transfer pending before me with the various factors that need
`
`to be considered having been examined by the Court before.
`
`And so by way of just spinning me up as to what
`
`needs to be done, I appreciate the reminder, but, again, this
`
`is not my first rodeo when it comes to these issues.
`
`I'm more interested in the actual dispute that
`
`has arisen between the parties as to either failure to disclose
`
`or something that you are seeking that you are not getting,
`
`such that I can -- if I need to back up and talk about the
`
`factors as to why I believe that information is relevant under
`
`the factors, we can do that. But I guess I'm saying in a very
`
`polite way, Mr. Dawson, cut to the chase.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Yes, Your Honor. Here's what we are
`
`seeking that we have not received: Documents showing the
`
`employees in Texas who worked on the accused products,
`
`including any system on chip work.
`
`THE COURT: Hold on. Because I want to follow along
`
`with you the way that you're framing it now.
`
`One, you said ID of --
`
`MR. DAWSON: Documents showing employees in Texas who
`
`worked on the accused products.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Very well.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Documents showing the employees who had
`
`12
`
`
`
` 13
`
`1 0 : 4 4
`
`1 0 : 4 4
`
`1 0 : 4 5
`
`1 0 : 4 5
`
`1 0 : 4 5
`
`1 0 : 4 5
`
` 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
`
`job responsibilities relating to the accused products.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Documents showing Apple's activities
`
`relating to the accused products in Texas.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Apple was ordered to produce a document
`
`in another case that has a head count of all engineers in
`
`Austin. We would like that document.
`
`THE COURT: By way of just having engineers in Texas,
`
`are you talking about engineers in regards to the product in
`
`question in this case?
`
`MR. DAWSON: We believe it will include the engineers
`
`who worked on the products in this case. It may go beyond
`
`that, but we think it would -- that document that they have
`
`been ordered to produce we think would include the engineers
`
`who worked on the accused products.
`
`THE COURT: What's next?
`
`MR. DAWSON: The location of employees outside the
`
`Northern District of California who worked on the accused
`
`products.
`
`THE COURT: So not in Austin, not in the Northern
`
`District?
`
`MR. DAWSON: Correct.
`
`The location -- the documents showing the
`
`location of any former employees who worked on the accused
`
`13
`
`
`
` 14
`
`1 0 : 4 5
`
`1 0 : 4 6
`
`1 0 : 4 6
`
`1 0 : 4 6
`
`1 0 : 4 7
`
`1 0 : 4 7
`
` 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
`
`products and their location.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. DAWSON: Documents showing the remote
`
`accessibility of Apple's documents and source code.
`
`THE COURT: I don't follow on the source code.
`
`MR. DAWSON: I may have to ask for assistance on this.
`
`This is outside my technical knowledge, but as I understand
`
`it -- and Mr. Edmonds will correct me if I'm wrong -- one of
`
`the issues in this case will have to do with the source code
`
`that was used in the accused products and the instructions that
`
`that source code gave with respect to activating the Bluetooth
`
`within the AirPods or turning the power on or off within the
`
`AirPods. I believe -- and Mr. Elacqua can confirm this. I
`
`believe that they take the position, well, that source code is
`
`only located in the Northern District of California. But if
`
`people have access to it from other jurisdictions, that's what
`
`I'm trying to get at.
`
`Documents showing Apple's policies regarding
`
`remote work.
`
`And then I believe the other issue is the
`
`individual depositions. There are two individuals that Apple
`
`has relied on for their 1404(a) motion, a Marco Pontil and a
`
`Linda Frager.
`
`THE COURT: Spell those last names.
`
`MR. DAWSON: I'm sorry. Marco Pontil, P-O-N-T-I-L.
`
`14
`
`
`
` 15
`
`1 0 : 4 7
`
`1 0 : 4 7
`
`1 0 : 4 8
`
`1 0 : 4 8
`
`1 0 : 4 8
`
`1 0 : 4 8
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: P-O-N --
`
`MR. DAWSON: -- T-I-L.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. DAWSON: And a Linda Frager, F-R-A-G-E-R.
`
`THE COURT: F-R --
`
`MR. DAWSON: -- A-G-E-R. They are relied upon by
`
`Apple in their motion. We would like to take a short, probably
`
`two hour or so deposition over Zoom of these two individuals.
`
`And then the only other area which I think we can
`
`probably punt for today, but let me explain, and that is, as we
`
`pointed out, their 30(b)(6) witness did not -- was not able to
`
`answer certain questions that were posed during the deposition.
`
`Rather than going through all of that, to the extent that the
`
`Court agrees with us and orders any of these documents
`
`produced, we would reissue a different 30(b)(6) notice based on
`
`the newly-produced documents if the Court agrees with us. So I
`
`don't think we need to address that today, and I also think
`
`that whatever rulings the Court gives us will give us some
`
`instruction on how a new 30(b)(6) witness may need to be
`
`prepared.
`
`I think that covers it and cuts to the chase, and
`
`I apologize if I took too long to set up the dispute, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: No. No. You were being thorough, as
`
`always. I appreciate it.
`
`15
`
`
`
` 16
`
`1 0 : 4 8
`
`1 0 : 4 9
`
`1 0 : 4 9
`
`1 0 : 4 9
`
`1 0 : 4 9
`
`1 0 : 5 0
`
` 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
`
`All right. Is there anything else you need to
`
`add before I turn my attention to Apple for response?
`
`MR. DAWSON: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Very well.
`
`Counsel, on behalf of Apple, who will be speaking
`
`in response?
`
`MR. ELACQUA: Your Honor, this is Ben Elacqua on
`
`behalf of Apple, and I will handle the majority of the
`
`discussion today.
`
`THE COURT: Very well. You may proceed.
`
`MR. ELACQUA: Your Honor, I would like to start with
`
`-- there are a number of issues I think I want to cover here,
`
`but one of them is completely undisputed, and I think counsel
`
`for GUI would agree. None of the evidence we are talking about
`
`GUI seeking relates in any way to the actual venue they filed
`
`the case in. There is no dispute at this point that there is
`
`any evidence from Apple in the Southern District of Texas. And
`
`so, therefore, I think we have to sort of approach discovery
`
`going that -- that the discovery was also considering none of
`
`the evidence here relates to the actual district that this case
`
`was filed in.
`
`In the Western District, as Your Honor is aware,
`
`that district is outside of the Southern District, and the
`
`general contacts with the Southern District -- pardon me -- the
`
`Western District are not relevant at all to the transfer
`
`16
`
`
`
` 17
`
`1 0 : 5 0
`
`1 0 : 5 0
`
`1 0 : 5 0
`
`1 0 : 5 0
`
`1 0 : 5 1
`
`1 0 : 5 1
`
` 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
`
`analysis.
`
`That all said, Your Honor, Apple provided
`
`substantial discovery, and I think let's just start with the
`
`people, since I believe I heard counsel say we haven't provided
`
`or refused to provide evidence on who is working on the accused
`
`products.
`
`In our declaration attached to the motion, our
`
`declarant, who is also our 30(b)(6) witness, did an
`
`investigation into the relevant people that are involved in
`
`these accused products, and there are number of them in the
`
`declarations.
`
`And these are individuals that have been at
`
`Apple, for example, for many number of years. For example,
`
`Mr. Jeff Terlizzi, senior director of systems engineering for
`
`the audio products and the AirPod products; Mr. Marco Pontil,
`
`senior manager of Beats software; folks from the licensing
`
`department, marketing department, financial -- dealing with
`
`financials. Every single piece of relevant discovery that
`
`would happen in a patent case -- the merits of the technical
`
`issues, the marketing of products, the licensing, the patent
`
`licensing, financials -- Mr. Rollins, who is our declarant,
`
`spoke with all of these individuals and provided a thorough
`
`declaration of where the people relevant to those issues reside
`
`and where the relevant documents for those issues reside.
`
`That's number one, Your Honor.
`
`17
`
`
`
` 18
`
`1 0 : 5 1
`
`1 0 : 5 1
`
`1 0 : 5 2
`
`1 0 : 5 2
`
`1 0 : 5 2
`
`1 0 : 5 3
`
` 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
`
`In addition to that, GUI served some
`
`interrogatories. Interrogatory Number 1 asked for more
`
`information about people. Apple responded to that
`
`interrogatory and provided, I think, approximately 30 names.
`
`And I would say, Your Honor, in a typical patent case such as
`
`this, in your initial disclosures, you are probably going to
`
`have one or two or so, three people relevant to the technical
`
`issues; maybe one person on marketing, financials, licensing.
`
`In this interrogatory, we went above and beyond
`
`and identified even more individuals that may be from the
`
`periphery relevant to what is accused here and their team
`
`members. And all of those individuals were listed. So I think
`
`for counsel to say we haven't provided information on the
`
`relevant people that are involved is just not correct. And we
`
`did not exclude, Your Honor, on the issue of Austin,
`
`individuals that may reside in Austin.
`
`When we interviewed Mr. Terlizzi, and Mr. Rollins
`
`interviewed him about the case, we were not asking him to only
`
`give us individuals that reside in a certain district. And, in
`
`fact, we know that because one of the people we did find, who
`
`is not relevant to the accused features but does work on one of
`
`the teams, is an individual that does reside in Austin. We
`
`identified that individual in the discovery.
`
`Our declarant spoke with that person and
`
`testified at the deposition about those discussions, and that
`
`18
`
`
`
` 19
`
`1 0 : 5 3
`
`1 0 : 5 3
`
`1 0 : 5 3
`
`1 0 : 5 3
`
`1 0 : 5 4
`
`1 0 : 5 4
`
` 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
`
`person doesn't work on what's being accused here. He works on
`
`some periphery stuff relating to pods and other things but does
`
`relate, generally speaking, to the AirPods or Beats.
`
`So there is no reason to assume that we somehow
`
`focused only on a certain set of people in a certain district,
`
`Your Honor. That just is not true. We provided, as I
`
`mentioned, up to 30 names.
`
`So at this point, I think it's clear from the
`
`discovery -- it was Exhibit B in the letter sent to Your Honor
`
`just before the New Year. In our response, we annotated
`
`Exhibit B. Each one of the issues that counsel is saying or
`
`requesting more information on is not something they don't
`
`have. Every one of their issues relates to the ability to
`
`assess the completeness, the ability to assess the adequacy
`
`necessary to assess the adequacy.
`
`We provided sworn declarations, 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition testimony, interrogatories on all of these issues,
`
`and at this point, counsel is looking for us to -- I believe in
`
`the list he just went through, documents relating to all the
`
`employees in Texas, any activity of any employee in Texas. So
`
`these are the people who -- relating to AirPods that work at
`
`the Apple stores that are closed in Houston or that work in
`
`Dallas or San Antonio and the Apple stores that sell AirPods or
`
`that work in Austin.
`
`In the back end, we mentioned there is some
`
`19
`
`
`
` 20
`
`1 0 : 5 4
`
`1 0 : 5 4
`
`1 0 : 5 5
`
`1 0 : 5 5
`
`1 0 : 5 5
`
`1 0 : 5 5
`
` 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
`
`accounting in Austin. There is no dispute about that, Your
`
`Honor. There is some back end work in Austin, but Mr. Rollins,
`
`who testified and is our declarant, is actually in charge of a
`
`substantial amount of the financial aspects, and he testified
`
`at length about what those are in Austin, and in his
`
`declaration.
`
`And so all of those -- that list that counsel
`
`just went through, activities in Texas, documents of all
`
`employees in Texas, all employees outside the Northern
`
`District, I believe what they are actually asking for is us to
`
`generate some sort of report or headcount of all of the
`
`employees that Apple has all around the country that may relate
`
`to the accused products or not.
`
`And so, I believe, Your Honor, that's -- we have
`
`objected to that and said we have to draw a line in the sand at
`
`some point on the employee issue.
`
`If Your Honor prefers, I can keep going or we can
`
`pause and deal with one of these issues. It's obviously up to
`
`Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I think you can pause and we can
`
`deal with all of them because I think I have a -- based upon
`
`the letters that you have sent forward and now your
`
`presentations, I have a good grasp of kind of where you're at.
`
`Let's back up a bit for me because I hadn't done
`
`a deep dive as to the allegations and merits of the case,
`
`20
`
`
`
` 21
`
`1 0 : 5 6
`
`1 0 : 5 6
`
`1 0 : 5 6
`
`1 0 : 5 7
`
`1 0 : 5 7
`
`1 0 : 5 7
`
` 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
`
`obviously, at this point.
`
`So, Mr. Dawson, I'm going to challenge you
`
`that -- in 90 seconds, give me an overview of the product, the
`
`manufacturing of that product, the engineering of that product,
`
`the basis for that, if you could.
`
`MR. DAWSON: I will do my best, Your Honor.
`
`The products are the AirPods and whatever the
`
`Beats product -- the similar -- it's the wireless earphones
`
`that Apple makes.
`
`There are, I believe, at least two aspects of it
`
`that we say are infringing on the patent. One is that when you
`
`open the lid, some mechanism occurs that turns the power on and
`
`there's some signaling that goes on that turns the power on.
`
`And we believe that is infringing.
`
`Similarly, when you take the -- and Mr. Edmonds
`
`will correct me if I get this wrong. When you take the pods
`
`out and you put them in your ear, it activates the Bluetooth
`
`device. And there is some signaling that happens with that,
`
`and we believe that is part of the infringement.
`
`MR. EDMONDS: Your Honor, just to clarify -- this is
`
`Mr. Edmonds. I'm off camera. I apologize.
`
`When you open the case, it activates the pods.
`
`When you close the case, it deactivates the pods. There's
`
`other relevant functionality. What Mr. Dawson was alluding to
`
`was there are other limitations in terms of the AirPod being
`
`21
`
`
`
` 22
`
`1 0 : 5 8
`
`1 0 : 5 8
`
`1 0 : 5 8
`
`1 0 : 5 9
`
`1 0 : 5 9
`
`1 0 : 5 9
`
` 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
`
`able to play or pause another device, and there is a tactile
`
`function or ear sensor that goes with that too.
`
`THE COURT: Ear sensor. Okay.
`
`MR. EDMONDS: Right. So there are various activities
`
`in these that are activated or deactivated by certain actions.
`
`The central one is this magnetic lid, called a hall sensor,
`
`that senses a magnetic field, and that starts a chain of events
`
`that involves various microchips within that device.
`
`THE COURT: That's sufficient. So now, the question
`
`becomes, in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Southern
`
`District of Texas, whether it should be heard here or in the
`
`Northern District of Texas where Apple is seeking to go.
`
`Now, with that being said, the question becomes
`
`the convenience, as Mr. Dawson took some time to kind of weigh
`
`out, in regards to the engineering of these processes, the
`
`product, the manufacturing of this product. I believe counsel
`
`for Apple pointed out that obviously none of this has occurred
`
`in the Southern District of Texas. There is no allegation of
`
`that.
`
`Mr. Dawson was pointing out that perhaps a
`
`significant portion of this took place in the Western District
`
`specifically in Austin, such that it would be appropriate to
`
`hold venue here in the Southern District of Texas.
`
`I take it that Apple's point of view is that the
`
`engineering, manufacturing, for the most part, by way of
`
`22
`
`
`
` 23
`
`1 1 : 0 0
`
`1 1 : 0 0
`
`1 1 : 0 0
`
`1 1 : 0 1
`
`1 1 : 0 1
`
`1 1 : 0 2
`
` 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
`
`defending this suit, is best suited for the Northern District
`
`of Texas -- I mean, Northern District of California. I
`
`apologize.
`
`For me to make a decision as to whether or not
`
`this case should be transferred to the Northern District of
`
`Texas (sic), the factors that Mr. Dawson summarized, the Court
`
`is familiar with and the Court agrees should be considered.
`
`So I don't think it is appropriate that -- I
`
`believe counsel for Apple referred to them as the back end,
`
`people who sell AirPods and things of that nature should be
`
`considered in that analysis. And I tend to agree with that.
`
`But the question raised by Mr. Dawson and some of these -- so
`
`let me go back to those -- I think there are approximately
`
`eight or seven