1
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
