throbber
1
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-1128 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Waco, Texas
` )
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. ) August 31, 2022
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOCONFERENCE MOTIONS HEARING
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE DEREK T. GILLILAND
` *** Sealed ***
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Mr. Henry Y. Huang
`Ms. Hallie E. Kiernan
`Mr. Jonathan J. Lamberson
`White & Case, LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 900
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Mr. Daniel S. Sternberg
`White & Case, LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Mr. Jeffrey D. Parks
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`
`
`Mr. Matthew Satchwell
`Mr. Paul R. Steadman
`DLA Piper, LLP
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0001
`
`

`

`2
`
`(Appearances Continued:)
`For the Defendant:
`
`Transcriber:
`
`
`Mr. John M. Guaragna
`DLA Piper, LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Proceedings reported by digital sound recording,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0002
`
`

`

`21
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll go off the
`record just briefly.
`Okay. We're back on the record.
`And after viewing the expert reports and the
`briefs of the parties, I'm convinced that the discussions
`regarding both the output and the location are reasonable
`expert explanation of how a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand the phrases in the claims to be
`met and not to be -- and is not claim construction that
`would require the Court to conduct any further
`construction. I believe it is permissible explanation of
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms in both
`claim 9 and I believe it's claim 12.
`So I'm going to deny the motion to strike expert
`reports as described at docket No. 100. All right.
`And then, let's see, we've got docket 105 is
`next. This is the plaintiff's motion to strike Dr.
`Shoemake. Oh, is that one --
`MR. LAMBERSON: Yes, your Honor. Well, there's
`only one issue we're going to argue, your Honor. This is
`Mr. Lamberson again.
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead.
`MR. LAMBERSON: And this is the issue with --
`it's the same issue, but it shows up in two places. If
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0003
`
`

`

`22
`
`Mr. Sternberg can get our slides up again, we can go to
`slide 40. The issue first shows up in this electronic
`receiving device limitation. The claim talks about -- it
`first introduces the electronic -- an electronic receiving
`device and then, you know, refers to it again for
`antecedent basis saying the electronic receiving device.
`And if we go to the next slide, the issue we have here is
`that Dr. Shoemake apparently intends to tell the jury that
`"a" means a single device. We've shown here an excerpt
`from his report, paragraph 119, an electronic device or
`the electronic device means a single electronic device
`under the plain and ordinary meaning. "A" and "the" are
`both generally understood to be singular. And so, he's
`saying that this means you only can have one device.
`If we go to the next slide, it's simply not
`correct "a" or "and" means one or more, generally
`speaking. If Subaru wanted to limit this to one single
`device, they should have asked for that in claim
`construction. And this shows up again in -- if we go back
`to slide 29, please. We see on slide 29, paragraph 70
`from Dr. Shoemake's report where he says the claim recites
`a broadcast stream, and then, he says GPS which has three
`signals is not a broadcast stream. This one does go on to
`make other arguments and we're not challenging those other
`arguments about GPS and whether it's a broadcast stream.
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0004
`
`

`

`23
`
`The issue really is if Dr. Shoemake is going to come in
`and say "a" means one and only one, we do think that's
`inappropriate and that should be struck. You know, the
`alternative, I suppose, would be we could ask Judge
`Albright for a claim construction on the law, which is
`fine, you know, and we're fine doing that as an
`alternative if that's the Court's preference. But we do
`think this is one place where, you know, we need -- one
`way or the other, this opinion is just simply not a
`correct opinion.
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from defendant on
`this point.
`MR. STEADMAN: I drew the straw on this again,
`your Honor. This is Paul Steadman.
`THE COURT: All right. Mr. Steadman.
`MR. STEADMAN: I think this one's actually
`relatively simple. This is a case of applying the claim
`language to the accused device and trying to understand
`what it means in both cases. So as to an electronic
`receiving device, up until expert reports, they accused
`the car. It was only in expert reports that they changed
`their allegation and said that the accused functionality
`was the car plus the iPhone. And if you read the claim
`language, it says that an electronic receiving device has
`to do something. Well, what the expert says is, you know,
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0005
`
`

`

`24
`
`the car is an electronic receiving device and the phone is
`an electronic receiving device, and they're doing
`different things.
`So he's saying you can't read the claim correctly
`as they've read it because you're trying to read it on two
`different things. Part of the time, one electronic
`receiving device is doing something and part of the time a
`different electronic receiving device is doing something.
`They recognize this problem because they've tried to
`define the phone and the car together as an electronic
`receiving device, but that is -- under the plain language
`at least as applied by Dr. Shoemake is incorrect.
`As to broadcast stream, it kind of changed their
`argument here. The argument that they laid out in their
`briefs was that he had incorrectly understood the word
`"stream." They're now saying that we've applied some sort
`of singular versus plural. The problem is that GPS is not
`a broadcast stream; and the reason it isn't is because the
`electronic information they're trying to say that the car
`gets and displays is a location. The location is
`calculated by the head unit and it's calculated from three
`different signals from three different GPS satellites. So
`there is no broadcast stream that has the location
`information that they're talking about in it.
`Each stream broadcasts the location of a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0006
`
`

`

`25
`
`different satellite and then, from that, the head unit
`calculates the location and may or may not display the
`location on the head unit. Well, that's something quite
`different. So what the expert said is that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term "a
`broadcast stream," that could not encompass the three GPS
`signals or more that it's taking to calculate the location
`nor does it -- nor does that broadcast stream have the
`information it's required in it.
`So as a person of ordinary skill in the art who
`understands exactly how the GPS system works, he's simply
`saying that that's not how you would read and apply that
`language to the accused device.
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lamberson, would you like
`the last word?
`MR. LAMBERSON: Yes, please, your Honor. And if
`we could bring back up slide 41, please.
`So with respect to receiving device, we're not --
`you know, we're not seeking to strike any opinions about
`whether or how the phone or the car satisfy various
`portions of the claim. We're not raising any fact
`disputes if they want to say, you know, the phone doesn't
`do this or that or the car doesn't do this or that, those
`are fair opinions and they've given them in other
`paragraphs.
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0007
`
`

`

`26
`
`What you didn't hear in response was any argument
`or suggestion that we are -- that A in a patent claim
`means one and only one. But that is the opinion Dr.
`Shoemake gave in 119. This is the only paragraph -- I can
`go back to the brief and check. This is the paragraph
`we're seeking to strike. Not other arguments or
`paragraphs on these devices.
`And here, he very clearly says "a" means a single
`device. "An" and "the" are generally understood to be
`singular. Well, maybe in the English language that may be
`true, but in patent with antecedent basis, this is a false
`statement. It is legally false. And he says "the" refers
`back and so, it has to be singular still. This is -- it's
`just legally wrong and if they're allowed to present this
`to the jury, we're going to need a curative instruction.
`And rather than going that route, we respectfully suggest
`you should just strike this because it's simply wrong as a
`matter of law, wrong as matter of claim construction,
`which is what he's doing.
`And the same thing on the GPS issue. We're not
`seeking to strike any -- respectfully, Mr. Steadman is
`confusing two different issues in the brief. We did have
`an issue over the stream and definition he gave from a
`dictionary, which they have put on their exhibit list and
`we will address that next week.
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0008
`
`

`

`27
`
`But setting that issue aside, if they want to say
`GPS doesn't qualify for these various reasons, that's
`fine. The only issue we take exception to is when they
`say the claim requires a single stream and GPS, because it
`sends three streams, cannot infringe. It is that specific
`argument and we take exception both because the preamble
`is not a limitation. I didn't go into that issue, but
`that was also briefed. But also because of the plural
`issue, which, again, in the briefing and here today, we've
`heard no suggestion that we are wrong about this issue of
`law. That's all, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. On this one, let me go off the
`record just briefly.
`Okay. We're back on the record.
`With regard to docket No. 105, plaintiff's motion
`to strike various portions of the expert report of Dr.
`Matthew Shoemake, I'm going to deny that request on all
`grounds and I can go through each one. But, for example,
`with regard to his opinion or testimony regarding stream
`or broadcast stream, I'm denying the request to strike the
`report. I do believe after reviewing the report that Dr.
`Shoemake's statements in his report are proper explanation
`of how a person of skill in the art would understand those
`terms to be interpreted with their plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0009
`
`

`

`28
`
`I will, however, caution the parties and this is
`something that we'll apprise Judge Albright of and can
`address -- the parties can address at pretrial with him
`next week is caution the parties about experts presenting
`their opinion about what a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand something to mean. Caution you
`against presenting that in a way that makes it appear as
`though it's a definition from the Court or that they're
`defining it as the Court should define it or would have
`defined it.
`And the best example of that, I believe, comes
`with regard to the phrase "content" that's in paragraph --
`I believe it's 84 of Dr. Shoemake's make. I think it's
`fine for Dr. Shoemake to say that content -- a person of
`skill in the art would understand the plain and ordinary
`meaning of content to be information available by a
`website or other electronic medium. But I do not believe
`and will pass this along to Judge Albright, as well, that
`it is not permissible for Dr. Shoemake to make -- the
`state it in the fashion that he has in his report that
`content is defined as and then, give a specific definition
`followed by a dictionary definition as that might indicate
`to the jury that Judge Albright has construed it to mean
`that specific definition.
`So that is the one caution to all of the rulings
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0010
`
`

`

`29
`
`with regard to Dr. Shoemake's report is that I'm going to
`deny the request to strike his report, but will caution
`the parties and would grant or -- grant a motion in limine
`or an instruction for the expert to not present his
`opinions of what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would think as though it is the definition provided by the
`Court. It needs to be clear that they are providing their
`opinion about a person of ordinary skill in the art's
`understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning.
`With regard to -- specifically to an electronic
`receiving device or the receiving device as argued by
`parties, again, I'm going to deny the request and deny the
`request, to the extent there was a request to date, to
`further construe that term as I don't believe a further
`construction is either necessary or would eliminate the
`parties' problem. I believe this comes down to a dispute
`between experts, a factual dispute for the jury to resolve
`as to whether two electronic components, a head unit and
`an iPhone can be and act as an electronic device or not.
`And I think Dr. Shoemake's fairly clear in paragraph 119
`of his report that it's his belief that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would not see those two devices
`as an electronic device. And I'm confident that
`plaintiff's expert has the exact opposite opinion. And I
`think that's a reasonable dispute for experts to have and
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0011
`
`

`

`30
`
`to present to a jury for resolution. So I'm not going to
`further define that or any other terms that were included
`within docket No. 105. And I'm not going to grant -- I'm
`going to deny the request to strike any portion of Dr.
`Shoemake's report. As I understand from having reviewed
`it that the portions identified by plaintiff were all
`proper areas of expert opinion regarding what a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms to
`mean at the time and in light of their plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Again, caution the parties, though, about
`presenting those opinions in such a way as to make it
`appear that those are the Court's definitions. And we'll
`make sure that Judge Albright is aware of that ruling and
`also alert to parties' attempts to do that so that
`hopefully that doesn't become an issue. So that's the
`ruling, the Court's ruling on docket No. 105.
`Let's see, we've got docket 104, did the parties
`want to argue that one? I'm trying to flip back and forth
`between e-mails and other things. And docket 104 is
`defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's damages expert,
`Dr. Barnes or Ned Barnes. I don't know if he's a doctor,
`actually.
`MR. SATCHWELL: Yes, your Honor. My name is Matt
`Satchwell. I'm with DLA Piper.
`
`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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0012
`
`

`

`68
`
`REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`I, LILY I. REZNIK, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING
`WAS TRANSCRIBED FROM AN ELECTRONIC RECORDING MADE AT THE
`TIME OF THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS AND IS A CORRECT
`TRANSCRIPT, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, MADE FROM THE
`PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER, AND THAT THE
`TRANSCRIPT FEES AND FORMAT COMPLY WITH THOSE PRESCRIBED BY
`THE COURT AND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
`ON THIS 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022.
`
` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
` L I L Y I .
` REZNIK,
` CRR,
` RMR
`
`
`
` O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
`
`
`
` U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
`
`
`
` A u s t i n D i v i s i o n
`
`
`
` 5 0 1 W e s t 5 t h S t r e e t,
`
`
`
` A u s t i n,
` T e x a s 7 8 7 0 1
`
`
`
` ( 5 1 2 ) 3 9 1 - 8 7 9 2
`
`
`
` S O T C e r t i f i c a t i o n N o.
`
`
`
` E x p i r e s:
` 1 - 3 1 - 2 3
`
` 4 4 8 1
`
` S u i t e 4 1 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
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1032, 0013
`
`

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