IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-442-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-441-JRG
`CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`
`PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
`HELD BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`December 12, 2018
`
`ADJOURN: 5:12 p.m.
`
`
`OPEN: 9:05 a.m.
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF:
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS:
`
`
`
`LAW CLERKS:
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`See attached.
`
`See attached.
`
`Catherine Owens
`Hao Wu
`
`Shelly Holmes, CSR-TCRR
`
`Jan Lockhart
`
`COURTROOM DEPUTY:
`TIME
`MINUTES
`9:05 a.m.
`Counsel announced ready for the hearing.
`The Court scheduled a Final Pretrial Conference on December 18, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to handle
`remaining disputes. The Court gave the parties instructions for Jury Selection and Trial. The
`Seven Networks v. Samsung trial will be tried first; the Seven Networks v. Google case will
`follow. Should the first case settle, the second case will be tired. Jury Selection will be held on
`Friday, January 4, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Opening statements and evidence are scheduled to begin at
`8:30 a.m. on Monday, January 7, 2019. The Court and staff are in chambers each morning at
`7:30 a.m. The trial will start each day at 8:30 a.m. Exhibits used the prior day will be read into
`the record prior to the jurors returning to the courtroom (usually around 8:15 a.m.). The Court
`allotted 14 hours per side to try the case (this time does not include the time for voir dire, opening
`1
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2006
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`9:38 a.m.
`
`9:56 a.m.
`
`TIME
`
`MINUTES
`statements and closing arguments); 30 minutes a side for voir dire (of this time, a 3-minute, high
`level, overview of the case may be given); 30 minutes for opening statements and 40 minutes a
`side for closing arguments; 8-member jury to be selected (four strikes per side); procedures for
`disputes discussed. Court to be notified by 10:00 p.m. each night of disputes re demonstratives to
`be used the next day, or that there are no disputes. Binders with disputed information are to be
`prepared and submitted to the Court at 7:00 a.m. the following day. Deposition disputes are to be
`given to the Court the day before they are going to be used. Rule 50 (a) motions will be heard
`after ALL evidence is concluded. The informal charge conference will be held in chambers after
`Rule 50(a) motions are heard. A formal charge conference will follow afterward. The Court
`discussed policies and the Standing Order regarding the sealing of the courtroom. Juror
`questionnaires and the manner of use thereof were discussed, i.e., copies of the Juror
`Questionnaire may be obtained from the Deputy-in-Charge, Kecia Clendening, on December 28,
`2018. Juror notebooks are to be prepared by counsel and delivered to the Court by 12:00 p.m. on
`January 2, 2019. Each notebook should include the patents-in-suit, the Court’s claim
`construction chart, tabbed witness pages (each witness page should contain a head and shoulders
`photograph of the witness followed by ruled lines on the remainder of the page), a 3-hole
`punched legal pad and a non-clicking pen. The Court also gave guidance regarding expert
`witness testimony.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Michael T.
`Goodrich (Dkt. No. 367). Ms. Roberts argued on behalf of Google. Mr. Murkerji argued
`on behalf of Samsung. Mr. Wynn argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court DENIED the
`motion.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinion Testimony by David
`Stewart and Strike Portions of His Report (Dkt. No. 363). Ms. Roberts and Mr. Graubart argued
`on behalf of Defendants. Ms. Dominguez argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court DENIED the
`motion.
`10:28 am. Recess.
`10:39 a.m. The Court heard argument on Samsung's Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony
`of Plaintiff's Damages Expert, Brian Napper, Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert (Dkt.
`No. 351). Mr. Cordell argued on behalf of Defendant. Ms. Domínguez argued on behalf
`of Plaintiff. The Court DENIED the motion.
`10:53 a.m. The Court heard argument on Defendant Google’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
`Brian W. Napper (Dkt. No. 359). Ms. Roberts argued on behalf of Defendant. Ms.
`Dominguez argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court took the motion under advisement.
`11:06 a.m. The Court heard argument on Motion to Strike Defendants' Undisclosed Invalidity
`Theories, Prior-Art Systems, and Obviousness Combinations (Dkt. No. 343). Mr.
`Ciccarelli argued on behalf of Plaintiff. Mr. Mack argued on behalf of Google. Mr.
`Marshall spoke on behalf of Samsung. The Court DENIED the motion.
`11:34 a.m. The Court heard argument on the Motion to Strike Defendants' Late-Produced Prior-Art-Related
`Documents and Information (Dkt. No. 345). Mr. Patel argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court
`DENIED the motion.
`11:41 a.m. Recess.
`12:59 p.m. Court reconvened. Messrs. Ciccarelli and Marshall indicated that the parties had reached
`agreements on the Motion to Strike Opinions of Samsung's Expert, Dr. Michael Caloyannides,
`Regarding Alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android and GreenPower-on-Android Systems and for
`Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Invalidity with Respect to those Systems (Dkt. Nos. 344,
`348).
`The Court heard argument on the Motion to Strike Opinions of Google's Expert, Dr. Don
`Turnbull, Regarding Alleged Obviousness of the '952 Patent over Silvester and for Partial
`Summary Judgment of Non-Obviousness of the '952 Patent over Silvester (Dkt. Nos. 348, 369)
`2
`
`1:02 p.m.
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2006
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`TIME
`
`1:12 p.m.
`
`
`
`
`1:15 p.m.
`1:27 p.m.
`
`1:37 p.m.
`
`2:01 p.m.
`2:21 p.m.
`
`
`2:25 p.m.
`2:30 p.m.
`2:35 p.m.
`2:38 p.m.
`
`2:40 p.m.
`
`3:09 p.m.
`
`
`3:12 p.m.
`3:29 p.m.
`
`3:43 p.m.
`4:00 p.m.
`
`4:17 p.m.
`
`
`4:27 p.m.
`4:49 p.m.
`4:49 p.m.
`
`MINUTES
`Mr. Ciccarelli argued on behalf of Plaintiff. Mr. Mack argued on behalf of Defendant. The
`Court DENIED the motions.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion to Strike Opinions of Google's Expert, Dr. Kevin
`Jeffay, Related to Alleged Non-Infringing Alternatives, or in the Alternative, for Leave to Serve
`Expert Rebuttals to Those Opinions (Dkt. No. 350). Mr. Cohen argued on behalf of Plaintiff.
`Ms. Baily requested that the Courtroom be sealed for portions of the argument. Ms. Baily argued
`on behalf of Defendants.
`Courtroom sealed.
`Courtroom unsealed.
`The Court GRANTED the motion. Paragraphs 780-830 of Dr. Jeffay’s Rebuttal Report are
`stricken.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion to Exclude Samsung's Damages Expert, Dr. Ugone
`(Dkt. No. 358). The parties agreed not to reference the Visto Agreement and the Samsung
`Agreements with reference to Motorola and Nokia. Mr. Sostek argued on behalf of Plaintiff.
`Mr. Graubart argued on behalf of Defendants. The Court DENIED the motion in all respects.
`Recess.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Google's
`Damages Expert, Mr. Christopher Bakewell (Dkt. No. 361). Mr. Sostek argued on behalf of
`Plaintiff. Ms. Baily argued on behalf of Defendant.
`Courtroom sealed.
`Courtroom unsealed.
`Courtroom sealed.
`Courtroom unsealed.
`The Court DENIED the motion
`The Court combined argument on the following motions:
`Motion to Strike Portions of Smith Report as Exceeding Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No.
`364);
`Motion to Strike Portions of Smith Report and Exclude Opinions (Dkt. No. 365); and the Motion
`for Partial Summary Judgment of No Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement of the '127 and '129
`Patents and Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the '816 and '254 Patents (Dkt. No. 355).
`
`Mr. Yang argued on behalf of Defendants. Mr. Cohen argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court
`DENIED the motions.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
`of '600, '129, and '019 Patents (Dkt. No. 353). Mr. Verhoeven argued on behalf of
`Defendant. Mr. Wynn argued on behalf of Plaintiff.
`Courtroom sealed.
`Courtroom unsealed.
`The Court DENIED the motions.
`Recess.
`Court reconvened. The Court heard argument on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to
`No Willful Infringement, Failure to Mark, and No Indirect Infringement (Dkt. No. 346). Mr.
`Graubart argued on behalf of Defendant. Mr. Patel argued on behalf of Plaintiff.
`The Court took the motion under advisement.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of '952,
`'254, and '816 Patents (Dkt. No. 354). Mr. Verhoeven argued on behalf of Defendants. Mr. Teng
`argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court DENIED the motion.
`Courtroom sealed.
`Courtroom unsealed.
`The Court heard argument on Defendant Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
`3
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2006
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`TIME
`
`MINUTES
`Invalidity for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter (Dkt. No. 349). Mr. Curran argued on
`behalf of Defendant. Mr. Patel argued on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court DENIED the
`motion.
`The Court heard argument on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Willful
`Infringement and No Pre-Suit Indirect Infringement (Dkt. No. 347). Counsel represented
`this motion was no longer at issue. The Court Denied the motion as moot.
`Joint report due on Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Items should be grouped.
`Agreements/Disputes as to motions in limine also due.
`5:12 p.m. Court adjourned.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2006
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 4 of 4
`
`