`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD. )
`
` DOCKET NO. 5:16cv179
`-vs- )
` Texarkana, Texas
` ) 8:44 a.m.
`ZTE USA, INC. June 26, 2018
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
` MORNING SESSION
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III,
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE,
` AND A JURY
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`MR. JAMIE B. BEABER
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`MR. GEOFFREY P. CULBERTSON
`PATTON TIDWELL & CULBERTSON, LLP
`2800 Texas Blvd.
`Texarkana, TX 75503
`
`COURT REPORTER: MS. CHRISTINA L. BICKHAM, RMR, CRR
` FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
` 300 Willow, Ste. 221
` Beaumont, TX 77701
`
`
`Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
`produced by a Computer.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 13440
`
`2
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`MR. ALAN GRIMALDI
`MR. KFIR B. LEVY
`MR. JAMES A. FUSSELL III
`MR. BRYAN C. NESE
`MR. WILLIAM J. BARROW
`MS. TIFFANY MILLER
`MR. BALDINE B. PAUL
`MR. SAQIB J. SIDDIQUI
`MR. CLARK S. BAKEWELL
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K. Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`MR. ERIC H. FINDLAY
`FINDLAY CRAFT PC
`102 N. College Ave., Ste. 900
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`MS. CALLIE A. BJURSTROM
`MR. HOWARD N. WISNIA
`MS. NICOLE S. CUNNINGHAM
`MR. SARA J. O'CONNELL
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101-3575
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 13441
`
`3
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`(Jury out.)
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
`We're getting an early start this morning.
`Anything we need to take up before we have the jury
`brought in?
`MR. WISNIA: Not for Defendant.
`THE COURT: All right, Ms. Cary.
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise for the jury.
`(Jury in.)
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good morning and
`welcome back. Thanks for being here actually a little early
`this morning so we can get a little bit of a head start.
`At this point the Plaintiff may call its next
`
`witness.
`
`MR. NESE: Good morning, Your Honor. Bryan Nese
`for Plaintiff Maxell.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MR. NESE: Thank you.
`Maxell calls as its next witness Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti.
`(Witness sworn.)
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 13442
`
`4
`
`VIJAY MADISETTI, PH.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. NESE:
`Q.
`Good morning, sir.
`A.
`Good morning.
`Q.
`Please introduce yourself to the jury.
`A.
`My name is Vijay Madisetti.
`Q.
`And where do you currently live?
`A.
`I live in Atlanta, Georgia.
`Q.
`Are you working right now?
`A.
`Yes. I -- I teach at Georgia Tech.
`Q.
`What do you teach at Georgia Tech?
`A.
`I teach electrical and computer engineering.
`Q.
`Okay. And what subject specifically do you teach there?
`A.
`I teach signal processing, image processing, video
`processing, and software and hardware.
`Q.
`How long have you been teaching at Georgia Tech?
`A.
`I've been teaching since 1989, so that's about 28 years.
`Q.
`And before you were a professor, what other jobs did you
`have?
`A.
`Oh, jobs? I mean, I worked as a research assistant at
`Berkeley. I was also a cook at Berkeley.
`Q.
`When you're not teaching or testifying in court, do you
`do anything with your spare time?
`A.
`Yeah. I restore old cars, and so I -- I do have a lot
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 13443
`
`5
`
`of fun that way.
`Q.
`What's your favorite car?
`A.
`It's a very old Porsche 912 from 1969. So it's a
`four-cylinder Porsche, which is the old kind.
`Q.
`Does -- are you getting paid for the time you're
`spending away from your students and, I guess, your cars?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. Does that fact that you're getting paid affect
`your testimony at all today?
`A.
`No, it's not. I'm paid only for my time but not for my
`opinions.
`Q.
`You're not getting any kind of bonus if Maxell wins this
`case?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`Sir, did you create a presentation to assist with your
`testimony today?
`A.
`Yes, I did.
`Q.
`All right.
`MR. NESE: Let's cue that up, please, Mr. Ebersole.
`This is PDX31.
`Q.
`(By Mr. Nese) Professor Madisetti, is this PDX31 the
`presentation you prepared?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`All right. Sir, what were you asked to do in this case?
`A.
`I was asked to do three things. And so I was asked to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 13444
`
`6
`
`study the patents, the '493 and the '729 patents, which are
`the image processing camera patents.
`I was also asked to determine whether the accused
`ZTE products infringe the '493 patent and the '729 patents.
`And I also was asked to compare Maxell's '493 and
`the '729 with other litigated patents to find out the
`technical value.
`So those were the three tasks I worked on.
`And would you please have a look at Plaintiff's
`Q.
`Exhibit 8 in your binder there?
`A.
`Do I have a binder?
`Q.
`Our apologies, Professor. One second.
`A.
`Thank you.
`Yes.
`And what is Plaintiff's -- what is Plaintiff's
`Q.
`Exhibit 8?
`A.
`The Exhibit 8 is the '493 patent.
`Q.
`And this is the '493 patent that you looked at in this
`case?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Please turn to Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 in that binder.
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Please tell the jury what this is?
`A.
`It's the '729 patent, which is the second patent that I
`studied.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 13445
`
`7
`
`Generally speaking, what area of technology do these two
`Q.
`patents fall into?
`A.
`They fall into the area of image and video processing.
`Q.
`And do you consider yourself to be an expert in the
`field of image and video processing?
`A.
`Yes. I worked in this area for almost 30 years.
`Q.
`Please have a look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 98, and please
`tell the jury what that is.
`A.
`98 is my recent resume or CV.
`Q.
`And about how many pages is that?
`A.
`Probably about 30, 40 pages. Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. We won't go through the whole thing, but I do
`want to ask, do you hold any degrees?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`What degrees do you hold?
`A.
`I prepared this demonstrative. I have a bachelor's in
`electronics and electrical communications engineering.
`And then I have a doctorate, which is a Ph.D., in
`electrical engineering and computer sciences from the
`University of California at Berkeley.
`Q.
`And I see you've put on this slide that you've been
`recognized as an IEEE fellow. I think we heard a little bit
`about IEEE yesterday, but would you please tell the jury what
`it means to be recognized as an IEEE fellow?
`A.
`Yes. IEEE stands for the Institute of Electrical 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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 13446
`
`8
`
`Electronics Engineers. So it's the largest professional body
`in the world. It has 400,000 engineers. And each year they
`select, I think, one-tenth or one percent, which is about 400
`people to the rank of a fellow. And I was lucky to be
`selected about ten -- more than ten years ago as a fellow.
`So it's an indicator of some sort of recognition of
`contributions you've made to the profession.
`Q.
`Have you written any journal articles in this field?
`A.
`Yes, several dozen in this area of image and radio
`signal processing over the past 20 years.
`Q.
`And how about books? Have you written any books in your
`field?
`A.
`I like writing books. My first book was in 1995. It
`was in the area of signal processing. Then I worked on
`handbooks for signal processing, image processing. So you
`can see the sort of 10, 12 books here that I worked on in the
`past few years. And the most recent one is shown on the
`right. And they have been used at more than a hundred
`different universities all over the country.
`Q.
`Do any of your books touch on the subject of image and
`video processing?
`A.
`Most of them do.
`Q.
`Have you received any awards that you are particularly
`proud of?
`A.
`Yes. This is one award I'm particularly proud of. The
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 13447
`
`9
`
`American Society of Engineering Education is a U.S.
`organization that was started in 1893. So each year it
`elects somebody to -- for contributions to the profession,
`specifically education, while below the age of 40. And I
`was, again, lucky to be awarded this in 2006. So this is a
`particular award I particularly like.
`Q.
`Have you conducted any research in the field of image
`and video processing?
`A.
`Yes. At Georgia Tech and elsewhere I have done a lot of
`research for the U.S. Government, for the Department of
`Defense, as well as for private companies.
`Q.
`All right. Have you ever designed an image processing
`system for a cell phone?
`A.
`Yes. I've been doing a lot of it over the past 15
`years, and I have designed a lot of codecs. You've heard a
`lot about codecs, image processing, and video and audio.
`I've designed these for many of the Sony Ericsson phones that
`are out there.
`And I've also designed software for Cisco's Voice
`over IP phones, the ones that you see on -- on business
`desks.
`Q.
`I think we all know by now that this is a patent case.
`Do you yourself, sir, hold any U.S. patents?
`Yes. I have several patent applications pending, almost
`A.
`30 or so, but I have been awarded two patents so far, and 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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 13448
`
`10
`
`couple of others have been allowed.
`Q.
`Have you ever been qualified to testify as an expert in
`any other court cases like this one?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`About how many times?
`A.
`Couple of dozen times in the past 10 years.
`MR. NESE: Okay. Your Honor, at this point, we
`move -- we offer Professor Madisetti as an expert in image
`and video processing under Rule 702.
`THE COURT: Any objection?
`MR. WISNIA: No objection, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Very well.
`MR. NESE: Thank you.
`(By Mr. Nese) Professor Madisetti, which ZTE products
`Q.
`are being accused of infringing Maxell's '493 patent and '729
`patents?
`A.
`Okay. I've prepared a demonstrative. So there are
`almost a couple of dozen products at least that are accused;
`and out of these, there are the Z series and the Axon series,
`so they're all listed on Slide No. 8 of my presentation.
`Q.
`Do your infringement opinions apply to all of these
`products on Slide 8?
`A.
`Yes, sir.
`Q.
`Will you be talking about each of these products today?
`A.
`No. I will be focused on two products. One is the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 13449
`
`11
`
`Axon 7. The other one is the Max Duo LTE because both
`parties, ZTE and Maxell, have agreed that these two phones
`will represent all the phones.
`So whatever I say with respect to these phones
`applies to the entire products at large. So that way we
`are -- the task is somewhat simplified.
`MR. NESE: Your Honor, may I approach?
`THE COURT: You may.
`(By Mr. Nese) Sir, I've just handed you Plaintiff's
`Q.
`Physical Exhibits 2 and 6. Will you please show the jury
`what these are?
`A.
`Yes. This is Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, which is the
`Axon 7, and it's shown on the slide, as well as this is the
`second phone, which is the Max Duo LTE, which is Plaintiff's
`Exhibit PPX002. So these are the phones we will be showing
`you and demonstrating stuff on them.
`Q.
`Are these the same products that you used in your
`infringement analysis?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Did you review any evidence, actual evidence, in order
`to form your infringement opinions?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`What evidence did you look at?
`A.
`A lot. I based my analysis over the past year on the
`patents themselves, the '493 and the '729. I've reviewed 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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 13450
`
`12
`
`experimented ZTE's products. I've also looked at product
`documents from ZTE describing its products.
`I've also looked at source code used in ZTE's
`products and testimony like the testimony we saw yesterday
`from Mr. Li on -- from ZTE's engineers and also ZTE's
`responses to Maxell's questions, which are called discovery
`responses.
`So these are some of the main sources of evidence
`that I've relied upon.
`Q.
`How long did it take you to look at all this evidence
`you're showing on Slide 11?
`A.
`I mean, a couple of hundred hours, I think, over the
`past year.
`Q.
`Now, sir, you mentioned source code. Would you please
`briefly explain to the jury what source code is?
`A.
`Source code is the software, the software that makes
`products behave in certain ways. And source code provides a
`good indication as to whether certain capabilities are
`configured into the products, and that's, I think, what I
`looked at.
`Q.
`Have you worked with source code before this case?
`A.
`Yes. I developed source code for a number of products.
`I teach courses as well in software and hardware.
`Q.
`Have you written source code before this case?
`A.
`Yes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 13451
`
`13
`
`I think we've heard a little bit about how Maxell's
`Q.
`other experts used specialists to search for source code.
`Did you also use a third party to search through the
`source code for your analysis?
`A.
`In addition to my own analysis, there was a lot of
`source code produced, so for convenience sake, I relied upon
`an expert from Stroz Friedberg, which is Chris Rucinski with
`whom I worked in the past.
`I discussed with him what I would like to see, and
`he went to the office of the counsel and looked at the code
`and provided me some of the selected portions that I asked
`him to look for.
`Q.
`And so why did you use Mr. Rucinski to help you find the
`source code you needed for your analysis?
`A.
`Rucinski -- Chris, with whom I worked in the past, is an
`expert, and he's able to look at a lot of source code, spend
`time -- days at a time at the office of the other counsel and
`search for code from --
`THE COURT: Hold on just a moment.
`MR. WISNIA: I'm going to object, Your Honor. This
`is outside the scope of his report. At his deposition, he
`didn't even know Chris's last name, and now he's offering
`opinions as to his -- as to his qualifications.
`THE COURT: Do you want to rephrase the question?
`MR. NESE: Sure.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 13452
`
`14
`
`(By Mr. Nese) Professor Madisetti, why is it that you
`Q.
`yourself personally did not look for the source code that you
`needed for your infringement analysis in this case?
`A.
`Okay. To clarify, I reviewed the code personally. Some
`of the code that was on the counsel's and other side's
`counsel's office was reviewed on my behalf by Chris. I
`worked with Chris on several cases before; and since there's
`so much code, Chris did the initial spade work for me.
`Q.
`And was Mr. Rucinski able to find the source code you
`needed to determine whether ZTE's phones infringed?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Are you confident that Mr. Rucinski and his team did
`things correctly?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Based on the evidence you reviewed, did you form any
`opinions about whether ZTE infringes Maxell's '493 patent and
`'729 patents?
`MR. NESE: Mr. Ebersole, if we could go back to
`Slide 10 perhaps.
`Q.
`(By Mr. Nese) Okay. What are the opinions you formed in
`this case about infringement, sir?
`A.
`Yes.
`As a summary of slide I prepared in 12, in my
`opinion, based on my review of the evidence, it is my opinion
`that ZTE's accused products infringe claim 5 of the '493
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 13453
`
`15
`
`patent, and they also infringe claim 1 of the '729 patent.
`Q.
`Okay. I think we've heard a bit about claim
`construction already throughout this case. Did the Court
`construe any terms from the '493 and '729 patents?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And did you apply the Court's constructions for those
`patents?
`A.
`Yes, I did.
`Q.
`What were the constructions you applied for the '493
`patent?
`A.
`On Slide 13, I list the two terms that the Court
`construed for the '493 patent. And on Slide 14, I list the
`six terms that the Court construed for the '729 patent. And
`I will talk about these in much more detail later.
`Q.
`How did you interpret the terms that the Court didn't
`construe?
`A.
`I applied the plain and ordinary meaning in the eyes of
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`Q.
`What is a person of ordinary skill in the art?
`A.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art is one with the
`necessary experience and education in the field of these
`inventions.
`Q.
`And for the field of these inventions of Maxell's '493
`and '729 patents, what is the level of ordinary skill in the
`art that you applied?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 13454
`
`16
`
`I have applied, as shown on Slide 15, I said that one of
`A.
`ordinary skill in the art would be a Bachelor of Science
`degree in electrical and computer engineering, computer
`science, or equivalent, and they would have an experience in
`image processing for at least two years.
`Q.
`At the time of the inventions of Maxell's '493 and '729
`patents, were you at least a person of ordinary skill in the
`art?
`A.
`Yes. I had at least 15 years of experience by then.
`Q.
`Do you have an understanding for how ZTE's expert
`interpreted the level of ordinary skill in the art?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`What is that understanding?
`A.
`It's, again, very similar. The only difference I can
`see, that ZTE's expert said one of ordinary skill in the art
`should have three years of experience.
`Q.
`Instead of two?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Would your opinions change if you applied ZTE's expert's
`level of ordinary skill in the art?
`A.
`Not at all.
`Q.
`I'd like to talk about the background of the '493 patent
`now. When was the '493 patent invented?
`A.
`So this is the cover page of the '493 patent. The '493
`patent claims a priority date of no later than January 11th,
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 13455
`
`17
`
`2000.
`Q.
`And what is the title of the '493 patent?
`A.
`It's called an electric camera.
`Q.
`Is there another name sometimes used to describe
`electric cameras?
`A.
`Yes, a digital camera.
`Q.
`Are electric cameras still used today?
`A.
`Yes, even more today than before.
`Q.
`And what sort of products -- maybe you can give the jury
`some examples -- use electric cameras today?
`A.
`Digital and electric cameras are everywhere. They are
`in smartphones. They are in surveillance cameras. They are
`in the garage -- in your garages in home security systems.
`They are in elevators, in the courtroom. They are
`everywhere. So digital cameras are proliferated everywhere.
`Q.
`Is somebody watching me right now? Is that what you're
`saying, Professor?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Does the '493 patent talk about any problems with
`electric cameras at the time of the invention?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`What are those problems?
`A.
`This was in the 2000 timeframe. Cameras were very poor
`in terms of resolution. There were very few cameras that had
`still and video, if at all, together. And there was no
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 13456
`
`18
`
`ability to monitor what picture you were taking. So until
`you got the photo back, you wouldn't know if your grandfather
`was in the shot or not. I mean, things were very, very
`primitive at that point.
`Q.
`Did Maxell's '493 patent solve any of these problems?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`How?
`A.
`So what Maxell's '493 did is that -- this was almost
`eight years ago before the iPhone. It provided an efficient
`way of combining video recording mode, a still recording
`mode, as well as a monitoring mode all in one package. And
`that is the -- the benefit of the solution of the '493
`patent.
`Q.
`Which claim or claim of Maxell's '493 patent is at issue
`in this case?
`A.
`It's claim 5.
`Q.
`And would you please tell the jury how Maxell's '493
`patent in claim 5 solves the problems that you just
`mentioned?
`A.
`Yes. So if you look at the claim, the claim is very
`long, but it's broken into limitations. So to make it
`easier, I've color coded the limitations. So each of those
`colors represents a specific component of the digital camera.
`The blue is the sensor which captures the image.
`The purple is the signal processing unit.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 13457
`
`19
`
`The display is shown in gray.
`The yellow describes the recording of a still
`image. That means taking a still image.
`The green is the monitoring so that you can know
`what you're taking while you're taking the still picture.
`And then the pink is the video recording mode.
`So the claim very succinctly captures these
`different aspects of a digital camera.
`Q.
`And are these solutions that you're showing here on
`Slide 21 of the '493 patent still useful today?
`A.
`They are more useful today, in my opinion, than they
`were in 2000 because if you look at the number of audio --
`number of video and image captures that are done, it is
`multiplied exponentially.
`Q.
`And were you in the courtroom, sir, last Tuesday for the
`opening statements?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And did you hear ZTE's lawyer in her opening statement
`say that Maxell's patents were old technology?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Just because technology is old, does that mean it's not
`useful?
`A.
`Not at all. I mean, I think it's on the contrary for
`these patents. You are having billions of videos and images
`being taken each year. And most of the time you spend on the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 13458
`
`20
`
`smartphone is using these capabilities. So these are much
`more useful today than before.
`I mean, the telephone was invented in 1876. That's
`almost 150 years ago. It's just as useful today as then.
`And air-conditioning was invented several decades
`ago. It is just as useful today as then, if not more, I
`mean, especially in Georgia and Texas.
`And -- so to say something is old and is not
`useful, is wrong. I mean, I would think old is gold in
`these -- in these contexts.
`Q.
`Is it beneficial to take pictures and videos with the
`same electric camera?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Do you have a rough understanding of how many digital
`images are taken in a year?
`A.
`I mean, as I say in my report, I understand surveys show
`almost a thousand billion or more videos and images are being
`taken.
`Q.
`I'm sorry. How many?
`A.
`Thousand billion or more. That's a trillion.
`Q.
`Would you buy a cell phone today if it couldn't take
`both still images and video?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`And would you buy a cell phone today if it couldn't
`monitor the still images before you took them?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 13459
`
`21
`
`Not at all. I mean, look at the selfie craze. It's...
`A.
`During ZTE's opening statement, do you remember ZTE's
`Q.
`lawyer putting up a slide that shows apparently how ZTE
`thinks Maxell's '493 and '729 patents work?
`A.
`I believe so.
`MR. NESE: Okay. Mr. Ebersole, could we cue up
`Slide 31 of ZTE's opening, please?
`Q.
`(By Mr. Nese) Was this a slide you remember from your --
`from ZTE's opening statement?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`I'm showing a TV in this photo; is that right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Do the asserted claims of the '493 or '729 patents
`require a TV?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`Do the asserted claims of these patents require hooking
`a camcorder up to a TV?
`A.
`Not at all.
`Q.
`Does this figure, Slide 31 of the opening, at all
`accurately describe how the '493 or the '729 patents work?
`A.
`Not at all. I mean, this looks like a garage sale.
`Q.
`Did you prepare anything, Professor Madisetti, that
`accurately illustrates an example of the invention of the
`'493 patent?
`A.
`Yes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 22 of 34 PageID #: 13460
`
`22
`
`Q.
`
`Would you please show that to the jury?
`MR. NESE: And, Mr. Ebersole, let's go back to
`Professor Madisetti's presentation.
`Q.
`(By Mr. Nese) All right, sir. What do you -- please
`explain to the jury what you're showing in Slide 22.
`A.
`Again, this is a color-coded form of the invention,
`which is claim 5.
`On the right I show a block diagram.
`The blue is the pixel grid, which is the sensing
`
`area.
`
`The purple is the signal processing unit that has
`these two different modes, the static and the moving.
`And it has -- in the static mode it has a recording
`mode -- you want a high quality still image, and then you
`want to be able to monitor before you take the picture. And
`then you also have in the moving video mode, you have a
`recording mode.
`So that's a succinct description of the invention.
`And you're using, I think, a lot of Ph.D. electrical
`Q.
`engineering terms here in this slide. Will you be explaining
`each of these components in more detail in your testimony
`today?
`A.
`I will do my best.
`Q.
`During the opening statement, did you also hear ZTE's
`lawyer say something that these patents never use the word
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 23 of 34 PageID #: 13461
`
`23
`
`"phone" in them?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Is that an accurate statement, in your opinion?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`Why not?
`A.
`Because the invention itself, the specification itself,
`which is Exhibit 008, in Column 1, 18 to 22 -- I will use the
`pointer for the first time so I will be a bit careful.
`Okay. Right there (indicating).
`It says that: The present invention relates to
`photography related to video cameras, digital still cameras,
`et cetera, and others using a solid-state image sensing
`device.
`
`So it says others, other devices. And the
`smartphone is more of a camera than a phone. We use the
`phone ten minutes a day, but most of the time it's being used
`as a camera or a display of some kind.
`Q.
`Let's talk about Maxell's '729 patent now. Is the
`invention of the '729 patent also related to image and video
`processing?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`When was the '729 patent invented?
`A.
`The '729 patent was, again, claiming a priority date of
`no later than January 11th, 2000.
`Q.
`And, again, this was how many years before the first
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 24 of 34 PageID #: 13462
`
`24
`
`iPhone came out?
`A.
`Almost eight years.
`Q.
`Does the '729 patent mention any other problems with
`electric cameras at this time?
`A.
`Yes. One of the problems that the '729 -- let me see.
`I think we should go back a couple of slides.
`Q.
`All right, sir. What are the problems on Slide 24?
`A.
`Yes. So some of the problems that the '729 deals with
`is that when you take a -- a photograph or a video with a
`camera, your hands shake.
`And not only that, they shake a few times per
`second, three to four times per second. Plus, they
`already -- they also move. So you -- it's very difficult to
`control it.
`And with a very high resolution camera this becomes
`a serious problem. There's no point taking a high quality
`video that's fuzzy or that's jerky.
`So for that reason, '729 has a solution for that.
`What is that solution?
`Q.
`The solution is that it allows cameras to take clear
`A.
`focused and jitter-free video, and it uses an
`image-instability detector when recording video.
`The key is this is for video. It's not for still
`images because video is where you have the problems with
`things like the Blair Witch Project and things like that
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 25 of 34 PageID #: 13463
`
`25
`
`which have a jerky type of video.
`Q.
`You used the term "image-instability" just now. Did you
`prepare anything that shows this concept of
`image-instability?
`A.
`Yes. This shows that your camera shakes, as well as
`your hands move a few times a second, and as a result you get
`bad quality videos.
`The one on the bottom is the recorded with image
`stabilization. And that is the benefit of this patent. It
`allows videos to be recorded with -- in a very clear and
`non-jerky manner.
`Q.
`And you're referring to Slide 26, sir?
`A.
`Yes, sir.
`Q.
`Will you be talking more about this concept of
`image-instability throughout the day?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`All right. Is it important for electric cameras to
`correct image-instability?
`A.
`Especially for video, yes.
`Q.
`And which claim or claims of the '729 patent will you be
`discussing today?
`A.
`I'll be discussing claim 1 of the '729 patent.
`Q.
`And how is it, if at all, that the '729 patent, claim 1,
`fixes this problem of image-instability?
`A.
`I've highlighted the claim limitation that is relevant
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 26 of 34 PageID #: 13464
`
`26
`
`to image-instability, in yellow.
`So you see there that it says: During recording in
`a moving video mode, you will see that there is instability
`detector where it uses a second effective set of pixels,
`which is a portion of the array of pixels of the image
`sensing device, to change a position of the second effective
`set according to the amount of image-instability detected by
`the image-instability detector, to correct further the
`image-instability.
`So there's a specific component that corrects for
`instability during recording in a moving video mode.
`Q.
`And, again, will you be explaining these concepts in a
`little more detail?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`All right.
`A.
`And there's a specific block in the bottom that's called
`an image-instability detector, 1(b).
`Q.
`And you're referring to Slide 28, sir?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Professor Madisetti, did you talk to any of the
`inventors of these patents in forming your infringement
`opinions?
`A.
`Personally, no.
`Q.
`Why not?
`A.
`My understanding is that the patent and its
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 27 of 34 PageID #: 13465
`
`27
`
`specification is sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill
`in the art as to what the patent covers and claims.
`Q.
`Do you think it was necessary for you to talk to the
`inventors in order to form your opinions in this case?
`A.
`Not at all. I mean, a patent or a specification, as you
`know, is like a property deed or a title for a car. You
`don't need to talk to the previous owner to figure out any
`other information. The title is sufficient for the car. And
`my understanding is that when the -- the Court has also
`construed a lot of terms. His Honor, I understand, has not
`talked to the inventors, either. So if it is good for the
`Court, it's good enough for me.