throbber
Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 241 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 13439
`
`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.

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