Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2741
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2741
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2741
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2742
`
` 1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` 2 TYLER DIVISION
`
` 3
` VIRNETX, INC. )
` 4 DOCKET NO. 6:10cv417
` -vs- )
` 5 Tyler, Texas
` ) 8:23 a.m.
` 6 APPLE, INC. November 2, 2012
`
` 7
`
` 8 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
` MORNING SESSION
` 9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
` UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 13
`
` 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
` 15
` MR. DOUGLAS CAWLEY
` 16 MR. BRADLEY W. CALDWELL
` MR. JASON D. CASSADY
` 17 MR. JOHN AUSTIN CURRY
` McKOOL SMITH
` 18 300 Crescent Court, Ste. 1500
` Dallas, TX 75201
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21 COURT REPORTERS: MS. JUDITH WERLINGER
` MS. SHEA SLOAN
` 22 shea_sloan@txed.uscourts.gov
`
` 23
`
` 24 Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
` produced by a Computer.
` 25
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 2743
`
` 36
`
` 1 ANSWER: It seems very fair to me.
` 2 Why -- why would -- why should I do that?
` 3 Regardless of whether I should or shouldn't, that is
` 4 absolutely true; I have not looked at any of the VirnetX
` 5 patents.
` 6 QUESTION: You were one of the primary
` 7 developers of the FaceTime functionality; is that right?
` 8 ANSWER: That's correct. I was one of
` 9 the primary developers of FaceTime.
` 10 (End of video clip.)
` 11 MR. CASSADY: That concludes the
` 12 depositions, Your Honor.
` 13 THE COURT: All right. Who will be your
` 14 next witness?
` 15 MR. CAWLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. At
` 16 this time, VirnetX will call to the stand Patrick Gates.
` 17 THE COURT: Mr. Gates.
` 18 PATRICK GATES, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN
` 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION
` 20 BY MR. CAWLEY:
` 21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Gates.
` 22 A. Good morning. Thank you.
` 23 Q. Are you Apple's representative at this trial?
` 24 A. Yes, sir. That's correct.
` 25 Q. That's why you've been sitting at the table
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 2744
`
` 37
`
` 1 throughout the whole trial, right?
` 2 A. That's right.
` 3 Q. Who chose you to be at the trial?
` 4 A. Actually, I don't know who made that decision.
` 5 I was approached to come here by our counsel in this
` 6 case, but I don't know who originally had the idea of me
` 7 having to do that.
` 8 Q. So a lawyer approached you and asked you to be
` 9 here?
` 10 A. Yes, sir.
` 11 Q. But you don't know who it was at Apple that
` 12 made the decision that you're the one who -- who should
` 13 get that duty?
` 14 A. That's correct.
` 15 Q. Okay. Where do you live?
` 16 A. I live in San Francisco, California.
` 17 Q. Well, welcome to Texas.
` 18 A. Thank you.
` 19 Q. Now, it's not convenient for Apple to bring
` 20 witnesses to the Eastern District of Texas for a patent
` 21 infringement trial, is it?
` 22 A. Well, when you say convenient, Texas is not
` 23 that far. It's a pretty short flight, so it's not a
` 24 huge deal. You know, at the same time, I think we have
` 25 a lot of people that are working on products; and we
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 2745
`
` 38
`
` 1 would like to focus on those products. And there's
` 2 definitely a time tradeoff.
` 3 Q. Do you remember when your deposition was
` 4 taken?
` 5 A. Yes, sir.
` 6 Q. And do you remember when you were asked this
` 7 question at your deposition?
` 8 A. Sorry. Which question, whether it's
` 9 inconvenient to --
` 10 Q. Yes, sir.
` 11 A. I -- I think I remember that question.
` 12 Q. Let me refresh your recollection. I'm
` 13 going -- I'm going to take a look at Page 35, Line 24
` 14 through 36, Line 4 of your deposition.
` 15 MR. CAWLEY: This is Clip 1. Can you
` 16 play Clip 1?
` 17 (Video clip playing.)
` 18 QUESTION: Is it inconvenient for Apple
` 19 to go to the Eastern District of Texas for a patent
` 20 infringement trial?
` 21 ANSWER: I don't think it's any less
` 22 convenient than any other place we go.
` 23 (End of video clip.)
` 24 Q. (By Mr. Cawley) Is that the answer you gave in
` 25 your deposition, Mr. Gates?
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 66-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 2746
`
` 39
`
` 1 A. I think it's a little bit different, the
` 2 wording.
` 3 Q. Sir?
` 4 A. I think it's a little bit different, sir.
` 5 Q. Is that the answer that you gave in your
` 6 deposition?
` 7 A. Sorry. I think you're asking was the answer I
` 8 just gave to the question of whether it was inconvenient
` 9 was the same as the one at the deposition?
` 10 Q. No. Was -- was the testimony that the jury
` 11 just saw, did you give in the deposition --
` 12 A. Ah, I understand. Yes. I believe that was a
` 13 video from my deposition.
` 14 Q. Okay. And you don't disagree that what we
` 15 just saw is what you said under oath in your deposition?
` 16 A. That's correct, sir.
` 17 Q. Okay. Thank you.
` 18 Now, you first began working at Apple when
` 19 Apple bought a company that you already worked at,
` 20 right?
` 21 A. That's correct.
` 22 Q. And then after that, you left Apple and worked
` 23 at a couple of other companies and took some time off,
` 24 right?
` 25 A. Yes, sir.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
