`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`DATE: December 17, 2015
`
`
`
` Court Reporter: Shelly Holmes
` Courtroom Deputy: Lisa Hardwick
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv982
`
` MARKMAN HEARING
`
`JUDGE
`K. Nicole Mitchell
`
`Law Clerk: Jacqueline Hamer
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC
`
`V L
`
`G ELECTRONICS, INC. ET AL
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
` SEE ATTORNEY SIGN-IN SHEET(S)
`
`On this day, came the parties by their attorneys and the following proceedings were had:
`OPEN: 9:01 a.m.
`ADJOURN: 12:18 p.m.
`
`TIME:
`
`9:01 a.m.
`
`MINUTES:
`Case Called for Markman Hearing. Appearances made (See Attorney Sign-In Sheet). Parties
`announced ready to proceed.
`
`9:02 a.m.
`
`Pltf Attorney Ed Nelson proposed an outline for the claims to be argued.
`
`9:03 a.m.
`
`Pltf Attorney Ryan Griffin argued the first group of disputed terms in the ‘966 patent:
`“wherein” clauses. Response by Deft Attorney Mike Rader (Sony Mobile Communications).
`
`9:33 a.m. Mr. Griffin argued the next disputed term in the ‘966 patent: ÄPpc. Response by Deft Attorney
`Chris Kennerly (AT&T Mobility).
`
`9:56 am
`
`Before moving on to the next term, the Court noted for the record that some claims had
`previously been agreed to by the parties. Mr. Kennerly stated the agreements on the record.
`
`9:57 a.m. Mr. Rader argued re the ‘966 patent, the Motion for Summary Judgment that certain asserted
`claims from each patent are invalid as indefinite from the [147] Defendants’ Joint Markman
`Response . Response by Mr. Griffin.
`
`FILED 12/17/2015
`
`DAVID A. O’TOOLE, CLERK
`
`BY: Lisa Hardwick, Courtroom Deputy
`
`
`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 177 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2127
`
`PAGE 2 - Proceedings Continued
`
`MINUTES:
`TIME:
`10:11 a.m. COURT RECESSED
`
`10:31 a.m. COURT RESUMED
`
`10:32 am Ed Nelson gave a brief summary of the ‘060 patent re disputed claims, 1, 7, and 15.
`
`10:32 am Disputed claims “storing at the terminal of the cellular wireless communication system, a group
`of specific identifiers” and “store a group of specific identifiers” argued by Mr. Nelson.
`Response by Deft Attorney Saqib Siddiqui (LG Electronics).
`
`10:47 am Disputed claim term “paging message” argued by Mr. Nelson. Response by Mr. Rader
`
`11:00 am Disputed claim term “establish at least one of a physical channel and a logical channel” argued
`by Mr. Nelson. Response by Mr. Siddiqui.
`
`11:05 am Disputed claim term “temporary mobile subscriber identity” argued by Mr. Nelson. Response
`by Mr. Kennerly.
`
`11:16 a.m. Mr. Rader argued the Motion for Summary Judgment re claim 15 (“accurate receipt”) of the
`‘060 patent from the Defendants’ [147] Joint Markman Response. Response by Mr. Nelson.
`
`11:32 am Pltf Attorney Brent Bumgardner argued disputed claim term “secondary cells” of the ’556
`patent. Response by Mr. Siddiqui.
`
`11:43 a.m. Next disputed claim term in the ‘556 patent, “bitmap”, argued by Mr. Bumgardner. Response
`by Deft Attorney Chelsea Loughran (Sony Mobile Communication).
`
`11:49 a.m. Mr. Bumgardner argued disputed claim term “bits for a power headroom reports for a plurality
`of the secondary cells” in the ‘556 patent. Response by Ms. Loughran.
`
`12:09 p.m. Ms. Loughran argued the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment On Indefiniteness as to
`the ‘556 patent re terms “Type 1 power headroom report” and “Type 2 power headroom report”.
`Response by Mr. Bumgardner
`
`12:18 p.m. The Court thanked the parties for their argument and stated an opinion will be issued. There
`being nothing further, Court was Adjourned.
`
`