`
`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.
`
`
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
