Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 6
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`*
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`*
`February 15, 2023
`
`*
`VS.
`
`
` * CIVIL ACTION NO. W-20-CV-272
`AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL *
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`MARKMAN HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell III, Esq.
`Hudnell Law Group P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real, Suite 180
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`Daniel T. Shvodian, Esq.
`Perkins Coie, LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`3
`
`looks like I have Mr. Shvodian. So I guess if I can't
`have a young first-year associate, I can't do any
`better than you. So I'm happy to hear your arguments.
`MR. SHVODIAN: Well, thank you, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`And as you know, the parties were able to
`meet and confer and narrow the issues here today, and
`we have narrowed it down to just one claim term.
`I know Your Honor is generally familiar
`with the VoIP technology. You have the other VoIP-Pal
`cases pending in front of you. So I don't intend to
`spend time going over the technology, other than to
`note that this is a highly technical area, the area of
`voice-over IP calling.
`And it's not an area that the lay jury
`would be typically familiar with and wouldn't have an
`understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`back in 2006/2007 would understand a technical claim
`term such as "routing message."
`And there is a clear dispute between the
`parties as to what this term means. So we think this
`is an issue of claim construction that needs to be
`resolved today. And we believe there is a clear
`definition of this term in the patent.
`And, Your Honor, if I may share my screen
`
`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
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`24
`
`Chrysler case that Mr. Hudnell cites also says that
`claim differentiation, the concept of that is much
`weaker when trying to compare across different patents
`as opposed to if it -- they were claims in the same
`patent.
`
`Does Your Honor have any further
`
`questions?
`
`THE COURT: No. Anything else?
`Mr. Hudnell?
`MR. HUDNELL: I think the -- just one
`last point, Your Honor. I think it's important to keep
`in mind, specifically with respect to the time to live
`field, that has absolutely nothing to do with routing.
`That is so that these -- these patents come from the
`RBR family, routing, billing and rating. There's three
`concepts contained in these patents.
`That time to live field is an optional
`component that can be added to the message so that you
`know how long the call is so that -- for billing
`purposes.
`
`And the reason why the claims of the --
`of the other patents, the parent patents and the family
`of the '606, recite that feature in the dependent
`claims is because you can have a routing message that
`doesn't have a time to live field. It's completely
`
`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
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:10
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`25
`
`optional. It's there for billing purposes.
`The '606 claims don't deal with billing,
`and so there's nothing inherent about a routing message
`to require a field that's associated with billing.
`And so we think that that, at a minimum,
`should be excluded from Amazon's construction.
`THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Shvodian?
`MR. SHVODIAN: Your Honor, I just note
`that the RBR is not something that's said in this
`patent. That's a phrase that VoIP-Pal has made up for
`this litigation. And I note that the title of this
`patent is "Producing Routing Messages For Voice-Over IP
`Communications."
`THE COURT: Mr. Hudnell?
`MR. HUDNELL: Nothing, Your Honor. Thank
`
`you.
`
`seconds.
`
`record.
`
`THE COURT: I'll be back in a few
`
`(Pause in proceedings.)
`THE COURT: If we could go back on the
`
`And I thank you for your patience. That
`took longer than usual for us to -- not back and forth
`on our end to try and get it right.
`However, I am persuaded by defendants
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`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
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:28
`
`10:28
`
`10:28
`
`10:28
`
`10:28
`
`10:28
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 89-2 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`26
`
`that the construction of "routing message" should
`include a message that includes a callee username, a
`route field and a time to live field.
`So is there anything else we need to take
`
`up?
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. SHVODIAN: I don't think so, Your
`
`THE COURT: Again, I have the best job in
`the world because the quality of the lawyers arguing
`things back and forth, you all made it very difficult.
`And I thought -- every time you finished I thought you
`were right. And every time Mr. Hudnell finished I
`thought he was right. So -- but the arguments were
`both very well done.
`You guys have a good day. Take care.
`(Hearing adjourned.)
`
`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
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`10:29
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
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
