Case 6LRDOOSBERSRABBURRANSIO Fides ORQER of 132
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 132
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES
`ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`
`Date: December 21, 2022
`Case: Touchstream Technologies, Inc -v- Google, LLC
`
`Planet Depos
`Phone: 888-433-3767
`Fax: 888-503-3767
`Email: transcripts@planetdepos.com
`www.planetdepos.com
`
`WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION TECHNOLOGY
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`
`1
`
`1 (1 to 4)
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
`
` JUSTIN R. DONOHO, ESQUIRE
`
` SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
`
` 111 South Wacker Drive,
`
` Chicago, IL 60606
`
` 312.704.7700
`
` jdonoho@shb.com
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
`
` EDWIN GARCIA, ESQUIRE
`
` GREG LANIER, ESQUIRE
`
` TRACY A. STITT, ESQUIRE
`
` JONES DAY,
`
` 51 Louisiana Ave NW,
`
` Washington, DC 20001
`
` 202.879.3939
`
`
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Caleb Welsh, Legal Videographer
`
` Mark Chandler, Corporate Representative,
`
` Touchstream Technologies
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
` WACO DIVISION
`
`------------------------------x
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, :
`
` INC., :
`
` Plaintiff, :
`
` v. : Civil Action No.
`
` :
`
`0
`
`GOOGLE LLC, : 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
` Defendant. :
`
`------------------------------x
`
` Remote videotaped deposition of CHRISTOPHER
`
` MARTINEZ
`
` Wednesday, December 22, 2022
`
` at 10:07 a.m. EST
`
`
`
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`Job No.: 474850
`
`Pages : 1 - 267
`
`Reported by: Lisa M. Barrett, RPR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ
`
` PAGE
`
` By Mr. Donoho 8
`
`
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`(Attached to the transcript)
`
`MARTINEZ
` PAGE
`
`
`0
`
`Exhibit 1 Expert Report of Christopher 11
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. Martinez with Respect
`
` to Damages, 12/12/2022
`
`Exhibit 2 Settlement Agreement 42
`
` 1/6/2020 - Touchstream/
`
` Vizbee
`
`Exhibit 3 Wireless Network Patent 78
`
` Agreement, Final 9-7-2017
`
` GOOG-TST-00202254 through
`
` -2280
`
`Exhibit 4 Rebuttal expert report of 113
`
` Dr. Ketan Mayer-patel Regarding
`
` Noninfringement of U.S. Patent
`
` Nos. 8,356,251, 8,782,528, and
`
` 8,904,289
`
`
`
`
`
` Deposition of CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ,
`
`conducted virtually,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Pursuant to notice, before Lisa M. Barrett
`
`Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
`
`Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the
`
`State of Maryland.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`
`2 (5 to 8)
`
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
` OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`--- Commencing at 10:08 a.m.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins media
`number 1 in the remote videotape deposition of
`Christopher Martinez in the matter of Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. versus Google LLC in the United
`States District Court for the Western District of
`Texas, Waco Division, 6:21-cv-569-ADA.
` Today's date is December 21st, 2022.
`The time on the video monitor is 10:09.
` The videographer today is Caleb Walsh,
`representing Planet Depos. This video deposition
`is taking place remotely.
` Will counsel please voice identify
`themselves and state whom they represent.
` MR. DONOHO: Hi, this is Justin Donoho,
`representing Touchstream. Also attending with me
`in a listening capacity is Mark Chandler.
` MR. GARCIA: This is Edwin Garcia with
`the law firm of Jones Day, representing Google.
`Also joining me are my colleagues, Mr. Lanier and
`Ms. Stitt.
` REMOTE TECHNICIAN: The court reporter
`today is Lisa Barrett, representing Planet Depos.
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`(Attached to the transcript)
`
`MARTINEZ
` PAGE
`
`
`Exhibit 5 Stock Valuation Report 189
`
` Prepared for Touchstream
`
` Technologies, Shodogg/
`
` Scalar May 18, 2015
`
` Bates Nos. FS-00897298
`
`0
`
` through -7352
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Exhibit 6 Amended and Restated 191
`
` software development and
`
` licence agreement, Bates
`
` Nos. TS-00912235 through
`
` -12275
`
`Exhibit 7 Stock Valuation Report 240
`
` June 15, 2017, Scalar
`
` Bates Nos. TS-00897223
`
` through -97266
`
`Exhibit 8 Scalar - A Busines Valuation 240
`
` Report, October 1, 2016
`
` Bates Nos. TS-00897268
`
` through -7288
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`8
`
`1234567891
`
` E X H I B I T S (continued)
`
`(Attached to the transcript)
`
`MARTINEZ
` PAGE
`
`
`Exhibit 9 Stock Valuation Report 240
`
` May 18, 2015, Bates Nos.
`
` FS-00897298 through -7352
`
`Exhibit 10 Letter from FetchIT, 240
`
` Would the reporter please swear in the
`witness.
` (Oath stipulation read by court reporter
` and agreed by counsel)
` CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ, was sworn
` and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. DONOHO:
` Q Mr. Martinez, nice to meet you. My
`name is Justin.
`0
` A Nice to meet you as well.
`11
` Q How long have you been a testifying
`12
`expert?
`13
` A I mean, I think I probably testified
`14
`for the first time, oh, 20 years ago,
`15
`approximately, then I've done it sort of on and
`16
`off over those years.
`17
` Q So how many times have you been deposed
`18
`before?
`19
` A I've probably been deposed 75 to 100
`20
`times.
`21
` Q So if I ask you a question today and
`22
`you don't understand it, will you agree to ask me
`23
`to clarify my question?
`24
` A Yes, I will.
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` October 20, 2013, to
`
`0
`
` Herb Mitschele, Re:
`
` Shodogg License
`
` Bates Nos. TS-00912537
`
` through -12540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`9
`
`3 (9 to 12)
`
`11
`
`them resulted in a license, maybe in that -- that
`ballpark.
` Q All right. Let's see if I can get your
`-- get this Google Meet document thing working.
` I'm going to try to upload your report
`as Exhibit 1. Bear with me. This will be a good
`test.
` (Martinez Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
`identification)
`BY MR. DONOHO:
` Q Okay, I think it's uploaded.
` A Let me check. Yes, I see it there.
` Q Do you also have a copy in front of you
`just for ease of reference?
` A Yes, for -- for purposes of clarity I
`do have a copy of my report in front of me.
` Q Okay. And can you just take a look at
`this Exhibit 1 is and make sure that this is,
`indeed, your report.
` A Certainly.
` Q I'm not trying to trick you.
` A I'm sorry. Yes, this looks to be a
`copy of my report, yes.
` Q Okay, fair enough. Does this
`Exhibit 1, your report, contain all of your
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q Thank you. Approximately how many
`times have you testified as an expert in a patent
`infringement litigation matter?
` A Probably -- approximately 75 times,
`50 to 75 times. Most of my testimony has been in
`patent infringement.
` Q And of those, about what percentage do
`you represent the defendant?
` A In terms of retentions I think it's
`about 50/50. I think -- it goes to any testimony,
`it's probably closer to 60/40 defendant.
` Q How many times have you testified as an
`expert on matters relating to damages in patent
`litigation?
` A 90 percent of the time -- I mean I only
`testify to damages, let me put it that way. I
`just make the distinction because in some patent
`infringement cases I -- in the International Trade
`Commission I testify related to domestic industry
`so it's not really a damages analysis.
` Q Okay. So you're -- you've testified
`approximately how many times on matters related to
`35 US code 284?
` A Again, between 50 and 75.
` Q When did you say you became
`
`12
`
`1234567891
`
`a testifying expert, approximately what year?
` A I think I first testified around
`20 years ago.
` Q And you mentioned in your report that
`you also have experience conducting "real world
`licensing negotiations." Is that since you've
`become a testifying expert or was that before, or
`both?
` A That was before.
` Q So can you describe that experience?
` A So, I was previously the vice-president
`of SBC Knowledge Ventures, which now is known as
`the AT&T Knowledge Ventures, which was the
`intellectual property holding company for the SBC
`group of companies, and we were charged with the
`in-licensing and out-licensing of intellectual
`property for the overall organization.
` And so in that capacity, I was
`specifically charged with executing and evaluating
`both in and outbound licensing.
` Q Approximately how many licensing
`negotiations resulting in a license did you
`participate in?
` A I participated in dozens of
`negotiations. I would say maybe two-thirds of
`
`written opinions that you've disclosed in this
`matter?
` A Yes, I mean, it -- it discloses -- it
`discloses my opinions as of December 12th, the
`date that I issued the report.
` Q Do you presently have any intention to
`disclose any additional written opinions in this
`matter?
` A I don't -- I haven't been asked at this
`juncture to provide more written opinions though I
`0
`did review Mr. Chandler's supplementary report and
`11
`if asked, I would respond to that but that's
`12
`the -- again, at this point, I have not been asked
`13
`to -- to submit another report.
`14
` Q Thank you. Can you take a look at
`15
`page 4 of your report.
`16
` A Sure. Yes. Page 4.
`17
` Q That begins section 3 where you talk
`18
`about the information that you've considered.
`19
` A Yes.
`20
` Q And then that section 3 also refers to
`21
`schedule 3 attached to your report.
`22
` A Yes.
`23
` Q That enumerates many different
`24
`documents considered and it's titled "Documents
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`10
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`13
`
`4 (13 to
`16)
`
`15
`
` Q Sitting here today, do you know if
`Touchstream has any non-US patents relevant or
`related to the technology at issue in this case?
` A Again, I don't know. I know they have
`other patents besides the Patents-in-Suit or in
`addition to the Patents-in-Suit, but I don't know
`the extent of those other patents.
` Q Did you review the motion to transfer
`venue in this case? I don't see it listed in your
`legal filings section of schedule 3.
` A Yeah, I don't -- I don't recall seeing
`that off the top of my head, no.
` Q Do you recall reviewing a -- any
`declaration by Andre Golueke, G-O-L-U-E-K-E. I
`don't know how to pronounce it.
` A Again, off the top of my head, it
`doesn't come to mind or that -- I don't have a
`direct recollection, though I'd refer back to my
`schedule 3 of Exhibit 1 to this deposition. If
`it's there then I -- then I did look at it but
`I -- as I sit here, I don't recall.
` Q Do you recall reviewing any -- did
`I just ask you about a deposition or a
`declaration? Do you have any recollection of a
`deposition or a declaration from Andre Golueke?
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`considered." Is this all the information that
`you've considered in this matter in forming your
`opinions for --
` A Yes, again --
` Q -- going in your report.
` A Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. As of the
`12th of December this year, this was, to the best
`of my recollection, all of the information
`I considered, though I would say if there's
`something referenced specifically in my report, I
`would consider that as well. They should -- that
`information should be included here but just as a
`double-check, if it's -- if it's referenced
`anywhere in my report or if it's in schedule 3,
`that was the -- my best efforts to record
`everything that I considered.
` Q Have you considered additional
`information since submitting this report?
` A Again, I looked at the reports, the
`supplemental report submitted by Mr. Chandler.
`I can't recall the exact date but I guess it was
`in the last few days.
` Q Did you consider any other information
`since submitting your report, whether written or
`oral?
`
`1234567891
`
`14
`
` A Nothing comes to mind at this point,
`no, other than the information I reviewed relative
`to Mr. Chandler's supplemental report.
` Q The opinions that are disclosed in your
`report, presently do you have any changes to them?
` A No, I mean, I think there might be
`a few typos in there that, in hindsight I would
`correct, but no, I don't think anything
`substantive, changes to my opinions.
` Q In terms of the information that you
`considered, did you consider any of Touchstream's
`non-US patents that might be relevant to the same
`technology here in forming your opinions?
` MR. GARCIA: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm offering
`opinion on damages and reasonable royalty in this
`matter and rebutting the analysis -- analyses put
`forward by Mr. Chandler. I did not study the
`patents other than the Patents-in-Suit and in the
`case of study, it's maybe an overstatement; I read
`them, but I'm not a technical expert, and I'm not
`opining on what those patents cover or if there is
`infringement. And nothing in my opinion should be
`construed as providing any technical opinions.
`BY MR. DONOHO:
`
` A I don't see that I reviewed that
`deposition of that individual based on my
`schedule 3.
` Q One of your opinions in this matter is
`that a reasonable royalty would be a -- in this
`case, would be a fully paid up lump-sum license;
`did I state that accurately?
` A Yeah, that's generally correct. I'd
`certainly opine that the appropriate form of
`a reasonable royalty should be a lump-sum payment.
`0
` Q And can you tell me where I would find
`11
`all of the bases for that opinion in your report?
`12
` MR. GARCIA: Objection, form.
`13
` THE WITNESS: I mean specifically, I
`14
`think I talk about lump-sum and the precedent for
`15
`lump-sum in both my Georgia-Pacific Factor 1
`16
`analysis, as well as my Georgia-Pacific Factor 2
`17
`analysis, and then I -- I think I also address it
`18
`in Georgia-Pacific Factor 15 analysis, and I
`19
`believe probably some of the background section
`20
`that addresses some of the licenses, I believe,
`21
`and then it might well be in the critique of
`22
`Mr. Chandler's analysis as well.
`23
`BY MR. DONOHO:
`24
` Q Let me try to make sure I understand
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`16
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 7 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`17
`
`5 (17 to
`20)
`
`19
`
`trick you, so we'll get there if there's something
`else, I'm sure.
` So let me talk more about this Vizbee
`license. You understand that it was a settlement
`agreement; right?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q Does that have any impact on -- for
`purposes of the hypothetical negotiation as
`whether -- strike that.
` Does the fact that it was a settlement
`agreement impact your opinion for this license
`which is, instead, for purposes of a hypothetical
`negotiation?
` A Well, there's clearly a difference
`between a real world license such as this
`Touchstream/Vizbee license and the hypothetically
`negotiated license that we're all here talking
`about. This took place in the real world and the
`hypothetical license takes place in the
`hypothetical world.
` The fact that it's a settlement
`license, settlement of litigation is interesting
`factually but, you know, it also seems to have
`placed a value set by two parties at arm's length
`for the technology at issue, which I believe was,
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`all the bases for these -- for this opinion of
`yours.
` Is one of them -- it appears on
`page 21, on paragraph 61 -- that Touchstream's
`license with Vizbee is structured as a fully
`paid-up, lump-sum license; is that -- that's one
`of the bases for your opinions as I understand it;
`is that right?
` A Well, I certainly considered the fact
`that Touchstream entered into a lump-sum agreement
`with Vizbee, which demonstrates Touchstream's
`acceptance of lump-sum as a form for receiving
`royalties.
` Q You state in your report that from
`a structural perspective the Vizbee license is
`most comparable to the hypothetical license. And
`why would you say that?
` A Well, because the Vizbee license is
`a -- effectively a freedom to operate license. It
`is -- it is, I think Touchstream's only agreement
`that I reviewed that's granting patent rights in a
`-- in an unrestricted manner. It does not -- it
`doesn't include the transfer of any software or
`products or technical knowledge or technical
`support and so from a -- from a perspective of
`
`20
`
`1234567891
`
`what the hypothetically negotiated license would
`be in this instance, it is the most similar
`because it's -- it's a -- it's a bare patent
`license that doesn't attach other rights or
`doesn't grant other rights to other intellectual
`assets.
` Q Any other basis for saying that the
`Vizbee license is most comparable from a
`structural perspective?
` A I think on Touchstream's --
`Touchstream's agreements, it's the most comparable
`structurally, from a structural perspective, and I
`guess I would just go back to what I've written in
`the report, if I've -- if I've forgotten to recite
`any of the points, but I think the report speaks
`for itself there.
` Q And you stated all the reasons you can
`think of at the moment.
` A Yeah, I'm happy to it read this, and I
`can read you paragraph 61 but I think it really --
`it's important to understand the overall context
`which sort of comes with more than just the one
`paragraph.
` Q Understood. Yeah, we're going go to
`through your whole report and I'm not trying to
`
`you know, 66 US patents and then some foreign
`patents and some US and foreign patent
`applications as well. So it does have a
`distinction. It is -- it is different than the
`hypothetical negotiated license, as would any real
`world license be.
` Q But, in terms of any differences that
`you are able to identify, none that would
`materially affect your opinion that Vizbee is most
`comparable from a structural perspective?
`0
` A Right, again, I think you have to -- if
`11
`you are saying "Most comparable from a structural
`12
`perspective," you have to consider what the other
`13
`alternatives are and what I'm referring, most
`14
`comparable relative to the Touchstream agreements
`15
`so you need to consider the other Touchstream
`16
`agreements to compare them, it's a relative
`17
`measure, and a relative measure is, if you look at
`18
`the Touchstream/Quadriga license, for instance,
`19
`which Mr. Chandler relies upon, it's -- it
`20
`grants -- I mean it's a software license. It
`21
`doesn't make explicit mention of the
`22
`Patents-in-Suit. It doesn't -- you know, it
`23
`grants all sorts of limited use rights to this
`24
`software to be incorporated into another product.
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`18
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 8 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`21
`
`6 (21 to
`24)
`
`23
`
`that Google "strongly prefers" patent licenses?
` A Yeah.
` Q And you, for that proposition, cite
`your discussion with George Bonanto, Google Senior
`Patent Counsel. Can you describe that
`conversation with me, or those conversations?
` A Sure. Yes, I spoke to Mr. Bonanto and
`I asked him about, you know, what's -- what is
`Google -- just broadly what are Google
`preferences. And -- and I guess because I did
`look at the other Google licenses produced and
`they are almost exclusively lump-sums, I asked
`about any preference and he suggested to me or
`said to me that -- that they had a strong
`preference for a lump-sum because it gives them a
`known -- for a number of reasons, a lot of which
`I'd list in my report but they have that
`preference and it's exhibited in the licenses that
`were produced from Google.
` Q Produced in this case?
` A Yeah, produced in this case.
` Q Did you inquire about any Google
`licenses not produced in this case?
` A No, I did not undertake to
`re-litigating the discovery, so to speak. I looked
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` It's a different structural bargain, if
`you will, as opposed to a bare patent license
`that's the basis of the hypothetical negotiated
`license, and it happens to be the basis of this
`Touchstream/Vizbee license.
` Q Right. We'll get to the Quadriga
`agreement eventually.
` Sticking with the Vizbee license, let
`me try it one more time. I use the term "most
`comparable" because I guess that's a phrase that
`you used in your report. But let me ask you this:
`Is the Vizbee -- the fact that the Vizbee
`agreement is a settlement agreement versus the
`type of agreement that would be reached in a
`hypothetical negotiation, does that impact the
`importance at all of this basis to your opinion
`that a lump-sum would be most appropriate in this
`matter?
` A Again, no, the -- the structural issue
`is that Touchstream and Vizbee agreed to a
`lump-sum royalty payment, and that's -- that's a
`fact and that is -- and the structure of the
`agreement is for bare patent rights, so that is
`more similar to the hypothetical license in this
`case than would be any of the other Touchstream
`
`1234567891
`
`22
`
`licenses entered into.
` So the fact that it's a settlement
`is -- is -- is considered, but it's -- it's
`just -- it's considered the way -- the fact that
`the Quadriga license is a software license.
` Q You considered it; is that a strike
`against it or not?
` A I mean, I guess I wouldn't say -- well,
`when determining my ultimate opinion as to
`reasonable royalty, I consider a lot of
`information. I consider the Quadriga agreement.
`It doesn't mean I put weight in or value upon it
`as a comparable license. So, I wouldn't say -- I
`guess I don't look at it as strikes against. I
`recognize that it is a settlement agreement which
`might have different economic dynamics, but -- but
`from my understanding, you know, structurally it
`is a bare patent license related to, you know,
`the -- the Patents-in-Suit and it was structured
`as a lump-sum agreement and did not include the
`transfer of other technology or other products or
`other rights.
` Q Let's talk about the other bases for
`your opinion that lump-sum would be most
`appropriate in this case. Another one, right, is
`
`at what was produced in this case.
` Q Well, did you investigate, at all,
`whether with your conversation with Mr. Bonanto or
`public sources or anywhere else, whether Google
`has any licenses that use running royalties?
` A I mean, I -- I did look at the comments
`made by Mr. Chandler in his report related to some
`licenses or supposed licenses that were not
`produced but I didn't -- I didn't investigate any
`further. I stayed within the four walls of
`0
`discovery of this case.
`11
` Q Which -- which agreements by Mr. -- in
`12
`Mr. Chandler's report are you referring to?
`13
` A Again, off of memory, I believe he
`14
`refers to some agreement with Yahoo and then an
`15
`agreement with TBO.
`16
` Q And you did not ask Mr. Bonanto about
`17
`those agreements?
`18
` A No, I did not.
`19
` Q He did not refer to them?
`20
` A He did not, no.
`21
` Q Do you know whether -- okay. So
`22
`Google's strong preference according to
`23
`Mr. Bonanto, that you referred to in your report,
`24
`you say is supported by Google's licenses produced
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`24
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 9 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`25
`
`7 (25 to
`28)
`
`27
`
`28
`
`technology included in those licenses that was
`comparable to the Patents-in-Suit.
`BY MR. DONOHO:
` Q All right. Let me try again. My first
`question was probably better than my second one.
`We'll get to the SIPCO license too. Let me try
`again.
` So the -- in schedule 10.1 the SIPCO
`license is the only one that you've opined is
`economically comparable and informative on the
`license that would issue in a hypothetical
`negotiation in this case; right?
` A Yes, that's correct. And it's because,
`again, there -- the technical expert told me that
`it was -- this license contains comparable
`technology.
` Q Okay. Sticking on this lump-sum
`opinion, you also opine on page 50 that there are
`some advantages to that, including deal simplicity
`and avoidance of burden for other methods of
`a royalty structure; correct?
` A Yeah, paragraph 153 -- well, I talk
`about the structure of the hypothetical license
`starting at paragraph 151 but, yes, I think you're
`probably referring to paragraph 153.
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`in this case, and then you have a footnote number
`136 which refers to your schedule 10.1.
` A Yes.
` Q Are you referring to -- for support of
`Google's "strong preference," are you referring to
`all the licenses in schedule 10.1 or only certain
`of them?
` A Well, I'm referring to -- well, what
`I'm referring to, one, the strong preference came
`from Mr. Bonanto but then I was able to
`corroborate that based on Google's produced
`licenses in this matter. And -- and you can look
`at schedule 10.1 which lists the -- the Google
`licenses produced and you can see many of these
`licenses are, you know, for a one-time -- one-time
`payment if indeed there is a payment required.
` Q Many of them are -- do not have any
`payments; right?
` A That's right.
` Q And you don't have an opinion as to
`whether zero dollars supports lump-sum versus
`running royalty; it could be either, right?
` A I mean, yeah, I don't -- I don't know
`that the zero dollar or the cross licenses for
`instance, would -- would suggest a lump-sum or
`
`1234567891
`
`26
`
` Q Yeah, especially those three bullets in
`153.
` A Yes.
` Q In -- in one of those bullets you
`mention the burden on -- of audits and that might
`be associated with a running royalty structure.
`So my question is: In this case did you consider
`what that burden would be, if anything, for
`a running royalty structure based not on revenues
`but just on number of activations?
`0
` A I mean, I considered it, yes, and I --
`11
`I understand that in any running structure or
`12
`license structure, there would be a burden upon
`13
`really both parties, but the reporting party in
`14
`particular, to track such -- whether it's
`15
`activations, whatever the metric is. There is
`16
`that burden. I mean, it's -- it's kind of binary,
`17
`it either exists or it doesn't. And if it exists
`18
`it takes more effort than it if it doesn't exist.
`19
` Q You understand that Google also already
`20
`tracks number of activations for Chromecast
`21
`devices; right?
`22
` A You know, I -- I know that that
`23
`information has been produced in this case, I'm
`24
`not sure if that's something that they track in
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`running royalty in one way or another, no, but
`I -- I can see that there are a number of licenses
`where consideration was paid and it was paid in
`a lump-sum manner.
` Q In terms of the licenses in
`schedule 10.1 -- is the SIPCO license in here?
` A Yes, I believe it is. It is line 11 or
`row 11, which is on page 3 of 4.
` Q Yes, there you go. And that's the only
`one where you've opined in this case that's
`comparable to the licenses at issue here; right?
` MR. GARCIA: Objection, form.
`BY MR. DONOHO:
` Q Yeah, that's a bad question. Let me
`try again.
` That license is the only one that you
`opine is -- has technology in the patents that are
`licensed that's comparable to the technology at
`issue here; right?
` MR. GARCIA: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: So I didn't -- it's not
`my opinion that the technology at issue is
`comparable. I asked Dr. Patel, Google's technical
`expert to evaluate the licenses that were produced
`and tell me if any of those licenses produced had
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 185-2 Filed 01/19/23 Page 10 of 132
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`Transcript of Christopher Martinez
`December 21, 2022
`29
`
`8 (29 to
`32)
`
`31
`
`32
`
` A I have, yes.
` Q And in those cases, typically the way
`you handle confidentiality concerns is with
`a confidentiality clause; right?
` A Well, there's certainly -- there's
`going to be a confidentiality clause in any
`license, typically, and it's particularly -- if
`there's more sensitive business information, there
`might be enhanced measures taken.
` Q Another reason you opine for -- another
`basis that you provide for your opinion that
`a lump-sum structure is appropriate here is that,
`from a licensor's point of view there are some
`advantages to paid-up licenses.
` Did you consider any disadvantages to
`paid-up