throbber
Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 1 of 156
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`*
`June 28, 2023
`VS.
`*
` * CIVIL ACTION NO. W-21-CV-569
`GOOGLE LLC
`*
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Ryan D. Dykal, Esq.
`Lauren Douville, Esq.
`Jordan T. Bergsten, Esq.
`Philip Alexander Eckert, Esq.
`Robert McClendon, Esq.
`B. Trent Webb, Esq.
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`Sharon A. Israel, Esq.
`Andrew M. Long, Esq.
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Samuel G. Bernstein, Esq.
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tharan Gregory Lanier, Esq.
`Evan M. McLean, Esq.
`Gurneet Singh, Esq.
`Jones Day
`1755 Embarcadero Road
`Palo Alto, CA 943034
`Edwin O. Garcia, Esq.
`Jones Day
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`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 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 2 of 156
`
`2
`
`Tracy Ann Stitt, Esq.
`John R. Boule III, Esq,
`Jones Day
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Michael E. Jones, Esq.
`Shaun William Hassett, Esq.
`Potter Minton PC
`110 North College, Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`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 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 3 of 156
`
`3
`
`(Hearing begins.)
`THE BAILIFF: All rise.
`THE COURT: Good afternoon -- good
`morning, everyone.
`Thank you. You may be seated.
`If you'd call the case, please.
`DEPUTY CLERK: Waco Case 6:21-CV-569,
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC. Case
`called for in-person pretrial conference.
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements
`from counsel, please, starting with plaintiff.
`Don't be shy.
`MS. ISRAEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Sharon Israel for plaintiff Touchstream. And we have
`today Ryan Dykal, who'll be the primary speaker for
`Touchstream, Jordan Bergsten, Sam Bernstein, Phil
`Eckert, Trent Webb, Andrew Long, Lauren Douville, and
`Robert McClendon.
`THE COURT: Welcome all.
`And for defendants?
`Good morning, Mike.
`MR. JONES: Your Honor, Mike Jones and
`Shaun Hassett for the defendant Google. Also with me
`is Mr. Greg Lanier, Ms. Tracy Stitt, Mr. Evan McLean,
`Mr. Edwin Garcia, Mr. John Boule, Mr. Gurneet Singh.
`
`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
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 4 of 156
`
`4
`
`And here for the client itself, Mr. Andy
`Nguyen and Susan Kemp.
`And we're ready to proceed, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: I appreciate them being here.
`Let's see. I believe the first issue
`we're going to take up is the issue of the motion for
`summary judgment under Section 101.
`Let me say that again. We're going to
`take up the motion for summary judgment under Section
`101, and I'll hear from the defendant on that.
`MS. DOUVILLE: The defendant, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. This is a
`motion for validity under 101, so I guess I need to
`hear from the plaintiff.
`MS. DOUVILLE: Lauren Douville.
`THE COURT: I apologize for that.
`MS. DOUVILLE: May it please the Court.
`So, Your Honor --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. Would you remind
`me of your name?
`MS. DOUVILLE: Yes. Lauren Douville.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`It's not -- we're not set for tall
`lawyers. The courtroom --
`MS. DOUVILLE: I did notice.
`
`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
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:05
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 5 of 156
`
`5
`
`THE COURT: The courtroom has
`limitations. When I have like a tall criminal defense
`lawyer and a short defendant or -- it's very difficult
`to deal with, but hopefully we'll be able to hear you.
`MS. DOUVILLE: So I think on the 101
`brief that Touchstream has filed, the main point is
`that Google has failed to meet its burden under 101 to
`show by clear and convincing evidence at either Alice
`Step 1 or Step 2 that the claims are directed to
`patent-ineligible subject matter.
`As Your Honor's well aware and very
`familiar, with respect to the first step, whether there
`is an abstract idea, most courts look to one of two
`things to sort of reach a determination as to whether
`there's an abstract idea.
`And that is, do the claims focus on a
`specific means or method that improves the relevant
`technology, which Touchstream argues is the case with
`respect to the asserted claims here, or are they,
`instead, directed to a result or effect that is the
`abstract idea itself and merely invoked using generic
`processes or machinery?
`The Federal Circuit has declined to read
`Alice so broadly as to hold that all improvements in
`computer-related technology are inherently abstract
`
`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
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 6 of 156
`
`6
`
`and, therefore, must be considered at Step 2. So this
`is something that does need to be examined at Step 1.
`And it's Touchstream's position that
`Google in this case has failed to carry its burden to
`prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is an
`abstract idea.
`And I think one of the things that
`underscores this point is the fact that Google itself
`has struggled to define what is the abstract idea.
`They identified three different things that might
`possibly be an abstract idea.
`The first is that these claims are
`directed merely to receiving, converting and
`transmitting. The second theory that they propose is
`that the abstract idea is organizing content and then
`displaying it.
`And then the third, which is the broadest
`of all and the most clear example of an
`oversimplification, which all precedent tells us we're
`not to do when deciding an abstract idea, is they say
`that this is just simply directed to remote control.
`Touchstream would respectfully submit
`that that is not at all what the claims are directed
`to. They are not just methods for remote control.
`They are much more narrow than that, and they relate to
`
`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
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 7 of 156
`
`7
`
`a specific type of method that includes a number of
`steps that Google just simply ignores when it argues
`that there is no abstract idea.
`To name just a few of the steps that
`Google has ignored, the first one, the server system
`being separate from the personal computing device.
`At the time of the invention, there was a
`need to be able, based on multiple different content
`provider platforms, to allow someone to choose content
`from any of those platforms and control it using a
`single interface.
`So keeping the server systems separate
`from the personal computing device freed up resources
`on that personal computing device and was a unique
`solution to address that problem that existed as a
`result of these being computer-implemented
`technologies.
`In addition, this is not just
`results-based claiming, which I think is what Google
`has argued. The claims of the asserted patents all
`recite the steps that are necessary in order to
`facilitate presentation of -- presentation of content
`at the display device from one of many different media
`players.
`
`For example, the messages state that
`
`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
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 8 of 156
`
`8
`
`there has to be a synchronization code, a media file, a
`media player identification, location of the media
`player and then an action control command.
`And so contrary to what I think Google
`states, specific claim limitations do recite all of the
`information that you need in order to implement this.
`They describe how to implement it, not simply a result.
`Other examples of the claim limitations -- yes, Your
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Let me ask you this, because
`this presents a little bit of a novel -- something I
`haven't dealt with. Maybe I have, but I don't
`remember.
`
`So what's unusual about our posture is
`that I think -- if I'm correct, that Google's response,
`in part, to your motion is going to be that it's --
`there are questions of fact and I should wait to rule
`on your motion.
`Usually it's -- I'm -- y'all are --
`that's why it confused me when you stood up. Usually
`I'm hearing from them why it should be summary judgment
`of 101 and it's the plaintiff who's arguing, no. It
`gets to the jury.
`So here, why either, number one,
`shouldn't I as a matter of law defer to the -- what
`
`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
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:08
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 9 of 156
`
`9
`
`Google's arguing and allow the jury to deal with it or,
`two, why wouldn't it be the safer thing for both sides
`for me to allow them to deal with it and then take it
`up on -- depending on what the jury does, take it up
`after that?
`
`And I'm not saying that's the right thing
`to do. I want you to tell me what you think, and then
`I'll hear from Google what they think.
`MS. DOUVILLE: Absolutely.
`So our understanding of Google's position
`is that neither of these two steps should be analyzed
`or brought to the jury for a decision.
`I think both parties -- and I'm sure
`they'll correct me if I'm misstating their position,
`but I think both parties agree that at least at Step 1
`that is an issue of law for the Court to decide. And
`it --
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So then maybe I
`misunderstood. What Google's saying, instead of it
`should go to the jury, is they're saying it should not
`go to the jury because -- they're going to tell me as a
`matter of law that the asserted claims were
`well-understood, routine and conventional.
`So maybe I was misreading the notes from
`my clerk here, that -- they are going to take the
`
`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
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 10 of 156
`
`10
`
`position I'm used to defendants taking, which is it's
`out on Step 1.
`MS. DOUVILLE: Correct.
`THE COURT: Okay. Got it.
`MS. DOUVILLE: Well, I think so. I'm not
`entirely sure. And I'm sure they'll correct me, again,
`if I'm wrong. But I don't believe that -- as to Step
`2, they believe that that's an issue to send to the
`jury.
`
`If the Court were to decide that there is
`an abstract idea, of course then that's not the end of
`the analysis. You do have to go to Step 2 at that
`point. So even if they made the argument that it's out
`at Step 1, that would not be supported by any of the
`precedent on this issue.
`But -- and I'm pulling my understanding
`from what we've, I think, exchanged in jury
`instructions. And it's my understanding that they
`don't intend to submit this to the jury, Your Honor.
`Stepping back just a moment, again, I
`think the problem with what they've characterized as
`the abstract idea are these three different things, all
`of which are inconsistent with each other and only
`underscore the incompleteness of the other.
`So -- and then in addition, they also, in
`
`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
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 11 of 156
`
`11
`
`each of those three characterizations of the abstract
`idea, they fail to acknowledge these other limitations
`of the claim.
`Just briefly a few of the others that I
`think are worth noting, of course, is that the server
`system has to identify programming code based on the
`action control command. That's not something that is
`at all accounted for in their characterization of the
`abstract idea.
`And then ultimately, there's an obtaining
`and loading of a particular media player by the display
`device in response to all these steps.
`So the claims very clearly lay out how
`you are to perform the method, and it's not
`results-based claiming. It's very specific, and it's
`targeted toward a specific technological problem that
`they were facing at the time of the invention.
`So I think that, just to be brief, sums
`up our position as to Step 1.
`I think also with respect to Step 2, if
`the Court reaches that issue, it's very much
`Touchstream's position that there is an inventive step
`of course that Google, again, has failed to meet its
`burden that there is not.
`One of the failures I think in Google's
`
`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
`
`09:11
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 12 of 156
`
`12
`
`position is that they don't analyze any of the claim
`limitations as an ordered combination. They look at --
`THE COURT: Why don't I hear first -- let
`
`me --
`
`MS. DOUVILLE: Sure.
`THE COURT: -- hear from Google on Step
`1, because that may resolve what I do. And then if I
`need to hear Step 2, I'll ask you to step back.
`MS. DOUVILLE: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MR. LANIER: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Pleasure to be in the courtroom. Good to see you
`again. Greg Lanier for Google.
`THE COURT: Are you in -- based in
`
`Boston?
`
`MR. LANIER: Am I what?
`THE COURT: Based in Boston?
`MR. LANIER: No. I'm in Silicon Valley.
`Palo Alto, but we call it Silicon Valley nowadays.
`Your Honor, there's a few things that
`have come up in my listening to this argument, and
`we'll get to Your Honor's concrete question first.
`But, one question I ask the Court to hold
`in mind before deciding this motion fully is to hear
`the argument on our noninfringement motion because
`
`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
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:14
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 13 of 156
`
`13
`
`there is extraordinary push and pull and tension
`between Touchstream's positions here.
`And I'll illustrate that in a couple of
`ways, but first I think I need to turn this thing on --
`oh, it's on.
`
`We can go to Slide 3.
`THE COURT: Well, if it -- if it makes
`sense to do it this way, I'm happy for you to make your
`defensive argument on invalidity and also make your
`argument on infringement. I've gone through them. You
`can make your argument that way, do it together, and
`then I can hear a response to the infringement.
`MR. LANIER: That would be great, Your
`Honor. That actually makes good logical sense to us.
`There's another issue in their motion for
`summary judgment that's unrelated, so maybe we put that
`one aside and come back to it. And I'm just going to
`reach over and grab one more set of notes here.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. LANIER: So, Your Honor, the bottom
`line is -- the bottom line, Your Honor, is that we do
`think that the Court should deny their motion finding
`that -- at a minimum, deny their motion. As we
`suggested in our opposition, even though we did not
`move, we actually think the case is clear enough that
`
`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
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:14
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 14 of 156
`
`14
`
`the Court could find invalidity under Section 101. But
`we acknowledge we did not move.
`We do think Step 1, as a matter of law,
`should be decided that there is an abstract idea, and
`we do not think that they have met any burden to
`establish that they've met the requirements of Step 2.
`But let's go to Slide 3, please. Or
`excuse me. Slide 4.
`Thank you.
`So laying this issue out here, the first
`question, as Your Honor knows, on Step 1 is whether
`it's an abstract idea. We do agree that's a question
`for the Court. The Court can decide it.
`Next slide, please.
`So we've got this claim we're
`illustrating here, that representative claim. No one's
`disputed the representativeness of it for purposes of
`this analysis.
`There's three basic components. Mostly
`what we're hearing from Touchstream all the time is
`that we've got all these components. We list these
`components. We list them in an order. And, therefore,
`it's not an abstract idea.
`But the positions they've taken before
`this case and during this case actually prove
`
`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
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 15 of 156
`
`15
`
`otherwise.
`
`Next slide, please.
`And they proved that this falls within
`the guidance of the cases we've already cited to Your
`Honor, that this is nothing more than the concept of
`delivering user selected media content to portable
`devices.
`
`Whatever components there are, there's
`nothing more specific, new, novel, or inventive than
`that.
`
`And we know this from Touchstream.
`Next slide, please.
`Here we're illustrating what's Exhibit 25
`to Docket No. 154. This is a Touchstream description
`for marketing purposes and for getting investors of
`their invention and the breadth of their claims.
`And they say: Shodogg's ownership of
`these patents protects the company's exclusive
`execution of all web-based casting technology.
`To be clear, and as the courts have
`recognized, an indicia of abstractness is the breadth
`of the claim. They claim the entire field.
`But it's not just marketing information.
`Let's look at the next slide.
`This is Slide 8, and this is an excerpt
`
`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
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 16 of 156
`
`16
`
`that's attached to Docket 154 from their expert Mr. --
`Dr. Almeroth's opening expert report. Or his
`responsive report, I believe.
`And he says: I have also independently
`considered whether any noninfringing alternatives
`existed to the accused Chromecast functionalities, and
`I have been unable to identify any.
`They are claiming the entire field of
`web-based casting. That is to us, in addition to the
`breadth of these claims that merely list components,
`confirmation that Step 1 is met or failed. But there
`is an abstract idea, however one wants to look at it.
`Then we get to Step 2, which is, you
`know, whether there is anything that takes it beyond
`this abstract idea.
`Let's go to the next slide, please.
`And, again, what we have here, no dispute
`as they illustrated at three basic components. There's
`a personal computing device, there's a server system,
`there is a content -- or there is a content
`presentation or display device.
`We might use those terms interchangeably
`because the different patents involved here use that
`term synonymously.
`But that's it. There is nothing that
`
`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
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:17
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 17 of 156
`
`17
`
`describes how any of those actually work, only the
`steps that need to be performed in these method claims.
`But nothing that tells you how to make that phone
`better, that TV better, the server system better. Just
`what it is supposed to do.
`Let's go to the next slide.
`And it actually gets even worse. This is
`a piece of their argumentation -- this is Docket 130 --
`when they are explaining their position here. And
`they're saying: Well, a server's a well-understood
`term of art. And the server, adding the term "system"
`expands it so it's not limited to any of these things.
`So their position quite clearly is that
`it's any of these well-known components put together.
`And, as we submitted in our papers and I
`won't take the Court through all of it,
`Dr. Mayer-Patel, our expert, has made it clear that
`there is nothing new here that takes this from the
`level of abstractness. It is nothing more than a
`computer-assisted invention. Think about it.
`Let's go back to I think it's Slide 4.
`Excuse me. 5.
`6. Sorry. Next one.
`Last crack at my slides. 8. 9.
`There we go. Sorry about that, Your
`
`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
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:18
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 18 of 156
`
`18
`
`Honor.
`
`Again, there is nothing that tells you
`anything about how any of the core components work,
`nothing that improves their functionality, nothing that
`improves their operation. And what happens here with
`all of these inventions? I can use my phone to say,
`I'd like to watch something on another screen.
`And if Your Honor and I were working
`together in a room and we each could control these
`things manually, we could do every bit of that without
`any sophisticated computer technology just using
`well-known things.
`So to us, Your Honor, it's unequivocal
`that the issue of Step 1 should be decided that there
`is an abstract idea. We don't think they've made even
`a prima facie case that they get over Step 2, and we do
`think Your Honor could be free to decide the 101 issue
`against them.
`And we also think that if Your Honor
`isn't comfortable going that far, that Step 2 and the
`question of is there anything that takes this beyond
`the abstract idea is one that could be left to the
`jury. Though we don't think it has to be in this case.
`To make our position crystal clear.
`Now, in other cases we have certainly
`
`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
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:19
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 19 of 156
`
`19
`
`argued that this is an issue that can be decided
`entirely by the Court. Depends on the record of those
`cases. We do think this is one. But if not, Step 2 at
`minimum should go to the jury to resolve that.
`But if I could illustrate the tension
`with our noninfringement argument.
`THE COURT: Let me do this. Since while
`you have that up and you just made a pretty direct
`statement. Let me hear a response to what you just
`said from plaintiff's counsel and then I'll have you
`come back up and either respond or move to
`infringement.
`But I'd like to hear the response to what
`you just argued about nothing being inventive in this.
`MR. LANIER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MS. DOUVILLE: I think on the issue of
`the abstract idea, Your Honor, counsel mentioned a
`number of things that I'd just like to briefly address.
`First, he suggested that we have the
`burden on this. We don't. They have the burden to
`prove invalidity on clear and convincing evidence.
`The other thing I think we saw was
`evidence that sits outside the claims. And regardless
`of the characterization of that evidence, we would
`submit that that's not evidence to be considered on a
`
`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
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:20
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 20 of 156
`
`20
`
`101 analysis.
`THE COURT: I'm more concerned just with
`what he just said about that slide.
`MS. DOUVILLE: And so I guess my
`understanding of what his position is with respect to
`this slide is that he's highlighted some of the
`components that are at issue in the claim. But he
`ignores that these are method steps and he ignores, if
`you can see, the vast majority of what's recited in the
`claim with respect to the steps that are being
`performed and how they're being performed, the
`information that's included in the messages, how those
`messages are acted upon, which is clearly spelled out
`by the claim.
`And, for example, the: Identifying, by
`the server system, programming code corresponding to
`the action control command, wherein the programming
`code is for controlling presentation of the content.
`So we receive the message. The message
`is very clear as to what its contents are. And then it
`describes specifically how the server system acts on
`that. That is not the type of results-based claiming
`that courts have found constitute an abstract idea.
`THE COURT: Got it.
`Anything else? If you'd like to move on
`
`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
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:21
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 21 of 156
`
`21
`
`to the infringement argument.
`MR. LANIER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Or noninfringement, I guess,
`
`but...
`
`MR. LANIER: So, Your Honor, I'll talk a
`little about 101 in -- partly in comparison to our
`noninfringement issues.
`But first -- and, in fact, let's start
`with Slide 17, if we could.
`Just to make the following point, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`There's actually two sets of push and
`pull here going on with their noninfringement position.
`One is against Section 101, which I'll illustrate in a
`second. The other is against Section 12.
`So we recall what the -- conversation we
`just had and what they're saying is, it's a set of
`well-ordered steps. We have to consider them as a
`well-ordered combination.
`But as Your Honor and I just discussed,
`we could talk through those in a well-ordered
`combination and there's nothing there that says, do
`this thing humans could do, except use computers and
`the Internet. That's as far as we get.
`And so I'll spare the Court further
`
`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
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:22
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 22 of 156
`
`22
`
`dialogue there, but that is exactly the problem that
`these claims have under Section 101.
`But it's their response to our Section
`101 motion that we actually included in our materials
`on noninfringement because it's telling.
`So here we have Slide 17, which are
`pieces of their briefing saying, nope. We are -- we
`are not invalid under Section 101. Right?
`And look what they say: The asserted
`claims are directed to a specific, concrete computer
`architecture.
`The asserted claims here contain a
`specific structure -- and it lists exactly the same
`three devices we have always listed -- and specific
`messaging rules.
`Rather, they specify the technological
`parts of the system that perform each step, talks about
`those three technological parts, along with the
`contents of the messaging that is exchanged between
`these components.
`So to respond to 101 they say, we've got
`technological stuff and it's very specific. It's a
`concrete computer architecture.
`We should remember that phrase.
`Now, as discussed, we don't think that
`
`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
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:23
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 225 Filed 07/02/23 Page 23 of 156
`
`23
`
`gets them over 101. We think the Court could decide
`this against them.
`But let's now go to Slide 16.
`Now, Your Honor, what we've illustrated
`here is from Dr. Almeroth's report. And this is his
`depiction in those red boxes on top of a Google
`document. The Google document has the basic process
`flow for how its accused casting technology works.
`And for the record, this is Docket 158 at
`5. Citing Dr. Almeroth's report at Paragraph 164.
`Dr. Almeroth has told us these red boxes

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket