`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`*
`May 31, 2022
`VS.
`*
` * CIVIL ACTION NO. W-21-CV-569
`GOOGLE LLC
`*
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`DISCOVERY HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Ryan D. Dykal, Esq.
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`Tharan Gregory Lanier, Esq.
`Evan M. McLean, Esq.
`Jones Day
`1755 Embarcadero Road
`Palo Alto, CA 943034
`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
`
`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
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 53
`
`2
`
`(Hearing begins.)
`DEPUTY CLERK: A civil action in Case[
`6:21-CV-569, Touchstream Technologies, Incorporated
`versus Google LLC. Case called for a discovery
`hearing.
`
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements
`from counsel, starting with the plaintiff, please.
`MR. DYKAL: Hello, Your Honor. This is
`Ryan Dykal with Shook, Hardy & Bacon on behalf of
`plaintiff Touchstream.
`THE COURT: Very good. Which office are
`
`you in?
`
`office.
`
`MR. DYKAL: I'm in the Kansas City
`
`THE COURT: Very good. I've never been
`to Kansas City.
`MR. DYKAL: Yes.
`THE COURT: That's a great firm.
`So, Mr. Lanier, I see you. Are you up as
`
`well?
`
`MR. LANIER: I am here. Good afternoon,
`Your Honor. Mike Jones and Shaun Hassett are on.
`There may be some audio issues, but they're on. I'm
`joined by Evan McLean and Edwin Garcia. And not
`wanting to pile on to Mr. Dykal, but we have several
`
`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
`
`02:47
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:03
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 53
`
`3
`
`summer associates who have dialed in to see this
`process in action, since it's that time of year. So...
`THE COURT: So they've read about great
`judges in America and this is --
`(Laughter.)
`THE COURT: We'll have 40 interns this
`summer in my chambers. So I'm a big fan of law clerks
`and summer interns. So I'm glad they would attend.
`Let me see. Give me one second to scroll
`
`up.
`
`Okay. We have a motion to transfer to
`the Northern District of California. I'll hear from
`Mr. Lanier. Is it you or someone else at your firm?
`Happy to hear from whoever's going to speak on behalf
`of the motion.
`MR. LANIER: It'll be me, Your Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Your Honor, just setting the stage, the
`Court's obviously well-familiar with the law on a
`motion to transfer for convenience under 1404. So I
`won't belabor the cases --
`THE COURT: I think I am -- I try not to
`sound -- this won't be egotistical because you know my
`record, but I think it's just a fact at this point that
`there are few judges who are more familiar with 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
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:04
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 53
`
`4
`
`I'm going to go out on a limb and
`challenge you to find a judge who's more familiar with
`it, so...
`
`MR. LANIER: I would not even attempt to
`do so, Your Honor. We know you know this law extremely
`well and how it's evolving, so we'll focus on the facts
`just to set the stage here.
`This is --
`THE COURT: I got to tell you. I had a
`really interesting motion for summary judgment that had
`to do -- not only did it have to do with a terminal
`disclaimer, but it was kind of a niche question about
`terminal disclaimers. And when the movant finished, I
`said, you know, I actually feel pretty good that you
`just jumped into the argument and you didn't, you know,
`spend half an hour explaining to me what a terminal
`disclaimer was.
`And the lawyer on the other side said,
`hold on a second, I've got to get rid of about 30
`slides before I do my rebuttal.
`(Laughter.)
`THE COURT: You know, so there are a tiny
`handful of things I'm kind of caught up with. So this
`is one.
`
`MR. LANIER: This is certainly one, 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
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:05
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 5 of 53
`
`5
`
`Honor.
`
`So just as a reminder then -- and
`focusing on the facts here, because that's really what
`this motion and Your Honor's decision will be about
`here, is the facts and balancing them.
`This is a case brought by a New York
`entity with its chairman and other significant
`executives in California against Google. Your Honor's
`well-familiar with Google and knows that they're based
`in California. They do have a presence in this
`district. So this is a motion to transfer under 1404,
`not a motion to dismiss for improper venue.
`The other bit of facts you remember about
`this situation is that this case at least relates to,
`if not arises out of -- we'll see when we get to
`willfulness -- about meetings and discussions that the
`parties may have had -- the record's a little unclear,
`but many years ago. And if those conversations
`occurred, they occurred by phone and potentially in
`person in Las Vegas, California at a trade show.
`So as of the time of filing of this
`complaint, those are the connections between this --
`these two parties and the venue and each other. No
`connections with this venue with respect to this case.
`The last bit of background that's worth
`
`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
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:06
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 6 of 53
`
`6
`
`noting, and we have to establish this as a matter of
`law, is that this case could have been brought in the
`Northern District. Of course it could have against
`Google. And Touchstream had actually agreed that
`disputes arising out of those conversations would be
`heard in Santa Clara County, California which is in the
`Northern District.
`So the question is, truly, looking at all
`of the factors, what this argument comes down to is
`whether the convenience of the witnesses justifies
`transferring this case or requires that it be kept in
`the Western District.
`And we submit, Your Honor, that the
`convenience of the witnesses, especially those who are
`going to materially add to this case, justifies and if
`not compels transfer. And let me explain for a few
`minutes why.
`
`This case involves three patents. They
`all have to do with controlling the presentation of
`content on a display device through communications with
`the server and back. If Your Honor keeps the case,
`we'll talk more about that in a couple weeks at
`Markman. But it has to do with communications between
`server and devices to display content on particular
`devices. It's a back-end set of systems.
`
`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
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:07
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 7 of 53
`
`7
`
`So we went and figured out, because we
`had to for this case anyway, who are the people who
`developed that software, who maintain it, who build it,
`who run it.
`
`And as we set forth in our moving papers,
`and there's no dispute, all of those people are in the
`Northern District of California at Google's
`headquarters. They all relate to broadly Chromecast,
`but really the Cast SDK or Cast software development
`kit.
`
`So we identified in our disclosures and
`we identified in our motion the list of people, and
`you'll hear titles like director of engineering,
`software engineer and engineering, senior staff
`software, and it goes on and on.
`Those are the people that we identified
`in our moving papers as the people who are most
`relevant to the core issue in this case, what is our
`product, what does it do so that it can then be
`compared to the claims.
`We also identify prior art witnesses who
`are located in the Northern District. We dealt with
`one or two people who are arguably relevant to this
`case, according to Touchstream, one of whom stopped
`working on Chromecast in 2016 but is now a resident 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
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:08
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 8 of 53
`
`8
`
`Austin and one of whom who is now, as it turns out, in
`Miami.
`
`So that's where we started things.
`THE COURT: Mr. Lanier --
`MR. LANIER: Your Honor, I can't hear
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let me start
`
`you. Sorry.
`
`over.
`
`Mr. Lanier, a couple of things. One --
`and this is, you know, we're -- I like to think we're
`an evolving -- in an evolving field of law. In the
`world of 2022 with the seven prior art inventors, how
`many of them are likely to be deposed, and what are
`y'all doing now in terms of deposing people in person
`versus by Zoom?
`It's my understanding, but it's obviously
`thirdhand, that the likelihood in this day and age is
`that those seven prior art inventors would be deposed
`most likely by Zoom.
`Is that -- am I wrong about that? Am I
`half wrong about -- is it -- is it case by case?
`Just, it seems to me the world has
`changed since January of two years ago in terms of
`when -- the way we, you and I -- you're not as old as I
`am, but you're -- you have certainly taken a million
`
`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
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:09
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 9 of 53
`
`9
`
`depositions.
`
`Seems to me that the deposition of these
`people is as likely to be by Zoom as not, if that's --
`is that a fair statement?
`MR. LANIER: I don't know, Your Honor.
`And I see why Your Honor would say that. It's not a
`crazy thing to say by any means. Many depositions have
`been by Zoom over the last couple of years, and
`probably many more will be. Last month I was in
`Seattle for depositions of an inventor. You know, so
`it's --
`
`THE COURT: Well, I get inventors. I
`mean, I don't think I would agree, if I were a
`defendant, to not take the inventor in person. Maybe
`if it's a -- in your situation, maybe that would be.
`But I can see why you'd want to take the inventor in
`person.
`
`I'm limiting this to the prior art
`inventors who have no stake in the case and have no
`interest in the case, other than y'all found some prior
`art they invented. And so these really are third-party
`people. What is your sense?
`MR. LANIER: I don't know, Your Honor.
`They're here in the Northern District whether we take
`their depositions or whether Touchstream decides 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
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:10
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 10 of 53
`
`10
`
`take their depositions.
`We've obviously worked with folks to get
`them done in the most effective way, so it might well
`be Zoom. But that's only a partial answer to Your
`Honor's -- that's only a partial response to Your
`Honor's question.
`That's the answer, but the other piece of
`the response is that -- and, again, Your Honor knows
`this law very well, but my understanding of the law is
`we look for convenience for trial and not depositions.
`THE COURT: Right. Now, tell me this:
`Because you've probably done a million -- how many
`prior art -- third-party prior art inventors have you
`brought to trial?
`MR. LANIER: I've done it three or four
`times in my career. So it doesn't -- there's no
`question it doesn't happen every day, no doubt.
`THE COURT: I mean, that's -- and I'm
`not -- I am picking on you. But in good -- hopefully
`in good humor.
`But this is one of those factors that to
`me sounds better, as it were, for your side than my
`recollection is the reality of -- and I get there are a
`bunch of factors. But this is one where -- I don't
`frankly -- unless it was a rare one or two cases I had,
`
`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
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:11
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 11 of 53
`
`11
`
`where there was a really important prior art inventor,
`you know, it was pretty hard for us to get third-party
`inventors interested enough to come across, you know,
`even to come across the city to, you know, to trial.
`So I got it. We've beaten that up long
`enough. I just was -- if you had something more
`important to give me, that's fine. But I interrupted
`you. You can keep going.
`MR. LANIER: Thank you, Your Honor. I
`appreciate that.
`So we discussed the prior art inventors.
`So really why they matter is when we opened up this
`process, we said here are the people who are involved
`in the product. Here are the people who are the prior
`art inventors. They're in Northern California.
`So in response Touchstream asked for
`discovery. They got discovery. They did their own
`investigation.
`And so what Your Honor will notice, if
`we're looking at the opposition papers, is we're not
`talking about the people who actually design, develop,
`maintain, build the product or the prior art. We're
`talking about an intern. We're talking about a UI/UX,
`user interface/user experience designer, who doesn't
`actually work on the accused functionality. We're
`
`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
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:12
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 12 of 53
`
`12
`
`talking about people with ancillary possible business
`responsibilities.
`And as Your Honor knows, the Federal
`Circuit instructs not just to count the numbers of
`witnesses, but also the materiality of those witnesses
`and really cut into it. The material witnesses are
`those we identified in our opening papers.
`And Your Honor could even put the prior
`art inventors aside. We don't think you should, but
`even if Your Honor did, the people who design, develop,
`build, maintain the product, build the accused
`functionality, who run that business unit, they're all
`in Northern California.
`Everybody else, if they're -- if they are
`even relevant at all -- and they are of tangential
`relevance at best, all of the folks that were
`identified by Touchstream -- don't outweigh those
`witnesses. So measuring not only numbers, not only
`quantity but quality, we think the balance on that
`factor shifts strongly toward transfer.
`THE COURT: And let me ask you this -- I
`anticipate I'm going to hear it from plaintiff's
`counsel, but let me ask you first: You know, you've
`identified, I think, 9 to 12 Google folks that you say
`are the important employees, and that's -- I realize
`
`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
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:13
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:14
`
`03:15
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 13 of 53
`
`13
`
`that in some -- to some extent -- I'm not being
`pejorative here, we're all trying to get the numbers as
`high as we can in each direction. That's what we've
`been instructed to look at.
`How -- it seems to me that, again, just
`thinking about the case I had, that the 9 to 12 Google
`employees is a little -- my guess would be a little
`duplicative. I can't imagine you calling nine Google
`employees in a patent case.
`So I'm guessing your opposing counsel's
`going to say that they're duplicative and that's how
`you get the number. If you want to go ahead and
`address that now or if you want to wait and do it in
`rebuttal, either way, that's fine with me.
`MR. LANIER: I'll address it briefly now,
`Your Honor, and then if there's anything else I can
`address, obviously happy to. And I'll add one other
`topic, which I'd like to turn very briefly, Your Honor.
`So addressing that, I guess I would say
`three things.
`The first is that we don't know all who
`is going to be at trial. So we look at who are the
`witnesses from which the pool of likely witnesses for
`trial are drawn, of course, as Your Honor understands.
`And we'll have whatever time limits we have and we'll
`
`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
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:15
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 14 of 53
`
`14
`
`call what people we can within those time limits.
`But that's really not actually the key
`point here. The key point here in comparing the
`witnesses identified is as much who they are and
`what -- the materiality of their testimony.
`So we have some people who may have had
`business dealings that may relate to this case versus
`the people who design, develop, build, maintain the
`accused technology. Those witnesses, whatever their
`numbers, are more material. And that factor matters as
`well as the numbers.
`I also think that we get long lists of
`names of people on the other side of the ledger,
`numbers with people that are not that important.
`THE COURT: I'm going to beat them up
`
`too.
`
`MR. LANIER: Understood, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: And I'm told -- I'd like to
`pretend I'm overly intimate with this case, I'm not.
`But I'm told that there's an Adrienne McCallister.
`MR. LANIER: Yes.
`THE COURT: A-d-r-i-e-n-n-e, Adrienne;
`McAllister, M-c-C-a-l-l-i-s-t-e-r.
`And my understanding is that Mr. -- I'm
`assuming that's a -- is that a mister? I'm not sure of
`
`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
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:16
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 15 of 53
`
`15
`
`Adrienne.
`
`MR. LANIER: No. Adrienne with two Ns
`and an E, Ms. McCallister.
`THE COURT: I apologize.
`Ms. McCallister, my understanding is Ms. McCallister,
`who is at least an important witness, is here in the
`Western District, I think, right?
`MR. LANIER: Yes. I believe so. That's
`right. And depending on exactly when, but I think it's
`the worth, as you're evaluating her, considering a
`couple of things.
`First, she has not worked on Chromecast
`since August of 2016. So, you know, five, six years
`maybe seven years by the time -- well, five, six years
`by the time of trial. She hasn't worked on matters and
`she joined the Chromecast team in 2011, left in August
`of 2016.
`
`So she might be a witness that
`Touchstream thinks is important. That's why we
`actually reached out and addressed her in our opening
`papers, because we don't think she is that critical,
`and she is one of several witnesses.
`But she's at least the type of witness
`where there ought to be a balance. I could see Your
`Honor considering her in balance of convenience of
`
`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
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:17
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 16 of 53
`
`16
`
`witnesses, not a lot of the other people. So she's
`actually a good example in support of our argument to
`consider the materiality as well as the quantity of the
`people offering testimony.
`THE COURT: Can you hold on just one
`
`second?
`
`(Pause in proceedings.)
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. I needed to check
`something on my end. Is there anything else you wanted
`to add?
`
`MR. LANIER: No. Not for this. I'm
`happy to address any questions, Your Honor, or offer
`some comments in response to Mr. Dykal if it's helpful
`to the Court. But I think that's truly the core issue.
`We've briefed everything else.
`THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you so
`
`much.
`
`Response? Let me -- give me one more
`chance. Let me make sure I'm not going to make my
`clerk unhappy by not asking you something before I turn
`it over.
`
`Yes, sir. Please.
`MR. LANIER: Your Honor, I apologize. I
`do need to correct the record in one respect. One of
`my colleagues reminded me.
`
`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
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:18
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 17 of 53
`
`17
`
`One of the people we identified at the
`beginning is in Seattle. So I had said they were all
`in Northern California. I forgot. We mentioned that
`in our papers. They're in Seattle. I just wanted to
`be clear about that.
`THE COURT: That's a lot closer to
`Northern California than it is here.
`I'll be right back.
`MR. LANIER: Thank you.
`(Pause in proceedings.)
`THE COURT: Mr. Lanier, before I let you
`go -- and I should say just because you have summer
`clerks on that if they're wanting to learn how to do
`things, they should note that you -- I pointed this out
`to you before but just for them -- you're using --
`hanging the guitars in the background is --
`subliminally maintains its effect on me, but I didn't
`want your summer clerks not to -- go away not knowing I
`appreciated that you were doing that.
`Let me ask you this: There's an issue I
`think about -- let me make sure I get this right --
`Google has 14 data centers, none in California, one in
`Texas.
`
`But do you all have any greater insight
`into the documents that might be -- first question is
`
`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
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:19
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:20
`
`03:21
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 18 of 53
`
`18
`
`where the documents that relate to this case might be
`stored?
`
`And number two, which is something that
`drives me nuts in the current -- where we are currently
`on these motions, is: Does it make a difference given
`that my sense is that the 4,000 people who work for
`Google in Austin have equal access to the documents
`that are at all 14 data centers if they have a laptop?
`And so if you can tell me where you think
`the documents are stored and, two, why it would make a
`difference in terms of either side's ability to access
`them, that'd be great.
`MR. LANIER: Sure, Your Honor. And I
`think it's both (inaudible) and Apple remind us that
`is -- the question isn't just the location of the
`documents but ease of access to the documents. And
`here that's where the testimony of Mr. Golueke matters
`as well.
`
`And what was explained is that the way
`Google stores documents is not in one centrally
`organized, centrally stored way, but individual people
`and teams store documents.
`So even if it's theoretically possible
`that a person sitting in Austin had a laptop and could
`get to the systems and get to the documents wherever
`
`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
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:21
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 19 of 53
`
`19
`
`they might be sitting, for lack of a better word, what
`they would have to do is go ask the people in Northern
`California, hey. Where do you keep the documents on X,
`Y or Z? So ease of access, those people, the
`custodians are in Northern California.
`So big answer No. 1.
`Big answer No. 2, Your Honor referenced
`data centers. Yes. Google has data centers all over.
`There are none within the Western District, but there
`is one in Midlothian, Texas. I hope I pronounced that
`correctly. I think I did. As of the time of filing of
`the complaint, there were no Cast/Chromecast
`information on there.
`I don't -- I can't tell you definitively
`whether there are or are not Cast-related documents on
`that data center today. But as of the time of filing
`of the complaint, that was investigated and the answer
`was no.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Dykal?
`MR. DYKAL: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
`I'd first note that I do have a guitar also. It's
`slightly out of camera, but I could grab it if you'd
`approve.
`
`(Laughter.)
`MR. DYKAL: Jumping into Mr. Lanier'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
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:22
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 20 of 53
`
`20
`
`arguments, so I think something really important to
`keep in mind in this case is not just Google's
`supposedly relevant witnesses, but Touchstream's.
`So Touchstream's most important witnesses
`are obviously the inventor, the inventor lives in New
`York. The CEO, the CEO lives in Pennsylvania.
`But two other very vital Touchstream
`witnesses are in, or very near, the Western District of
`Texas. First there's Mr. Sameer Kanda who is the lead
`developer on Touchstream's technology, who worked to
`bring this technology to the market.
`Second, there's a gentleman named Rajiv
`Lulla who is within the 100-mile subpoena power of this
`Court, in Dallas. And the interesting thing is in
`Google's opening brief for transfer, they pointed to
`two people that they contended were very relevant that
`were in Northern District of California. And that's
`Rajiv Lulla and Shana Preve.
`When we conducted venue discovery, we
`found out that, in fact, they were not in the Northern
`District of California. Mr. Lulla is in Dallas, within
`the subpoena power of this Court. And Ms. Preve is in
`Miami.
`
`Google's 30(b)(6) witness admitted that
`both of those facts are true. These people aren't 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
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:23
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 21 of 53
`
`21
`
`Northern District of California.
`Rajiv Lulla, we pulled his property
`records, his voting records. They're all registered in
`Texas. His website says he lives in -- his company
`website says Dallas, Palo Alto. But he has a Dallas
`number. We see no evidence that he has any residence
`in California, and neither does Google.
`And the important thing is that this sort
`of witness, this third party is presumed to be
`unwilling. Touchstream attempted to contact him and he
`did not answer or return our phone calls. So we may
`very well need to use that subpoena power.
`And this gentleman is one of the only
`third parties who was witness to the conversations
`between Google and Touchstream to give rise to the
`willfulness allegations in this case. He is a vital
`witness which even Google admits.
`Secondly, with respect to all of the
`witnesses that Google put in the declaration that
`supports their opening transfer brief, it's really
`important to note that these people appear to be
`selected first based on their location and then based
`on their supposed relevance.
`Once we started exploring these people,
`it became obvious some of them had only been working 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
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:24
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`03:25
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/31/22 Page 22 of 53
`
`22
`
`Chromecast for less than a year. They had taken over
`job duties from other people who now live in the
`Western District of Texas.
`Your Honor mentioned one, Ms. Adrienne
`McCallister. Not only was she a founding member of the
`Chromecast team and worked on many partnerships, she
`also worked on a piece of alleged prior art which is
`Google TV. And the 30(b)(6) witness that Google put up
`to testify could not dispute any of that.
`Interestingly also, it was proven that
`Google's opening declaration was incorrect. They said
`that none of the work had been done in California.
`I strike that.
`Actually, it was to the recollection of
`the declarant or to his knowledge none of the work had
`been done outside of the Northern District of
`California.
`
`Well, it turns out when Adrienne
`McAllister first started working on Chromecast, she was
`in New York. She's obviously now in Texas.
`Google points to the SDK as being very
`important, and they identified a number of witnesses
`that are supposedly familiar wi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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