Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 292 PageID #: 62034
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 292 PagelD #: 62034
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 292 PagelD #: 62034
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 292 PageID #: 62035
` 511
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
` )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` ) C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`v. )
` )
`GOOGLE LLC,
`)
` )
` Defendant. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wednesday, April 26, 2023
`9:00 a.m.
`Jury Trial
`
`Volume III
`
`Sealed
`
`* * *
`
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
` SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
` BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 292 PageID #: 62036
` 512
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`
`
` SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
` BY: JOHN LAHAD, ESQ.
` BY: KEMPER DIEHL, ESQ,
` BY: MAX STRAUS, ESQ.
` BY: SETH ARD, ESQ.
` BY: KALPANA SRINIVASAN, ESQ.
` Counsel for the Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
` POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
` BY: DAVID ELLIS MOORE, ESQ.
`
`
`-and-
`
`
` PAUL HASTINGS
` BY: ROBERT W. UNIKEL, ESQ.
` BY: CHAD J. PETERMAN, ESQ.
` BY: MATTHIAS A. KAMBER, ESQ.
` BY: ANDREA ROBERTS, ESQ.
` Counsel for the Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 292 PageID #: 62037
` 513
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Proceedings commenced in the courtroom beginning at
`
`9:00 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Please be
`
`seated.
`
`All right. So we're here for the third day of
`
`trial. At the outset, I just wanted to put on the record
`
`our current time calculations. For April 24, we charged
`
`two hours 22 minutes to Arendi and two hours 28 minutes to
`
`Google. For April 25, yesterday, we charged five hours
`
`and five minutes to Arendi and two minutes to Google.
`
`I also wanted to hear from everyone how we are
`
`proceeding with the source code portion of the testimony
`
`today. And we can have a seat for a second. And just as
`
`a preview, the reason why I'm asking is I have been giving
`
`some thought to making sure that we're making a record
`
`that will comply with the Third Circuit's Avandia opinion
`
`on the common law right of access and the First Amendment
`
`right of access.
`
`And so my understanding of the law as set forth
`
`in that opinion is that any side seeking to seal the
`
`courtroom or keep the proceedings under seal needs to
`
`demonstrate to the Court and the Court needs to make an
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 292 PageID #: 62038
` 514
`
` 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
`
`explicit finding for each portion that's under seal, that
`
`any proposed redaction or closure would, quote, work a
`
`clearly defined and serious injury to the parties seeking
`
`closure. And that's the common law right of access.
`
`With respect to the First Amendment right of
`
`access that applies to jury trials, there is a presumption
`
`that the proceedings will be open to the public. The
`
`parties seeking closure may rebut the presumption of
`
`openness only if able to demonstrate, quote, an overriding
`
`interest in excluding the public based on findings that
`
`the closure is essential to preserve higher values and is
`
`narrowly tailored to serve an interest. And the Court
`
`needs to make sure that the proceeding is open unless the
`
`denial of access serves an important Government interest
`
`and that there is no less restrictive way to serve that
`
`Government interest.
`
`So based on what I've seen so far here, we've
`
`had no one from the public that is not associated with
`
`this case in some way that's been excluded from the
`
`courtroom. So I don't think we have any issue right now,
`
`and we've also had no one that's made an objection to the
`
`sealing of the courtroom. So I don't think we have an
`
`issue right now. But I'll put on the record that when
`
`we've sealed the courtroom, my understanding is that there
`
`were only a couple of people excluded that were related to
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 6 of 292 PageID #: 62039
` 515
`
` 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
`
`in-house people who weren't permitted to see confidential
`
`information under the terms of the Court's protective
`
`order.
`
`So I don't think we have had an issue about the
`
`live proceedings. But we do have a transcript, and we
`
`need to figure out what portions of it should be redacted.
`
`So that's what I'm thinking about right now.
`
`So let's hear how we intend to proceed today. And we can
`
`talk about what the least restrictive means is to doing
`
`whatever we need to do to preserve the confidentiality of
`
`settlement agreements and source code material.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: Sure. You can go ahead and
`
`approach.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: So last night we were able to
`
`identify files that we wanted printed, and Google printed
`
`and delivered them. So we are -- today, we are going to
`
`be proceeding without the laptop, with the printed
`
`material. Because it is source code and it's one printed
`
`copy, we're going to have them moved into evidence.
`
`There's not going to be an objection to that by the
`
`witness. And then we will -- once that he have -- they've
`
`been moved into evidence, we will put them on the Elmo
`
`unless there is an objection to that. But I leave it to
`
`Google. There may be at that point a request to seal if
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 7 of 292 PageID #: 62040
` 516
`
` 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
`
`it's going to be up on the Elmo.
`
`THE COURT: Is there -- I'm wondering and I'm
`
`open to suggestions. Under the law as set forth by the
`
`Third Circuit, is there a less restrictive means to
`
`preserve the confidentiality besides putting it on the
`
`Elmo and sealing the courtroom? For example, could we
`
`have handouts that could be shown and then collected, or
`
`do we need to put it on the screen?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Well, then that's a question
`
`probably for Google. Normally, we're not allowed to make
`
`copies of source code pursuant to the protective order, so
`
`we certainly did not do that. We got one set and that's
`
`the set we're working with. So I defer whether making
`
`copies is a possibility. He's on the stand, so one
`
`possibility would be to show the jury from up there and
`
`not publish it on the Elmo. But, you know, again, I think
`
`Google can better speak to whether having it on the Elmo
`
`presents a concern for them. But we have one copy set, so
`
`we're just working with that because that's -- and that
`
`would be normally what we would get for source code
`
`productions, though.
`
`THE COURT: And is it important to the
`
`presentation of your case that the jury walk through the
`
`copy?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: I think it would be important
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 8 of 292 PageID #: 62041
` 517
`
` 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
`
`for them to see it. And it doesn't mean that we're going
`
`to go through it line by line page by page such that it
`
`necessarily has to be on the Elmo. But I do think it's
`
`important for them to see the type of code that
`
`Dr. Smedley was reviewing.
`
`Could he do that from the stand holding it up
`
`for them? We could try to do that. If I can talk to
`
`counsel about whether there's a way to direct the
`
`examination that way. But to me, that would be the
`
`alternative. And, again --
`
`THE COURT: Do you expect his testimony to
`
`include certain variable or subroutine names that Google
`
`might consider to be confidential?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: That is not -- I think it's
`
`one layer above that in terms of specificity. So I expect
`
`that he's going to talk about some things that he has
`
`observed in the printouts, but I don't think he is going
`
`to be reading file names into the record, although my
`
`colleague can correct me if I am wrong about that.
`
`MR. STRAUS: The intention was to ask about
`
`some method and file names, but not to get into the levels
`
`of detail beyond that.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`Let me hear from Google on this issue.
`
`MR. KAMBER: Your Honor, may I have one moment
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 9 of 292 PageID #: 62042
` 518
`
` 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
`
`to confer with my client? I have an idea.
`
`THE COURT: Of course. Yes.
`
`MR. KAMBER: Your Honor, I think what we can do
`
`is have it shown on the Elmo, that way the witness and the
`
`questioning attorney can see it at the same time. I don't
`
`think that should be a problem so long as we're not
`
`showing all of the code. Some of these are longer files,
`
`but if we're just showing a few pages and talking about it
`
`at that high level that Mr. Straus just represented to the
`
`Court, then we would have no objection to that procedure.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And what you're thinking
`
`that it be shown on the Elmo while the courtroom was
`
`sealed, or are you okay with not sealing the courtroom at
`
`that point?
`
`MR. KAMBER: Yeah. If it's that limited, we
`
`don't need to seal the courtroom.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. In light of that, please
`
`have a seat.
`
`MR. KAMBER: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Is there any other testimony today,
`
`I guess, that we would -- besides the source code?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, we do expect the
`
`testimony of our damages expert after Dr. Smedley, and
`
`then we have the issue, again, with respect to the license
`
`agreements.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 10 of 292 PageID #: 62043
` 519
`
` 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
`
`The primary objection has been from third
`
`parties who are counter-parties to those agreements, and
`
`that's the reason we haven't been -- well, at least in the
`
`opening, we didn't publish the number to the jury for
`
`Mr. Hedloy's testimony. We did seal the courtroom so he
`
`could talk about that in more depth. So that's one issue
`
`for Mr. Weinstein's testimony.
`
`The other is he would be talking about the user
`
`installations and Google internal information that he
`
`relied on for his calculations. I don't know if there's
`
`going to be a request to seal on that basis still. There
`
`was in the opening, or at least we circumvented that by
`
`having the slides for them. But those are the two primary
`
`things that I can think of, and that would be in our
`
`damages testimony today.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`MR. UNIKEL: Your Honor, if I may.
`
`THE COURT: Of course.
`
`MR. UNIKEL: Aside from the third party
`
`agreements, it's hard to foresee exactly, but I believe
`
`some very confidential Google financial information will
`
`be disclosed as part of Mr. Weinstein's direct and cross,
`
`as well as some very confidential information about user
`
`download information, metrics, things of that sort. So
`
`that would be the only other thing I could envision that
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 11 of 292 PageID #: 62044
` 520
`
` 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
`
`we will need to address the sealing issue.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you have a seat,
`
`Mr. Unikel.
`
`Here's how I think -- oh, Mr. Kamber, did you
`
`have something else?
`
`MR. KAMBER: Just one thing, Your Honor. I
`
`don't know if counsel -- it occurs to me, I don't know if
`
`counsel intends to move all of the source code into
`
`evidence. That is we have, I think, five source code
`
`printouts. Some of them are longer. That's where things
`
`get a little more complicated.
`
`THE COURT: Right. So why don't you have a
`
`seat and let me tell you what I'm thinking about doing in
`
`terms of how we can proceed.
`
`So we have transcripts from the first two days
`
`of trial already. And so what I would ask is for the
`
`parties to go back to those transcripts and find out what
`
`their proposed redactions are and make a joint set of
`
`proposed redactions.
`
`And then what the Court needs to do is,
`
`pursuant to the law of the Third Circuit, the Court needs
`
`to make a specific finding about why any proposed redacted
`
`material being disclosed to the public would work a
`
`clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking
`
`closure.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 12 of 292 PageID #: 62045
` 521
`
` 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
`
`So the Court is going to need information from
`
`whoever wants that redaction such that the Court can make
`
`that finding on the record. And so I'll ask you with
`
`respect to the first two days of trial, if you can get me
`
`a proposed redacted version by tomorrow before we begin
`
`trial. And then with respect to today, we'll give it, you
`
`know, 24 hours. So we'll work on that one the next day.
`
`And if there are third parties that need to be
`
`heard, you can put that in the letter and we can give some
`
`extra time. I want to be in a position just so we can
`
`unseal the Court proceedings.
`
`And it sounds like today that how we are going
`
`to proceed really is the least restrictive way of
`
`preserving that confidential information. And so I
`
`appreciate counsel's willingness to be flexible about
`
`that.
`
`With respect to the exhibits, I don't think we
`
`need to deal with those right away today, but if we want
`
`to continue to maintain exhibits under seal in the Court
`
`record, at some point we need to make a finding on the
`
`record about why those exhibits should be sealed. I don't
`
`think it's going to be challenging to make a finding about
`
`why Google's source code should be sealed, but if there
`
`are third party license agreements, it may get to the
`
`point where I need a declaration from the third parties
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 13 of 292 PageID #: 62046
` 522
`
` 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
`
`who want to maintain those under seal. And I understand
`
`that those were produced pursuant to the Court's
`
`protective order, but now that they've been put into
`
`evidence at a civil trial, a different standard applies.
`
`Counsel?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor. I just want to
`
`make sure we're on the same page, because our intention
`
`had been to move the five exhibits that the witness -- or
`
`the four I think we're going to use -- into evidence, and
`
`then -- so I understood there wasn't an objection to that,
`
`but we will have to figure out the protocol for what is
`
`going to go back or the manner in which -- I just want to
`
`be clear because I don't want an objection --
`
`THE COURT: That's right. And I understand.
`
`So I think the understanding would be you would move them
`
`into evidence and then someone from Google would request
`
`that they be placed under seal at this time, and the Court
`
`would grant that conditionally on a later finding that
`
`I've described.
`
`MR. KAMBER: That works with us, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Fantastic.
`
`And I will check with Ms. Garfinkel to see if
`
`all of the jurors are here. Okay. We are going to take a
`
`brief recess to make sure we've got everybody.
`
`(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 14 of 292 PageID #: 62047
` 523
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Please be seated. It's my
`
`understanding we have all jurors here. Are we ready to
`
`get started?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: We are, Your Honor.
`
`MR. KAMBER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Garfinkel, please bring the
`
`jury in.
`
`THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`Your Honor, the jury.
`
`(The jury enters the courtroom at 9:24 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Please be seated. Good morning,
`
`ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
`
`Counsel, shall we continue?
`
`MR. STRAUS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Dr. Smedley.
`
`Dr. Smedley, I'll remind you that you are still
`
`under oath.
`
`THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
`BY MR. STRAUS:
`
`Q.
`
`Welcome back, Dr. Smedley. Do you remember yesterday
`
`during your testimony when we were looking at the source
`
`code computer?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, I do.
`
`So to make things easier for today, Google has
`
`printed last night certain files from that computer rather
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 15 of 292 PageID #: 62048
` 524
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`than use the actual source code computer during your
`
`continued testimony.
`
`Did you have an opportunity to review those files?
`
`A.
`
`Yes, I did. Yeah.
`
`MR. STRAUS: Your Honor, may I please approach
`
`the witness?
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`MR. STRAUS: Thank you.
`
`BY MR. STRAUS:
`
`Q.
`
`And, Dr. Smedley, because this is Google's
`
`confidential code, we only have one printout, so I'll ask
`
`you to review those documents there, and then after we've
`
`admitted them, we will put them up on the overhead for
`
`others to view.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Sure.
`
`Are these printed versions of some of the files that
`
`you reviewed on Google's source code computer?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, they are.
`
`And where did you do that review?
`
`It was in Wallingford, Connecticut, the location
`
`selected by Google's counsel, and my review there was
`
`observed, I guess, by Google's counsel.
`
`Q.
`
`And during that review, were you able to print any
`
`materials from the source code computer?
`
`A.
`
`No, I was not.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 16 of 292 PageID #: 62049
` 525
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`Q.
`
`If you could please start, we'll take the exhibits on
`
`your desk in order.
`
`What are each of these files?
`
`A.
`
`So the first one Exhibit DTX-1141.0001. And this is
`
`the file TextView.java from the Android 8 framework.
`
`Q.
`
`And if I could stop you, just for the record, is that
`
`DTX-1141.001 through 0235?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's correct.
`
`And what is the second exhibit that you have,
`
`DTX-1141.0258 through 0271?
`
`A.
`
`So that is the file TextClassifierImpl.java from the
`
`Android 8 framework.
`
`Q.
`
`What is the third file that you have, DTX-1141.0236
`
`through 253?
`
`A.
`
`This is also the file TextClassifierImpl.java, but
`
`this is from the Android 9 framework.
`
`Q.
`
`And then finally, if you could please turn to
`
`Exhibit DTX-1141.0254 through 57 --
`
`What is that file?
`
`A.
`
`So this is the file SmartSelectionClient.java, and
`
`this is from the Chromium_r65 source code.
`
`Q.
`
`And yesterday, you testified that you also looked at
`
`some nonconfidential source code as part of your review.
`
`How did these four files, these four exhibits relate to
`
`the material functionality that you observed in that
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 17 of 292 PageID #: 62050
` 526
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`nonconfidential code?
`
`A.
`
`None of these had material differences from the
`
`public code that I reviewed.
`
`MR. STRAUS: Your Honor, at this time I'd move
`
`to admit into evidence DTX-1141.0001 through 235,
`
`DTX-1141.025A through 271, DTX-1141.0236 through 253, and
`
`DTX-1,141.0254 through 57.
`
`MR. KAMBER: No objections, Your Honor, pending
`
`a forthcoming sealing motion with respect to these
`
`exhibits.
`
`THE COURT: These documents will be admitted
`
`and they are conditionally placed under seal.
`
`May I please see counsel very briefly at
`
`sidebar.
`
`- - -
`
`(Whereupon, the following discussion is held at
`
`sidebar.)
`
`THE COURT: So I wanted to see if counsel had
`
`any objection with the Court saying to the jury along the
`
`lines of these are the only portions of Exhibit 1141 that
`
`have been admitted into evidence. That way, the jury
`
`won't wonder what happened to the laptop that was brought
`
`out in front of them yesterday?
`
`MR. STRAUS: We're fine with that. I think the
`
`one request I would make the Court make clear that's for
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 18 of 292 PageID #: 62051
` 527
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`confidentiality reasons, not that there's something wrong
`
`with the laptop.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: We wouldn't want them to think
`
`we offer the testimony. We understand the reason to
`
`sending it back. It was on their list.
`
`THE COURT: Understood. I was trying to make
`
`things easier, not make it more complicated. What if I
`
`said something like because of the Court's -- the Court
`
`has determined that only these portions of Exhibit 1141
`
`should be admitted into evidence, and the parties have
`
`agreed.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, could we say
`
`something along the lines of due to confidentiality
`
`limitations, the Court and the parties have agreed that
`
`these portions will be admitted and sent back to the jury
`
`rather than the entire computer?
`
`I don't want them to think there was an
`
`evidentiary objection to the computer, and that's the
`
`reason it's not going back.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. KAMBER: We don't have an objection to
`
`that, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. Very good.
`
`Thank you.
`
`(Whereupon, the discussion at sidebar concludes.)
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 19 of 292 PageID #: 62052
` 528
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`- - -
`
`THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
`
`due to confidentiality concerns, the Court has determined
`
`that only those portions of Exhibit 1141 that been printed
`
`out and admitted into evidence should be the portions of
`
`Exhibit 1141 that should be admitted into evidence.
`
`MR. STRAUS: Your Honor, may I please approach
`
`the witness to retrieve the exhibits?
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`MR. STRAUS: Thank you.
`
`Thank you, Dr. Smedley.
`
`THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
`
`BY MR. STRAUS:
`
`Q.
`
`So I'm going to start with the first exhibit that we
`
`admitted, DTX-1141.001 and following. This was the
`
`TextView.java file. I'd like us to look together at
`
`Line 9649.
`
`Dr. Smedley, are you able to see that line at the
`
`top? Would you like me to make it bigger that?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No, that's fine. I can see that.
`
`What code do you see starting at Line 9649 of
`
`TextView.java?
`
`A.
`
`This is onTouchEvent. That's a method that gets
`
`called when the user taps the screen.
`
`Q.
`
`And is this a method that you discussed during your
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 20 of 292 PageID #: 62053
` 529
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`testimony yesterday?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, it is.
`
`So what Google apps use this method?
`
`All of them except for Chrome.
`
`And could you remind us what this method is used for?
`
`So this was mentioned just a second ago. This is the
`
`method that gets called when you -- the user taps the
`
`screen, and that's what leads in to everything that we see
`
`happening next.
`
`Q.
`
`Could you explain what you mean by "everything that
`
`we see happening next"?
`
`A.
`
`Sure, yes.
`
`So this is the method that gets called in response to
`
`the user tapping on the screen, and it will, after that,
`
`you see the text gets selected, gets classified, and a
`
`menu popped up with the option to do the appropriate thing
`
`with the type of information that they've tapped.
`
`Q.
`
`And how does this onTouchEvent method that's on the
`
`screen now compare to the onTouchEvent method that you
`
`reviewed in the nonconfidential version of the code?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`So there were no material differences.
`
`Let's turn now to our second exhibit, which was
`
`DTX-1141.0258 and following.
`
`Dr. Smedley, this was that second file
`
`TextClassifierImpl.java; is that right?
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 21 of 292 PageID #: 62054
` 530
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's right.
`
`Here, I'd like us to look together at Line 330 of the
`
`code.
`
`Are you able to see that up there, 330?
`
`Yes.
`
`What code begins at Line 330?
`
`So this is the method called "create classification
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`results." You see where it says, "private text
`
`classification," and then the name of this method comes
`
`after that, "create classification result"?
`
`Q.
`
`And what Google apps utilize this method, create
`
`classification result?
`
`A.
`
`I can't remember if it's all of them or all of them
`
`except Chrome. Sorry, sometimes it's -- but.
`
`Q.
`
`In any case, what is this method, create
`
`classification result, used for?
`
`A.
`
`So this is -- if you look a little further down, you
`
`see the -- on Line 343, that's where the intent is getting
`
`created. So this is preparing the input device, so the
`
`thing that comes up after you do the long press and has
`
`the button that you -- or the menu item that you tap on,
`
`and you can tell it. Because this is where it's creating
`
`the intent that will get sent to the second computer
`
`program, and that's with the input device.
`
`Q.
`
`And the intent, was that the message you were talking
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 22 of 292 PageID #: 62055
` 531
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`about yesterday that gets sent to the second computer
`
`program?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes. That's exactly what it is.
`
`And have we seen this method before, this create
`
`classification result method?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, we have. We were looking at it yesterday.
`
`And how does this create classification result method
`
`in Google's confidential source code compare to the
`
`nonconfidential version that we looked at together?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`There were no material differences.
`
`So let's turn to the third source code file, which is
`
`DTX-1141.0236 and following.
`
`And, Dr. Smedley, this was the copy of the
`
`TextClassifierImpl.java that you identified as belonging
`
`to Version 9 of the Android framework; is that right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's correct.
`
`So here, I would like us to turn to Line 399.
`
`What are we seeing at Line 399?
`
`A.
`
`At Line 399, we're seeing the "create classification
`
`result method." This is from Android 9, so they may have
`
`made some changes, improvements to this method, but its
`
`purpose is the same.
`
`Q.
`
`And did we look at a nonconfidential version of this
`
`method yesterday?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. Yes, we did.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 23 of 292 PageID #: 62056
` 532
`Smedley - Direct
`
` 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
`
`Q.
`
`And how does this confidential version of create
`
`classification result compare to the nonconfidential code
`
`you walked us through?
`
`A.
`
`So there's a difference in that this includes flight
`
`numbers.
`
`Q.
`
`The flight numbers, is that a difference of Android
`
`version number?
`
`A.
`
`Yeah. Yes. If you recall, Android Version 8, the
`
`STS didn't support flight numbers, but Android Version 9,
`
`it does. I think some of that code is in here.
`
`Q.
`
`And comparing, though, this code to the
`
`nonconfidential code that we looked at, are there any
`
`material differences that you identified?
`
`A.
`
`I'm sorry. I didn't listen carefully to your
`
`previous question. No, there were no material
`
`differences.
`
`Q.
`
`Let's turn to our final bit of source code. And this
`
`is the exhibit that begins DTX-1141.0254 which you
`
`identified as the smart selection client.java file for
`
`Chrome.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Could you remember what this file is used for in
`
`Chrome?
`
`A.
`
`Yes, but I don't really have to because this is the
`
`one where the programmer put in the comments describing
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 24 of 292 PageID #: 62057
` 533
`Smedley - Cross
`
` 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
`
`what it's used for. So there on Line 23, it says it's a
`
`class that controls Smart Text Selection. We looked at
`
`those comments yesterday, if you recall.
`
`Q.
`
`And having reviewed both this confidential code and
`
`the nonconfidential code that we discussed yesterday, have
`
`you identified any material differences between them?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No. No, there were no material differences.
`
`Is this all of the confidential code that you
`
`reviewed?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Not by any means, no.
`
`And how did all of the confidential code that you
`
`reviewed on the source code computer affect your opinions
`
`in this case?
`
`A.
`
`Well, I mean, it confirmed them in that there were no
`
`material differences.
`
`MR. STRAUS: I pass the witness.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you very much.
`
`MR. KAMBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Cross-examination.
`
`CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. KAMBER:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Dr. Smedley.
`
`Good morning.
`
`My name is Matthias Kamber. I don't think we've had
`
`the pleasure of meeting before.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 25 of 292 PageID #: 62058
` 534
`Smedley - Cross
`
` 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
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Not that I recall, no.
`
`Nice to meet you.
`
`You too.
`
`So Claim 23 of the '843 patent is what your
`
`infringement opinion relates to, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Twenty-three and 30, yes.
`
`Twenty-three and 30, but 23 is the independent claim
`
`that you analyzed, right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And that relates to a first computer program running
`
`on a computer, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`MR. KAMBER: So let's just show the claim
`
`language, if we could, please, Mr. Spence.
`
`BY MR. KAMBER:
`
`Q.
`
`We have the claim language here. It's a little
`
`squished on the screen, you might say.
`
`It requires the first computer program to do three
`
`specific things, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's right.
`
`It must display the document electronically. That's
`
`that first claim element that we see, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Let me just go back. The first computer program is
`
`introduced in the preamble of the claim, correct?
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 26 of 292 PageID #: 62059
` 535
`Smedley - Cross
`
` 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
`
`It's in the fourth line, "A document using a first
`
`computer program"?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes. Yep.
`
`All right. And that first computer program has to
`
`display the document electronically?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`The computer program must also configure the input
`
`device, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's right.
`
`Providing an input device configured by the first
`
`computer program is where that is, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`I believe that's the fourth limitation of the claim
`
`there, Dr. Smedley.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And third, the first computer program must receive
`
`the user command causing a search, right? In consequence
`
`of receipt -- well, let me let you answer that question
`
`before I ask my next one.
`
`A.
`
`So I think I might have worded it slightly
`
`differently myself, but that reflects what's in that
`
`claim, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Well, let me just read the claim language.
`
`Sure.
`
`The first -- the claim requires, in consequence of
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-2 Filed 09/08/23 Page 27 of 292 PageID #: 62060
` 536
`Smedley - Cross
`
` 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
`
`receipt by the first computer program the user command
`
`from the input device causing a search, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
