Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 144 PageID #: 62326
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 144 PagelD #: 62326
`
`(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55) (cid:38)
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 144 PageID #: 62327
`
` 1129
`
` 1130
`
` 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 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. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Monday, May 1, 2023
`8:22 a.m.
`Jury Trial
`
`Volume VI
`
`* * *
`
`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
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 1131
`
` 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
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
`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.
`
`
`-and-
`
`MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON
`BY: VINCENT LING, ESQ.
`
`
` Counsel for the Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. And we've got
`
` 1132
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`(Proceedings commenced in the courtroom beginning at
`
`8:22 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`
`Good morning.
`
`So we're at our fifth day of evidence
`
`presentation.
`
`All right. Am I correct that who we're
`
`planning to put on today is Mr. -- Dr. Fox, and then
`
`Dr. Kidder, or Mr. Kidder?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Dr. Fox and Mr. Kidder, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And do you have a sense of
`
`how long we're going to hear from Dr. Fox?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Little over an hour, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then we'll have cross.
`
`And then Mr. Kidder is --
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Mr. Kidder will be about
`
`45 minutes to 50 minutes.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And at that point, does
`
`defendant intend to be finished with their evidence
`
`presentation?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: After Mr. Kidder, yes, Your
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`objections to demonstratives being used by Mr. Kidder, but
`
`are we good with Dr. Fox, at least, so we can get started
`
`without worrying about objections in his demonstratives?
`
`MR. LAHAD: I think we're ready to go, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. You're -- pardon?
`
`MR. LAHAD: I think we're ready to go. We have
`
`no objections to Mr. Fox's demonstratives.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. But Mr. Kidder,
`
`you do?
`
`MR. LAHAD: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I got a letter -- please be
`
`seated. I got a letter saying there were objections, but
`
`I don't have copies or anything about what the
`
`objectionable material is. So we've got five minutes now.
`
`We can start taking a look at that.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I have a copy
`
`of the all the demonstratives and exhibits that Arendi is
`
`objecting to. I think, essentially, the objections can be
`
`characterized as they went outside the scope of
`
`Mr. Weinstein's report and presented a new damages number.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. I can see exactly where this
`
`is going to go. I just need to lay eyes on them.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 144 PageID #: 62328
`
` 1133
`
` 1134
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. PETERMAN: They are trying to prevent
`
`Mr. Kidder from responding to that new theory that --
`
`THE COURT: I am on the same page. Let me just
`
`see what slides -- do you want to confer with the other
`
`side about which slides are -- should be handed up?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: I have a copy of everything that
`
`they objected to.
`
`May I approach?
`
`THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. All right. Just
`
`give me a minute to take a look at these.
`
`This is everything -- these are just the ones
`
`that are objected to?
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Well, Your Honor, if I may.
`
`Some of these, I understood, that they replaced last
`
`night, so...
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Well, no, that's not correct.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Pursuant to our meet and
`
`confer.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Everybody, let's slow down
`
`because we're going to -- I don't want to get off with a
`
`start this morning where we're muddling up the record. So
`
`let's, everybody, sit down. We'll just go and we can talk
`
`about it while everybody is having a seat.
`
`All right. The first page is DDX-10.018.
`
`What's plaintiff's objection to this?
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Those are the ones that are
`
`objected to, Your Honor. And then also, there's an
`
`exhibit that we would like to introduce, same issue, that
`
`they -- that they've objected to as well.
`
`THE COURT: An exhibit that you want to
`
`introduce into evidence?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. Why don't you
`
`hand that up as well.
`
`So they're objecting to like 40 of your slides?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, okay, we're not
`
`going to get this done in the next five minutes.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, for these and the
`
`next few slides, the calculation that's performed here was
`
`not done by Mr. Kidder in his report. He did a different
`
`extended views calculation comparing revenues basis
`
`between the different entities without doing it as a
`
`function of each license amount.
`
`And when we conferred about this last night,
`
`Google sent replacement slides doing it with a manner in
`
`which Mr. Kidder had actually disclosed in his report. We
`
`said that we didn't object to those.
`
`So I don't know if they're insisting on doing
`
`it this way, but this isn't the way in which -- he didn't
`
` 1135
`
` 1136
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`calculate it this way in his report.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Do you dispute the
`
`calculations, or do you just dispute the way that it is
`
`being presented to the jury?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Well, the methodology is just
`
`not what he did in his report.
`
`THE COURT: It's a different methodology.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Right.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Counsel.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, we disagree. This
`
`is a methodology based off of revenues. Clearly, it's a
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`present it in the slides that are in front of you, versus
`
`the way that he presented it in his expert report.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Where in the record is his
`
`report that opines on this issue that we're talking about
`
`right now? What page so we can take a look at it on a
`
`break?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes, Your Honor. So do you have
`
`his reports there?
`
`THE COURT: No. No one has ever presented them
`
`to us, the slides. We have hunted and found most of them
`
`on the docket.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Okay. Give me a moment, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`question of, if you apply the revenues versus the
`
`settlement agreement first, or if you apply it versus the
`
`revenues for Apple. So now we're thinking that, A plus B
`
`equals C, is what Mr. Kidder initially presented in his
`
`expert report.
`
`We think for a jury -- in order to not confuse
`
`the jury, we want to essentially put in front of them B
`
`plus A equals C. So it's the same result, it's just a
`
`slightly different way of getting presentation -- way of
`
`getting to the result.
`
`And this is a result of the change that
`
`plaintiffs made with respect to the damages theory. We
`
`think it's clearer now, the way that Mr. Kidder wants to
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: I have a copy for the Court,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, I have one copy of
`
`both of his reports. I can get a second copy.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Great. That's great.
`
`So counsel just handed up the expert report of
`
`Douglas Kidder, October 20, 2020, and a supplemental
`
`expert report of Mr. Kidder, August 26, 2022.
`
`What pages should I look at to see if this has
`
`been previously disclosed?
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yeah. So, Your Honor, in the
`
`second report, the 2022 report, paragraphs 152 to 160 is
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 144 PageID #: 62329
`
` 1137
`
` 1138
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`where Mr. Kidder goes through the revenue-based
`
`comparison.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then -- so we'll look at
`
`that on a break. And then what -- is it the same argument
`
`for how many of these slides?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Through the first testimonial
`
`slide. So the next eight slides, through 10.026. They're
`
`all the same issue.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: And, Your Honor, I will state
`
`that it doesn't appear that Arendi disagrees that
`
`Mr. Kidder came up with the scale revenue number. So for
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`check and see if everybody is here.
`
`Sounds like we are missing one juror. So let's
`
`continue on.
`
`Okay. Then we've got objection to 10.032?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: That's right, Your Honor. As
`
`to the next three slides, 32, 33, 34, those are
`
`undisclosed opinions from Mr. Kidder's report. He does
`
`disclose December 2017. And I think he was instructed to
`
`use that date. There's nothing in his report about
`
`maintenance releases or source code being published around
`
`that time. He just said he was instructed to use that
`
`date.
`
`And now they're using testimony -- he had the
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that we'll look at the top of Slide 25. There's a scale
`
`revenue number for Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and InNova.
`
`Doesn't appear that Arendi disagrees with those
`
`numbers, because I think no matter which way you do the
`
`calculation, you wind up with those same numbers. It's
`
`really just a question of presentation.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. We will take a
`
`look at that. All right. It's 8:30 now. So we'll bring
`
`the jury out and then we'll deal with this. I want to
`
`make sure we get started on time because we told them all
`
`to get here early today.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Ms. Garfinkel, can we
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`opportunity to ask why that was, but now they're using
`
`testimony as to the basis for using that date, which
`
`Mr. Kidder didn't disclose in his report.
`
`He has one line in his report that says he was
`
`instructed to use December 2017 as the date when STS was
`
`enabled, that's it. There's no reference to maintenance
`
`releases, source code, any of the things that are being
`
`added here.
`
`So we don't object to him obviously relying on
`
`the December 2017 date, which has always been part of his
`
`analysis for the other apps, and then for Google Chrome.
`
`But for him to be utilizing the reason that they selected
`
` 1139
`
` 1140
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`that date when he didn't opine on it, that's an
`
`undisclosed opinion.
`
`They have it in the record from their fact
`
`witnesses, but he chose not to ask them at the time he
`
`issued two reports on this.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So stand by. Let me
`
`read these slides before I hear from Google.
`
`Counsel.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Kidder chose to
`
`focus on different aspects of the case when there was more
`
`accused products at issue and --
`
`Mr. Kidder chose to focus on different aspects
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`that we've heard at trial. So is there any particular
`
`reason why we can't put this up on the screen?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Well, for Mr. -- I mean, if
`
`Mr. Kidder is going to say he has understanding about why
`
`STS -- why he's using that December 2017 date, that is not
`
`in his opinion. He did -- in his report, paragraph 175,
`
`he said he was asked to consider a date of December 2017
`
`as the date of first infringement when STS was enabled
`
`Android 8. That's all he says.
`
`So our objection is that if he's going to get
`
`up there and say, I understand it was released on that
`
`date because that's when the maintenance release was,
`
`that's when the source code was published -- he doesn't
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`of the case when there were additional products at issue.
`
`As of April 21st when Arendi changed to narrow its theory
`
`to STS only, Mr. Kidder relooked at issues and looked at
`
`issues for the first time with an STS-only basis.
`
`Now he feels that his testimony regarding the
`
`maintenance release is important for his STS-only opinion.
`
`This is the first time that he's been able to make an
`
`STS-only opinion.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, if I may on that.
`
`THE COURT: Just give me a second.
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Sure.
`
`THE COURT: Let me just ask everyone about
`
`Slide 32, 33, and 34. This appears just to be testimony
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`have any basis for that. He was instructed to use the
`
`date. We understand that.
`
`But now they're trying to use, you know, things
`
`that he didn't develop. He didn't ask why that date was
`
`chosen. And it's not correct that he didn't analyze an
`
`STS-only world. That's the subject of his supplemental
`
`report from 2022. He specifically considered a scenario
`
`in which only STS was accused. He opined on a damages
`
`number, that's the damages number he's presenting today.
`
`So he had the opportunity to ask why that date,
`
`and he didn't. And so we object to him using testimony
`
`from the proceeding to try to add detail, well, as to why
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 144 PageID #: 62330
`
` 1141
`
` 1142
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`that date was appropriate.
`
`THE COURT: Wait. Let me just ask you about
`
`what you just said. You're saying this 2022 report,
`
`there's a scenario where he analyzed that STS, but not
`
`Contact Detectors and Quick Action was accused?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Where is that?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: That's in Paragraph 30 and
`
`175. In Paragraph 30, he says, "I have also been asked to
`
`consider an alternative scenario in which only STS is
`
`found to be properly accused of infringement such that the
`
`hypothetical negotiation would have taken place around
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Mr. Weinstein's new model. And that's really the
`
`distinction here.
`
`Mr. Weinstein's new model depends totally on
`
`units. On cross-examination he admitted if the units were
`
`wrong, the numbers were wrong. And that was squarely not
`
`in front of Mr. Kidder in his 2022 report.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. That was what I was asking,
`
`and I appreciate the answer.
`
`Counsel?
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, Mr. Weinstein's
`
`model never changed. It has always been based on units.
`
`And Mr. Kidder's responsive report is -- knew exactly what
`
`Mr. Weinstein was disclosing.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`December 5, 2017."
`
`THE COURT: Give me a minute.
`
`So Counsel, did or did he not analyze what the
`
`royalty would be -- or respond to Mr. Weinstein's
`
`calculation? You know what I'm asking.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Yes, yes.
`
`THE COURT: Tell me what I'm asking, and then
`
`tell me the answer.
`
`MR. PETERMAN: There's two issues here.
`
`Mr. Kidder did put forth an STS calculation under
`
`Mr. Kidder's own model. And Mr. Kidder's own model is
`
`really not dependent on the number of units. He did not
`
`have the opportunity to present an STS under
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`In Paragraph 175 of his supplemental report, he
`
`says he's been asked to consider -- and he's always had a
`
`different model. He has a revenue-based model -- now, it
`
`does apportion based on a number of installed units, and
`
`we'll get to that.
`
`But he's always had that model. Mr. Weinstein
`
`always had a download-based model. But in Paragraph 175,
`
`you can see -- and in the tables -- Paragraph 175, he
`
`said, "I was asked to consider a scenario in which the
`
`data of first alleged infringement was no earlier than
`
`December 5, 2017, when STS was enabled to Android."
`
`He says, "Under this scenario, the base of
`
` 1143
`
` 1144
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`accused devices and downloads would be smaller, and would
`
`therefore result in a greater downward adjustment for
`
`extensive used relative to Microsoft, Samsung, and Apple."
`
`And he offers a damages, a lump sum payment damages number
`
`of $500,000, which based on the slides, I understand, is
`
`the number he's going to be sponsoring today.
`
`And then in the Exhibit 5 to the report, you
`
`can see -- in the Exhibit 5.0, to the supplemental
`
`reports, he can see that he has listed all the downloads
`
`for 2017 and 2018 for all of the apps.
`
`And at that time, he was responding to
`
`Mr. Weinstein's report that was STS only for the 12 of the
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. PETERMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Kidder --
`
`THE COURT: So we've got multiple things going
`
`on here. So we've kind of moved on from what we were
`
`talking about with respect to these three slides. So...
`
`MS. SRINIVASAN: Your Honor, with -- yeah, with
`
`respect to those three slides, I think the issue is that
`
`he was instructed to look at a December 2017 hypothetical
`
`negotiation date for this alternative STS-only scenario.
`
`And that's fine that he was instructed to use that.
`
`Well, now he wants to say this is the reason
`
`that date was chosen, there was a source code release,
`
`there as maintenance release. That's not in his report.
`
`There's nothing about that in there, even though he does
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`13 apps. That he went ahead and assumed, what if it was
`
`STS only for everything.
`
`The $500,000 that he came up with in his
`
`September '22 report is what he's presenting today. It's
`
`the same analysis he planned for that, and that's why it's
`
`already disclosed in his report. It's not something that
`
`he didn't foresee coming.
`
`That's -- the December 2017 date forward, for
`
`all applications, that is what he opined about in 2020 --
`
`in this 2022 report; assuming that there would be only STS
`
`accused, no Content Data Detectors, no CQSA.
`
`He's responding to and providing an opinion
`
`about an STS-only scenario.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`say he relies on this December report.
`
`THE COURT: Right. But we've got two things
`
`going on here that he's going to testify about. He's
`
`going to testify about his own opinion, and he's also
`
`going to testify about his reaction to your expert's
`
`opinion. And so maybe that doesn't change what his own
`
`opinion is, but certainly I think he should be allowed to
`
`testify about his reaction to Arendi's opinion.
`
`And these three slides, I don't have a problem
`
`with. Let's keep going.
`
`Actually, let me ask Ms. Garfinkel, do we have
`
`all the jurors here?
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 6 of 144 PageID #: 62331
`
` 1145
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1146
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`All right. Let's take a break from this, and
`
`we will take it up later.
`
`Bring the jury in.
`
`THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`(The jury enters the courtroom at 8:44 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Please have a seat.
`
`Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
`
`Please be seated.
`
`Welcome back. I hope everyone had a restful
`
`weekend. We are going to continue today with the
`
`testimony.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION.
`
`MS. ROBERTS: Your Honor, may I approach with
`
`binders?
`
`THE COURT: Yes, please.
`
`BY MS. ROBERTS:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Would you please introduce yourself to the jury.
`
`Good morning. My name is Edward Fox. I live in
`
`Blacksburg, Virginia with my wife of 51 years, and we've
`
`raised four children and occasionally have our four
`
`Let's have Google call its next witness.
`
`grandchildren visit us.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MS. ROBERTS: Your Honor, Google calls
`
`Dr. Edward Fox.
`
`THE CLERK: Please approach.
`
`Please state and spell your name for the
`
`record.
`
`F-O-X.
`
`THE WITNESS: Edward Fox Edward, E-D-W-A-R-D,
`
`EDWARD FOX, having been called as a witness, being
`
`first duly sworn under oath or affirmed, testified as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`THE CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated.
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Q.
`
`Did you prepare some demonstratives to assist with
`
`your testimony today?
`
`A.
`
`I did. I have an hour-long, a little bit shorter
`
`than some of the classes I teach.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you please describe your educational background
`
`to the jury.
`
`A.
`
`In 1965, I started taking courses at Columbia
`
`University and Stevens Institute of Technology. In 1967,
`
`I started at MIT, where I began as a math major. I wanted
`
`to work with computers. They didn't have a computer
`
`science program back then. And so when the
`
`electro-engineering department decided to offer a computer
`
`science elective, I switched to electro-engineering. And
`
`25
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1147
`
`so I worked in IT.
`
`I was really fortunate to have a good friend, Bob
`
`Frankston, who of the one of the two inventors of
`
`spreadsheets, and as my undergraduate advisor, I had a
`
`person named J.C.R. Licklider. He is often called the
`
`grandfather of the Internet because of his work leading to
`
`funding of the first Internet activities. Also, one on
`
`the founders in the field of hemorrhage computer tracks.
`
`So I had a wonderful mentor when I was undergraduate
`
`student at MIT in the electro-engineering department.
`
`And did you obtain a degree from MIT?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`25
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1148
`
`Q.
`
`Can you describe your professional background for the
`
`jury?
`
`A.
`
`So tomorrow I finish the last class of my 40th year
`
`at Virginia Tech as a faculty member in computer science,
`
`and then I proceed with grading all of their student
`
`projects. There's twenty-two teams that I'm working with
`
`this semester in a Capstone computer science course.
`
`Along the way, I've served as a volunteer on a number
`
`of different editorial boards. One of boards I was
`
`elected to is the Computing Research Association board,
`
`which represents the computer research community for the
`
`whole U.S. In addition to that, I've, over the years,
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I finished my bachelors of science in 1972. I spent
`
`six years in South Carolina. My wife, who then was going
`
`to Harvard, had a wonderful job there, so I went to join
`
`her. And I spent a year teaching at a two-year college,
`
`and then I spent six years in a steel joist manufacturing
`
`plant running and developing software systems.
`
`I decided at that point that I had done all I could
`
`do and I wanted to pursue the field of information
`
`retrieval -- search engines, finding things -- then I
`
`started doing my bachelors thesis at MIT. So I picked
`
`Cornell University, where the world leader of the father
`
`of information retrieval was there so I could work with
`
`him. So I start in 1978 at Cornell university. I
`
`finished my master's in 1981 and my PhD in 1983.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`participated and helped assessing submissions and so forth
`
`at hundreds of conferences and workshops.
`
`And at Virginia Tech, I won a number of awards. One
`
`for teaching innovation, one for service, and most
`
`recently one as a commercialization champion because I
`
`worked with a lot of students filing different preliminary
`
`and patent applications, including one that's been issued
`
`so far.
`
`I've also working with my students and my colleagues.
`
`I've done a lot of publications of all different types and
`
`have been fortunate to travel all around the world giving
`
`talks. If you add all the numbers that are listed there,
`
`it's well over 1100. So many different things I've been
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 7 of 144 PageID #: 62332
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1150
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1149
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`involved in.
`
`Because of that, the Association for Computing, IEEE,
`
`one of the professional societies, has designated me as a
`
`fellow, as has ACM, the other big computer society that I
`
`joined in 1967. ACM has also added me to the Academy for
`
`Information Retrieval, which is the leaders in the field
`
`of information retrieval.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you being compensated for your work on this case?
`
`Yes. I'm being compensated on an hourly basis.
`
`Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of
`
`this matter?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`A.
`
`I did a lot of work starting in 2019 up until this --
`
`up until this morning. I studied the '843 patent and its
`
`asserted claims. I studied what's called the file history
`
`or the prosecution history, which is a big binder that I
`
`have sitting in front of me, which is all of the
`
`documentation from the time the patent was filed until it
`
`was issued.
`
`In that, I noted there's a passage that points to
`
`Arendi's Petition for Accelerated Examination Support that
`
`it filed during the prosecution of the '356 patent, which
`
`happens to share the same specification as the '843 patent
`
`that we are considering in this litigation.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MS. ROBERTS: Your Honor, I'd like to tender
`
`Dr. Fox as an expert in the art.
`
`MR. LAHAD: No objection, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Dr. Fox is accepted as
`
`an expert.
`
`BY MS. ROBERTS:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Fox, what were you asked to do in this case?
`
`I was asked to provide my expert opinion concerning
`
`the validity of the asserted claims of the '843 patent and
`
`as to the possible benefit of Arendi's inventions over the
`
`prior art methods that existed.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you please explain to the jury what work you did
`
`to reach your opinions.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`As I do with my students, I studied the prior art up
`
`to the period of 1997 because I like them to know what
`
`happened years ago. I also studied specific pieces of
`
`prior art describing prior art systems. I studied the
`
`deposition transcripts. We've heard testimony here from
`
`Anind Dey, James Miller, and Atle Hedloy.
`
`I traveled to California just as COVID was getting
`
`started -- just made it out in time -- and inspected two
`
`PowerBook systems, which we've heard about that James
`
`Miller talked about and that he purchased and put software
`
`on, so that I would understand the systems as they stood
`
`from Apple Data Detectors. I also interviewed Mike
`
`Pinkerton, who was a student at the same time as Anind Dey
`
` 1151
`
`Fox - Direct
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1152
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`and whose thesis I studied as well.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`What opinions did you reach?
`
`So my opinion is that the asserted claims of the '843
`
`patent are invalid. And I base this on two things.
`
`First, is that they were anticipated by the CyberDesk
`
`system. In other words, Anind Dey did it first. Also,
`
`they were obvious in light of three prior art systems.
`
`For example, Apple makes this obvious through its data
`
`detectors. And the three systems I considered are
`
`CyberDesk, Apple Data Detectors, and very common thing we
`
`all are familiar with, Microsoft Word, but back in 1997.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you give the jury a high level overview of the
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`associated information. And the fifth is performing
`
`action, at least -- using at least part of the found
`
`second information. These are all the pieces of this
`
`so-called shortcut.
`
`Q.
`
`What is the second important point supporting your
`
`opinion?
`
`A.
`
`The second point is that the '843 patent's
`
`requirement to put instructions all in one program was a
`
`very obvious choice and one of very few available design
`
`choices. This makes clear and obvious argument, which
`
`makes the patent invalid. But there's more; there's two
`
`more points.
`
`Q.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`basis for your opinion?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. There were four points that I wanted to make
`
`about this. The first is that Arendi admits that the
`
`so-called shortcut elements of the asserted claims were
`
`well known in the prior art. And we'll talk about what
`
`those are. But just to quickly summarize what they are,
`
`they're listed here.
`
`The first is that analyzing text to find types of
`
`information. The second is providing an input device for
`
`a user command to act on identified information. The
`
`third is receiving from it an input device, a command to
`
`act on identified information. The fourth is causing a
`
`search for the identified information to find the
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`All right. Can you tell us what the third important
`
`point is?
`
`A.
`
`The third point is that Arendi's principal argument
`
`to the Patent Office that allowed it to get the patent was
`
`that the prior art used instructions to set up the input
`
`device and receive the user commands that were separate
`
`from the document editing program. Arendi's invention
`
`required the instructions for those actions to be fully
`
`inside the first computer program.
`
`Q.
`
`What is the fourth important point supporting your
`
`opinion?
`
`A.
`
`In spite of that, Arendi is now arguing that Google's
`
`products are covered by the '843 patent's claims. You
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 605-3 Filed 09/08/23 Page 8 of 144 PageID #: 62333
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1154
`
`Fox - Direct
`
` 1153
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`heard last week from the experts who built the systems
`
`that Google's products use instructions that are separate
`
`from the document editing program.
`
`Arendi's arguments contradict its statements to the
`
`Patent Office. If we apply these new arguments, then the
`
`'843 patent claims cover the prior art CyberDesk and Apple
`
`Data Detectors systems, and, therefore, make the patent
`
`invalid.
`
`Q.
`
`So let's delve into those specific four points. What
`
`do you mean that Arendi admitted that the shortcut
`
`elements were well known in the prior art? What are the
`
`shortcut elements?
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`mentioned in the summary of your opinions, CyberDesk.
`
`What is the CyberDesk system?
`
`A.
`
`I'm going to recall to what's called "critical date."
`
` Things before that clearly are prior art.
`
`So the CyberDesk system was a system developed as we
`
`heard last week in the testimony from Anind Dey starting
`
`in the fall of 1996, well before the critical date. It
`
`was developed. It was improved. New features were added.
`
`By the time of the second instantiation, which was well
`
`before the critical date, it had all the features that
`
`talked to claims of the '843 patent.
`
`Q.
`
`What materials did you consider to understand how the
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`So we've looked repeatedly at the '843 Claim 23.
`
`We've seen it organized in different ways. To make it
`
`simple for our discussion, I've decided to break it up
`
`into eight parts, and I've labeled them A through H just
`
`to make it easy to refer to those things.
`
`On the right-hand side, so we can clearly go through
`
`each one of these and see what's at issue, I've identified
`
`a checklist. If you look at the checklist, we see checked
`
`off in green are six of the eight things. Those are the
`
`ones that I refer to as the shortcut elements. This is
`
`all about connecting two things with a shortcut; that's
`
`what this is all about.
`
`Q.
`
`So let's talk about the first prior art system you
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CyberDesk system operated in the relevant time period?
`
`A.
`
`So there -- to me, there's a preponderance of the
`
`evidence supporting CyberDesk system. There are five
`
`publications before the critical date. We've heard more
`
`than an hour of testimony from its inventor, Anind Dey,
`
`which teaches us all kinds of things that were not c