Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 62485
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 22 PagelD #: 62485
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 62486
`1
`
` 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. )
`
`
`
`
`
`Friday, January 5, 2024
`11:00 a.m.
`Teleconference
`
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL
` United States District Court Judge
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP
`BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ.
`BY: DANIEL TAYLOR, ESQ.
` -and-
` SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
` BY: KEMPER DIEHL, ESQ.
` BY: MAX I. STRAUS, ESQ.
`
`Counsel for the Plaintiff
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 62487
`2
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
`BY: DAVID ELLIS MOORE, ESQ.
`-and-
`PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
`BY: ROBERT UNIKEL, ESQ.
`Counsel for the Defendant
`
` ----------------------------
`
`THE COURT: Hi. Good morning, everyone. This
`is Jen Hall. We are here for Arendi versus Google. It's
`civil action number 13-919. Do we have somebody on the line
`for Arendi?
`MR. BELGAM: Good morning, Your Honor. It's
`Neal Belgam for the plaintiff Arendi. I have with me from
`my firm, my colleague Daniel Taylor. And from the Susman
`Godfrey firm, I have Kemper Diehl and Max Straus.
`THE COURT: Fantastic. Good morning to all of
`you. Happy New Year. And how about for Google?
`MR. MOORE: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor.
`Dave Moore from Potter Anderson on behalf of Google. I'm
`joined by my co-counsel Rob Unikel from Paul Hastings as
`well as Marisa Williams from Google. Happy New Year.
`THE COURT: Good to hear from everybody. Well,
`
`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
`
`11:00:30
`
`11:00:30
`
`11:00:33
`
`11:00:37
`
`11:00:41
`
`11:00:42
`
`11:00:45
`
`11:00:47
`
`11:00:52
`
`11:00:59
`
`11:01:02
`
`11:01:04
`
`11:01:06
`
`11:01:09
`
`11:01:14
`
`11:01:18
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 62488
`3
`
`I wanted to have a status call, but I also wanted to give
`you a preview of what I was thinking about. And we had some
`thoughts about this, but we're interested to hear your
`thoughts as well. So I don't know if you all have decided
`who will talk first, but I'm happy to hear from Arendi first
`if that works.
`MR. DIEHL: Your Honor, good morning. This is
`Kemper Diehl on behalf of Arendi. We hadn't talked about
`who would talk first, but I'll just kick it off. We submit
`that the Court can and should amend its judgement to remove
`references to the invalidity issue and clarify that the
`judgment is based on the jury's non-infringement verdict.
`If the Court does that, then we agree that it
`can decline to address Arendi's post trial motion on the
`validity issues. There's no need for the Court to
`incorporate invalidity into the judgment or really further
`consider the issue at all, because, as the Court noted on
`the docket, Google raised it as an affirmative defense and
`not as a counterclaim, so the defense became moot when the
`jury found non-infringement. A number of courts have faced
`this situation and they've declined to rule on post trial
`motions concerning validity because of the mootness of the
`issue. And Judge Noreika did that a couple years ago in the
`AgroFresh versus Essentiv case. Judge Noreika cited the
`federal circuit opinions there that are on point, have held
`
`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
`
`11:01:20
`
`11:01:24
`
`11:01:28
`
`11:01:30
`
`11:01:34
`
`11:01:37
`
`11:01:38
`
`11:01:41
`
`11:01:44
`
`11:01:47
`
`11:01:50
`
`11:01:52
`
`11:01:55
`
`11:01:59
`
`11:02:02
`
`11:02:05
`
`11:02:09
`
`11:02:13
`
`11:02:16
`
`11:02:19
`
`11:02:24
`
`11:02:27
`
`11:02:30
`
`11:02:34
`
`11:02:39
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 62489
`4
`
`that, you know, where a defendant only raises invalidity as
`an affirmative defense then a non-infringement verdict makes
`any invalidity finding unnecessary for the judgment.
`So because the issue of validity is moot here,
`we think the proper course is to go ahead and amend the
`judgment, remove the references to invalidity. And we think
`the best way to do that, looking at docket 545, the judgment
`that's in place now is just to delete the second sentence
`which deals with the invalidity issue.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: And let me just ask you, Mr. Diehl,
`so what happens then? You have not appealed or you have not
`moved for a JMOL of the jury's finding of non-infringement,
`so you can't appeal that issue. You have a pending motion
`of appeal, I suppose you could appeal the claim construction
`or like -- just fill me in on what happens after that,
`because we're trying to figure out the most -- best way and
`most efficient way to resolve this both for us and you and
`for the federal circuit.
`MR. DIEHL: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. In the
`notice of appeal we filed we got the footnote on the various
`basis for appeal and we would appeal both the
`non-infringement -- we -- in this situation, we'd appeal the
`non-infringement judgment and that goes back to claim
`construction and other issues that happened over the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11:02:42
`
`11:02:46
`
`11:02:50
`
`11:02:54
`
`11:02:56
`
`11:02:59
`
`11:03:03
`
`11:03:07
`
`11:03:11
`
`11:03:13
`
`11:03:13
`
`11:03:17
`
`11:03:22
`
`11:03:26
`
`11:03:29
`
`11:03:34
`
`11:03:39
`
`11:03:42
`
`11:03:45
`
`11:03:49
`
`11:03:49
`
`11:03:53
`
`11:03:58
`
`11:04:00
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 62490
`5
`
`lifetime of the case, including a summary judgment. And so
`we would appeal those issues. And then for our purposes
`there would not be a judgment on validity at this point.
`THE COURT: Okay. So I just want to make sure I
`understand. And part of this confusion on my part is
`because I didn't get the case until just before the trial.
`You're going to appeal the grant of summary judgment on
`certain issues? You're going to appeal the denial of
`summary judgment -- motion for summary judgment that you
`filed?
`
`MR. DIEHL: I'd have to look back. I know we'd
`be appealing the claim construction order that we got at
`summary judgment, which construed the term "document" in a
`way that we disagree with, so we would be appealing that
`claim construction issue that occurred at summary judgment.
`THE COURT: Did we give that claim construction
`to the jury? I'm sorry.
`MR. DIEHL: I'd have to look back at the jury
`instructions, Your Honor. I don't recall at this point.
`THE COURT: Okay. Got it. All right. Well,
`let me hear from Google and then we may have to hear back
`from you again. Thank you very much.
`MR. DIEHL: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. UNIKEL: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Rob Unikel on behalf of Google. Happy New Year to you. The
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11:04:02
`
`11:04:05
`
`11:04:07
`
`11:04:11
`
`11:04:14
`
`11:04:17
`
`11:04:20
`
`11:04:23
`
`11:04:26
`
`11:04:30
`
`11:04:31
`
`11:04:33
`
`11:04:36
`
`11:04:40
`
`11:04:43
`
`11:04:46
`
`11:04:49
`
`11:04:50
`
`11:04:58
`
`11:05:01
`
`11:05:05
`
`11:05:09
`
`11:05:10
`
`11:05:12
`
`11:05:15
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 62491
`6
`
`issue that is the fly in the ointment here is that as Arendi
`has just agreed, they have filed a notice of appeal that
`includes non-infringement. The invalidity findings are an
`alternative basis for affirming the verdict on all grounds
`and the fact that it's an affirmative defense does not make
`it moot. In fact, the invalidity verdict and judgment is
`something that the federal circuit will have to consider if
`they are considering alternative bases that would support
`the verdict and the judgment in the face of an appeal on
`either claim construction or non-infringement. The claim
`construction issue, we obviously haven't seen the full
`briefing on it, but it's not clear that that briefing would
`impact the invalidity judgment. And so there's still --
`even if there was an issue with respect to claim
`construction, the invalidity judgment and verdict still
`could support the non-infringement for the judgement for the
`defendant as an alternative basis depending on how the
`ruling goes. So we don't believe the issue is moot. In
`fact, I think the courts have suggested that if there is
`going to be an appeal of the non-infringement, that the
`alternative basis remains alive and should be dealt with.
`And in fact, there is Supreme Court authority, Cardinal
`Chemical Company versus Morton International, which is 113
`Supreme Court 1967, which says that given the public
`interests in resolving questions of validity, given the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11:05:18
`
`11:05:22
`
`11:05:25
`
`11:05:29
`
`11:05:34
`
`11:05:37
`
`11:05:44
`
`11:05:48
`
`11:05:52
`
`11:05:55
`
`11:06:00
`
`11:06:03
`
`11:06:05
`
`11:06:10
`
`11:06:12
`
`11:06:16
`
`11:06:21
`
`11:06:25
`
`11:06:28
`
`11:06:30
`
`11:06:35
`
`11:06:38
`
`11:06:42
`
`11:06:46
`
`11:06:52
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 62492
`7
`
`possibility of alternative arguments or alternative claims
`of infringement, that there is an interest beyond just the
`alternative grounds for a potential supporting the verdict
`for resolving the invalidity issues even in the face of a
`non-infringement judgment as well.
`THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Unikel, so I think I
`understand what you're saying. So of course, Cardinal
`Chemical, that was a situation where there was a
`counterclaim of invalidity. We don't have that here, but I
`take your point about that there could be a claim
`construction issue that might be appealed that doesn't
`affect the jury findings of validity. I don't know what
`that would be, but I guess your point would be it's probably
`easier just to sort it out now than to wait and find out
`what that would be and then have a remand. Do you have a
`recollection of whether there was some judgment of
`non-infringement that happened at summary judgment that they
`also might be appealing.
`MR. UNIKEL: I do not, Your Honor. As far
`as -- as far as the appeal goes, I am not aware of a
`specific non-infringement judgment from summary judgment
`that would be appealed, but perhaps I'm just not
`recollecting everything.
`THE COURT: Right. Okay. Well, so I think
`we've all covered what my main question was, which is 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
`
`11:06:56
`
`11:06:58
`
`11:07:02
`
`11:07:07
`
`11:07:11
`
`11:07:13
`
`11:07:16
`
`11:07:21
`
`11:07:23
`
`11:07:26
`
`11:07:31
`
`11:07:36
`
`11:07:42
`
`11:07:45
`
`11:07:49
`
`11:07:52
`
`11:07:55
`
`11:07:59
`
`11:08:02
`
`11:08:09
`
`11:08:13
`
`11:08:16
`
`11:08:19
`
`11:08:22
`
`11:08:30
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 62493
`8
`
`if plaintiff has no real ability at this point, having not
`moved to challenge the jury finding of non-infringement
`under the claim construction, that there was going to be a
`judgment for defendant no matter what unless there was an
`issue with the claim construction. And if there's an issue
`with the claim construction, why do I bother dealing with
`invalidity when that's also going to effect invalidity.
`Just seems to me to be a waste of time. And so, I think
`we've covered all that today. Seems like there are some
`open questions about that.
`One thing that might be helpful, if plaintiff is
`interested in having the judgment amended, is to maybe tell
`us that whatever thing you're going to appeal or could
`possibly appeal on the issue of claim construction couldn't
`possibly be -- or could affect the invalidity issue and then
`maybe that will help us moving forward. Does anyone have
`any thoughts they want to share about that? Hopefully you
`understand what I'm trying to say.
`MR. DIEHL: Yes, Your Honor. This is Kemper
`Diehl again. Couple points there. The document
`construction was given during the jury instructions. I can
`confirm that. We would be appealing that construction. And
`I think for purposes of Your Honor's question, what's clear
`is that the Court has discretion to reach the validity issue
`now or not. It is moot, there wasn't a counterclaim. It
`
`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
`
`11:08:35
`
`11:08:40
`
`11:08:45
`
`11:08:49
`
`11:08:54
`
`11:08:57
`
`11:08:59
`
`11:09:03
`
`11:09:10
`
`11:09:14
`
`11:09:18
`
`11:09:21
`
`11:09:27
`
`11:09:31
`
`11:09:35
`
`11:09:40
`
`11:09:44
`
`11:09:49
`
`11:09:52
`
`11:09:54
`
`11:09:56
`
`11:09:58
`
`11:10:03
`
`11:10:05
`
`11:10:09
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 62494
`9
`
`was only raised as an affirmative defense, so the Court can
`get to it or it can, like Judge Noreika did and a number of
`other courts have done, decline to address it and then
`Google can still make this argument on appeal that the
`separate basis for judgment in its favor should be
`invalidity and the federal circuit can sort that out.
`But what's clear now is that this court doesn't
`need to because it has discretion not to. And as far as we
`agree that, you know, based on the jury's verdict and what
`we put in our post trial motion that the judgment should be
`entered of non-infringement based on the jury's verdict, we
`don't think that anything further is required of this court
`in terms of addressing the validity issues now. It would
`then go up, we would appeal the non-infringement judgment
`and Google can make its arguments about invalidity as a
`separate basis for affirmance.
`THE COURT: In other words, what you're saying
`is -- I also don't want to get into a situation where I
`leave the judgment as it is and then the federal circuit
`tells me that I erred because I had an unnecessary ruling on
`invalidity.
`If you appeal the Court's claim construction of
`the term document, but the federal circuit agreed with
`Google that it's correct, seems to me the most likely thing
`to do is to say we therefore affirm the judgment for Google
`
`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
`
`11:10:12
`
`11:10:15
`
`11:10:19
`
`11:10:23
`
`11:10:26
`
`11:10:29
`
`11:10:32
`
`11:10:35
`
`11:10:39
`
`11:10:42
`
`11:10:46
`
`11:10:49
`
`11:10:52
`
`11:10:55
`
`11:11:00
`
`11:11:04
`
`11:11:07
`
`11:11:09
`
`11:11:12
`
`11:11:15
`
`11:11:19
`
`11:11:21
`
`11:11:25
`
`11:11:29
`
`11:11:33
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 62495
`10
`
`because you haven't moved -- you don't have any other
`argument for non-infringement besides that, for example, and
`you haven't moved to say that the jury couldn't reasonably
`have found non-infringement. And so they wouldn't address
`anything else, it seems to me, because there would be no
`reason to, it would be unnecessary. But if the Court agrees
`with you, that the term document was incorrectly construed
`by Judge Stark, do you think that that affects the issue of
`validity.
`
`MR. DIEHL: It could for purposes of the federal
`circuit. I haven't looked at that issue, but it doesn't
`effect what we do here now, because it's clear that validity
`is moot and this court doesn't need to do anything further
`with it, because it was only asserted as an affirmative
`defense, that Arendi's claim of infringement is now resolved
`by the jury verdict of non-infringement. So I think what we
`know now is that this court doesn't need to resolve or do
`anything further with invalidity so long as it takes
`references to the invalidity issue out of the judgment.
`And I think you're right that the federal
`circuit would deal with the infringement issue, it would
`decide whether, you know, whether Arendi's right or whether
`Google is right on that and then if it decides that Google
`is right and judgment should be affirmed of
`non-infringement, then it wouldn't go on to the validity
`
`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
`
`11:11:38
`
`11:11:41
`
`11:11:45
`
`11:11:48
`
`11:11:51
`
`11:11:54
`
`11:11:58
`
`11:12:03
`
`11:12:09
`
`11:12:12
`
`11:12:14
`
`11:12:17
`
`11:12:20
`
`11:12:23
`
`11:12:26
`
`11:12:29
`
`11:12:34
`
`11:12:37
`
`11:12:40
`
`11:12:43
`
`11:12:45
`
`11:12:49
`
`11:12:52
`
`11:12:56
`
`11:12:59
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 62496
`11
`
`issue because it wouldn't be incorporated in the judgment.
`It's unnecessary to the judgment, so as long as the judgment
`doesn't incorporate anything about the invalidity issue, the
`federal circuit won't have to go there.
`THE COURT: All right. Mr. Unikel, anything
`else you wanted to add, go ahead.
`MR. UNIKEL: Yes. The one thing I would add is
`obviously before we've seen the specific basis for an appeal
`or any contesting of the specific construction of document,
`it's very hard to ascertain what the permutations would be
`from any ruling or any arguments related to that. What is
`clear is that on -- even -- if there is even a modification
`of the document construction at the federal circuit, the
`invalidity issues could still very well support the jury's
`verdict on invalidity, because again, without knowing
`exactly what the basis of the complaint on the document
`construction is, there is ample evidence in the record that
`the prior art that was presented would, in fact, continue to
`invalidate by anticipation or obviousness even under a
`potential alternative construction of document. So it would
`be very inefficient at the very least to have a federal
`circuit consider the document construction issue. I don't
`know what other arguments might be made on appeal concerning
`non-infringement because in the notice of appeal they did
`indicate that they are appealing the judgment 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
`
`11:13:02
`
`11:13:05
`
`11:13:08
`
`11:13:12
`
`11:13:13
`
`11:13:19
`
`11:13:19
`
`11:13:20
`
`11:13:23
`
`11:13:26
`
`11:13:31
`
`11:13:34
`
`11:13:40
`
`11:13:42
`
`11:13:47
`
`11:13:51
`
`11:13:54
`
`11:13:58
`
`11:14:02
`
`11:14:05
`
`11:14:09
`
`11:14:12
`
`11:14:16
`
`11:14:19
`
`11:14:22
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 62497
`12
`
`non-infringement. And if it becomes necessary for the
`federal circuit to consider the alternative grounds of
`invalidity as part of our affirmative defense, then their
`only choice at that point would be to remand, we'd have to
`do this all again in front of you and then it would go back
`up again in front of the federal circuit. It would be much
`more efficient just to have it happen now and then the
`entire judgment can go off.
`THE COURT: So I guess -- so that's where I
`wanted to make sure I'm understanding and I'm not saying
`that I disagree. I'm just curious. Couldn't the federal
`circuit affirm on any grounds supported by the record? So
`if the judgment was just a judgment for Google, the federal
`circuit could do exactly what you're saying that I should
`do, which is see if there's another basis to affirm, which
`is an argument you could make to them. I know sometimes
`they like to have my thoughts on it, but they don't
`necessarily need them. Any comment on that?
`MR. UNIKEL: That's certainly true, Your Honor.
`I guess -- perhaps what's unclear about Arendi's position is
`what is their position then with regard to what they want to
`be done on invalidity? Are they essentially agreeing that
`the jury's verdict of invalidity based on the constructions
`that were presented was correct and they're dropping their
`other concerns about the record? If they are, then I
`
`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
`
`11:14:24
`
`11:14:29
`
`11:14:31
`
`11:14:36
`
`11:14:39
`
`11:14:42
`
`11:14:45
`
`11:14:48
`
`11:14:50
`
`11:14:52
`
`11:14:55
`
`11:14:58
`
`11:15:02
`
`11:15:06
`
`11:15:09
`
`11:15:13
`
`11:15:16
`
`11:15:19
`
`11:15:23
`
`11:15:25
`
`11:15:30
`
`11:15:33
`
`11:15:38
`
`11:15:43
`
`11:15:48
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 62498
`13
`
`suppose it's correct that the federal circuit, based on this
`record, can evaluate whether their alternative basis does
`support the judgment. If, however, there's going to be this
`lingering question at the federal circuit by Arendi, well,
`we challenge the propriety of the district court's
`introduction of prior art evidence or the propriety of the
`jury's invalidity verdict, then the federal circuit, I
`think, is going to be in a position where they're most
`likely going to want to send it back to have it addressed in
`the first instance by you and then it will go back up on
`appeal. I think typically they would like to see all of
`these issues addressed and resolved before they take them
`all up the first time is my understanding.
`THE COURT: Right. Well, that's why I wanted to
`get everybody on the phone, because we've got statements in
`the case law about there's no reason to rule on unnecessary
`issues. On the other hand we've got statements in the case
`law about there's a public interest in, in having the Court
`say something about validity. Of course there are potential
`issue preclusions, issues that could be happening here, but
`we all know that issue preclusion doesn't necessarily apply
`in certain circumstances, including if the issue is
`unnecessary to the judgment. So this is why I wanted to get
`everybody on the phone.
`I think what makes the most sense for me, you
`
`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
`
`11:15:52
`
`11:15:54
`
`11:15:59
`
`11:16:01
`
`11:16:05
`
`11:16:09
`
`11:16:12
`
`11:16:14
`
`11:16:17
`
`11:16:20
`
`11:16:25
`
`11:16:29
`
`11:16:33
`
`11:16:36
`
`11:16:39
`
`11:16:42
`
`11:16:45
`
`11:16:49
`
`11:16:55
`
`11:17:01
`
`11:17:05
`
`11:17:10
`
`11:17:12
`
`11:17:15
`
`11:17:16
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 62499
`14
`
`all have mentioned some cases, I'm aware of those. Sounds
`like there may be some other ones that I may not have even
`taken a look at before the call today. If I could have
`three-page letters from the parties, I'm happy to take them
`by next Friday, but if you need additional time, that's fine
`as well, just send in a stipulation and proposed order for
`an extension and I'll just take single-spaced, three-page
`letters from each side. I think you all know the issues
`that I'm concerned about, but anything else you want to
`address there is fine as well.
`Does anybody have any questions about how we're
`going to proceed?
`MR. UNIKEL: Your Honor, this is Rob Unikel on
`behalf of Google. I did have one question in preparing the
`letter. I guess I wanted to understand a little better
`Arendi's position. In the event that there is no decision
`on the invalidity issues, is there still an attempt to
`appeal the invalidity issues to the federal circuit as part
`of the appeal or is essentially their agreement that the
`verdict is supported if the construction of document is
`correct?
`
`THE COURT: Right. I understand, Mr. Unikel,
`and actually you raise a good point, is that it would
`probably be most helpful to hear from Arendi first, so maybe
`what we should have is have Arendi file the first letter 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
`
`11:17:19
`
`11:17:23
`
`11:17:26
`
`11:17:29
`
`11:17:33
`
`11:17:36
`
`11:17:41
`
`11:17:46
`
`11:17:50
`
`11:17:54
`
`11:17:57
`
`11:18:02
`
`11:18:02
`
`11:18:04
`
`11:18:07
`
`11:18:11
`
`11:18:15
`
`11:18:19
`
`11:18:23
`
`11:18:27
`
`11:18:31
`
`11:18:32
`
`11:18:35
`
`11:18:37
`
`11:18:42
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 62500
`15
`
`have Google respond a week later. That said, I don't
`understand that to be their position, but I still think
`there might be a way to move forward with amending the
`judgment. But go ahead, Mr. Diehl and let us know what you
`think.
`
`MR. DIEHL: Yes. I think it makes sense to do
`letter briefing, but I would say that the reality here is
`that the invalidity finding by the jury is not going to
`be -- it shouldn't be part of the judgment because it was
`moot. So if the judgment is amended to remove any reference
`to the invalidity issue, then we would be appealing the
`judgment of non-infringement, because the invalidity issue
`is unnecessary to the judgment. So that's what we would be
`appealing. Google could raise invalidity as an alternative
`basis for affirmance at the federal circuit and we would be
`responding to that, but we would be appealing the
`non-infringement issue. We would not be, as Mr. Unikel
`suggested, agreeing that the jury got that right on
`invalidity. That's the answer to that, but we can put that
`in a letter brief and explain our position. I'm happy to do
`either, filing briefs at the same time I think at next
`Friday or we can have ours come in first and have Google
`respond.
`
`THE COURT: Let's do that. Let's have yours
`come in first.
`
`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
`
`11:18:45
`
`11:18:48
`
`11:18:51
`
`11:18:54
`
`11:18:58
`
`11:18:59
`
`11:19:01
`
`11:19:04
`
`11:19:07
`
`11:19:10
`
`11:19:14
`
`11:19:18
`
`11:19:21
`
`11:19:26
`
`11:19:30
`
`11:19:33
`
`11:19:35
`
`11:19:38
`
`11:19:40
`
`11:19:44
`
`11:19:47
`
`11:19:51
`
`11:19:54
`
`11:19:54
`
`11:19:57
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 62501
`16
`
`MR. BELGAM: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is
`Neal Belgam for Arendi. Since this is sort of a new issue
`to the case and we'll be seeing Google's response for the
`first time, would it be permissible for us to have a short
`reply, otherwise we're not really going to have a chance to
`respond to whatever their position is?
`THE COURT: I appreciate that, which is what I
`was just going to say, which is why don't you all meet and
`confer first and set forth what your positions are with each
`other. It's not entirely clear to me that there's not some
`room for agreement here, so why don't you see if you can
`figure that out and then we will hear from Arendi first with
`a response from Google. You are welcome to file a motion
`for leave to file a one-page reply if that's needed. I
`don't necessarily think it is going to be needed, but I'm
`willing to proceed how the parties want to proceed as long
`as I don't have a huge stack of papers and that it gets done
`here in the next couple weeks.
`MR. BELGAM: Thank you.
`MR. DIEHL: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. UNIKEL: Thank you.
`THE COURT: All right. So we'll set Arendi's
`letter is due Friday, January 12th and Google's as the 19th,
`but you can all stipulate to change those.
`MR. UNIKEL: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
`
`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
`
`11:19:58
`
`11:20:03
`
`11:20:06
`
`11:20:09
`
`11:20:14
`
`11:20:17
`
`11:20:19
`
`11:20:21
`
`11:20:24
`
`11:20:28
`
`11:20:32
`
`11:20:36
`
`11:20:42
`
`11:20:48
`
`11:20:52
`
`11:20:55
`
`11:20:58
`
`11:21:01
`
`11:21:03
`
`11:21:06
`
`11:21:07
`
`11:21:08
`
`11:21:12
`
`11:21:16
`
`11:21:22
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 62502
`17
`
`THE COURT: Thanks, everybody. It's good to
`hear from you. We'll talk to you soon. Bye bye.
`(End at 11:21 a.m.)
`
`
` ---------------------------------
`
`I hereby certify the foregoing is a true and
`accurate transcript from my stenographic notes in the
`proceedings.
`
` /s/ Stacy M. Ingram
` Official Court Reporter
` U.S. District Court
`
`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
`
`11:21:24
`
`11:21:26
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 62503
`1
`COURT [19] - 1:1,
`2:11, 2:19, 2:25,
`4:11, 5:4, 5:16,
`5:20, 7:6, 7:24,
`9:17, 11:5, 12:9,
`13:14, 14:22, 15:24,
`16:7, 16:22, 17:1
`Court [13] - 1:16, 3:10,
`3:13, 3:15, 3:17,
`6:22, 6:24, 8:24,
`9:1, 10:6, 13:18,
`17:10, 17:11
`court's [1] - 13:5
`Court's [1] - 9:22
`courts [3] - 3:20, 6:19,
`9:3
`covered [2] - 7:25, 8:9
`curious [1] - 12:11
`D
`
`13:22
`cited [1] - 3:24
`civil [1] - 2:13
`claim [15] - 4:15, 4:24,
`5:12, 5:15, 5:16,
`6:10, 6:14, 7:10,
`8:3, 8:5, 8:6, 8:14,
`9:22, 10:15
`claims [1] - 7:1
`clarify [1] - 3:11
`clear [6] - 6:12, 8:23,
`9:7, 10:12, 11:12,
`16:10
`co [1] - 2:23
`co-counsel [1] - 2:23
`colleague [1] - 2:17
`comment [1] - 12:18
`Company [1] - 6:23
`complaint [1] - 11:16
`concerned [1] - 14:9
`concerning [2] - 3:22,
`11:23
`concerns [1] - 12:25
`confer [1] - 16:9
`confirm [1] - 8:22
`confusion [1] - 5:5
`consider [4] - 3:17,
`6:7, 11:22, 12:2
`considering [1] - 6:8
`construction [22] -
`4:15, 4:25, 5:12,
`5:15, 5:16, 6:10,
`6:11, 6:15, 7:11,
`8:3, 8:5, 8:6, 8:14,
`8:21, 8:22, 9:22,
`11:9, 11:13, 11:17,
`11:20, 11:22, 14:20
`constructions [1] -
`12:23
`construed [2] - 5:13,
`10:7
`contesting [1] - 11:9
`continue [1] - 11:18
`CONTINUED [1] - 2:1
`correct [4] - 9:24,
`12:24, 13:1, 14:21
`CORROON [1] - 2:2
`counsel [1] - 2:23
`Counsel [2] - 1:25,
`2:6
`counterclaim [3] -
`3:19, 7:9, 8:25
`couple [3] - 3:23,
`8:20, 16:18
`course [3] - 4:5, 7:7,
`13:19
`court [4] - 9:7, 9:12,
`10:13, 10:17
`
`Daniel [1] - 2:17
`DANIEL [1] - 1:21
`Dave [1] - 2:22
`DAVID [1] - 2:3
`deal [1] - 10:21
`dealing [1] - 8:6
`deals [1] - 4:9
`dealt [1] - 6:21
`decide [1] - 10:22
`decided [1] - 3:4
`decides [1] - 10:23
`decision [1] - 14:16
`decline [2] - 3:14, 9:3
`declined [1] - 3:21
`Defendant [2] - 1:7,
`2:6
`defendant [3] - 4:1,
`6:17, 8:4
`defense [7] - 3:18,
`3:19, 4:2, 6:5, 9:1,
`10:15, 12:3
`DELAWARE [1] - 1:1
`Delaware [1] - 1:13
`delete [1] - 4:8
`denial [1] - 5:8
`Diehl [5] - 2:18, 3:8,
`4:11, 8:20, 15:4
`DIEHL [10] - 1:23, 3:7,
`4:20, 5:11, 5:18,
`5:23, 8:19, 10:10,
`15:6, 16:20
`disagree [2] - 5:14,
`12:11
`discretion [2] - 8:24,
`9:8
`DISTRICT [2] - 1:1,
`1:1
`
`/
`
`/s [1] - 17:10
`1
`
`113 [1] - 6:23
`11:00 [1] - 1:10
`11:21 [1] - 17:3
`12th [1] - 16:23
`13-919 [1] - 2:13
`13-919-JLH [1] - 1:4
`1967 [1] - 6:24
`19th [1] - 16:23
`2
`
`2024 [1] - 1:10
`5
`
`5 [1] - 1:10
`545 [1] - 4:7
`8
`
`844 [1] - 1:12
`A
`
`a.m [2] - 1:10, 17:3
`ability [1] - 8:1
`accurate [1] - 17:8
`action [1] - 2:13
`add [2] - 11:6, 11:7
`additional [1] - 14:5
`address [4] - 3:14,
`9:3, 10:4, 14:10
`addressed [2] - 13:9,
`13:12
`addressing [1] - 9:13
`affect [2] - 7:12, 8:15
`affects [1] - 10:8
`affirm [3] - 9:25,
`12:12, 12:15
`affirmance [2] - 9:16,
`15:15
`affirmed [1] - 10:24
`affirming [1] - 6:4
`ago [1] - 3:23
`agree [2] - 3:13, 9:9
`agreed [2] - 6:2, 9:23
`agreeing [2] - 12:22,
`15:18
`
`agreement [2] - 14:19,
`16:11
`agrees [1] - 10:6
`AgroFresh [1] - 3:24
`ahead [3] - 4:5, 11:6,
`15:4
`alive [1] - 6:21
`alternative [11] - 6:4,
`6:8, 6:17, 6:21, 7:1,
`7:3, 11:20, 12:2,
`13:2, 15:14
`amend [2] - 3:10, 4:5
`amended [2] - 8:12,
`15:10
`amending [1] - 15:3
`ample [1] - 11:17
`ANDERSON [1] - 2:2
`Anderson [1] - 2:22
`answer [1] - 15:19
`anticipation [1] -
`11:19
`appeal [25] - 4:14,
`4:15, 4:21, 4:22,
`4:23, 5:2, 5:7, 5:8,
`6:2, 6:9, 6:20, 7:20,
`8:13, 8:14, 9:4,
`9:14, 9:22, 11:8,
`11:23, 11:24, 13:11,
`14:18, 14:19
`appealed [3] - 4:12,
`7:11, 7:22
`appealing [8] - 5:12,
`5:14, 7:18, 8:22,
`11:25, 15:11, 15:14,
`15:16
`APPEARANCES [2] -
`1:18, 2:1
`apply [1] - 13:21
`appreciate [1] - 16:7
`ARENDI [1] - 1:3
`Arendi [11] - 2:12,
`2:14, 2:16, 3:5, 3:8,
`6:1, 13:4, 14:24,
`14:25, 16:2, 16:12
`Arendi's [6] - 3:14,
`10:15, 10:22, 12:20,
`14:16, 16:22
`argument [3] - 9:4,
`10:2, 12:16
`arguments [4] - 7:1,
`9:15, 11:11, 11:23
`art [2] - 11:18, 13:6
`ascertain [1] - 11:10
`asserted [1] - 10:14
`attempt [1] - 14:17
`authority [1] - 6:22
`aware [2] - 7:20, 14:1
`
`B
`
`based [5] - 3:12, 9:9,
`9:11, 12:23, 13:1
`bases [1] - 6:8
`basis [11] - 4:22, 6:4,
`6:17, 6:21, 9:5,
`9:16, 11:8, 11:16,
`12:15, 13:2, 15:15
`became [1] - 3:19
`becomes [1] - 12:1
`BEFORE [1] - 1:15
`behalf [4] - 2:22, 3:8,
`5:25, 14:14
`BELGAM [4] - 1:20,
`2:15, 16:1, 16:19
`Belgam [2] - 2:16,
`16:2
`best [2] - 4:7, 4:17
`better [1] - 14:15
`beyond [1] - 7:2
`bother [1] - 8:6
`brief [1] - 15:20
`briefing [3] - 6:12,
`15:7
`briefs [1] - 15:21
`BY [6] - 1:20, 1:21,
`1:23, 1:24, 2:3, 2:5
`bye [2] - 17:2
`C
`
`C.A [1] - 1:4
`Cardinal [2] - 6:22,
`7:7
`case [6] - 3:24, 5:1,
`5:6, 13:16, 13:17,
`16:3
`cases [1] - 14:1
`certain [2] - 5:8, 13:22
`certainly [1] - 12:19
`certify [1] - 17:7
`challenge [2] - 8:2,
`13:5
`chance [1] - 16:5
`change [1] - 16:24
`Chemical [2] - 6:23,
`7:8
`choice [1] - 12:4
`circuit [20] - 3:25,
`4:19, 6:7, 9:6, 9:19,
`9:23, 10:11, 10:21,
`11:4, 11:13, 11:22,
`12:2, 12:6, 12:12,
`12:14, 13:1, 13:4,
`13:7, 14:18, 15:15
`circumstances [1] -
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 611-1 Filed 01/19/24 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 62504
`2
`8:21, 10:3, 10:16,
`15:8, 15:18
`jury's [7] - 3:12, 4:13,
`9:9, 9:11, 11:14,
`12:23, 13:7
`K
`
`hard [1] -