Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 105 PageID #: 63843
`
`527
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`VIRNETX INC., ET AL,
`
`PLAINTIFFS,
`
`VS.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`6:12-CV-855-RWS
`
`
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`TYLER, TEXAS
`)(
`)( OCTOBER 28, 2020
`)(
`9:09 A.M.
`)(
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`MORNING SESSION
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT W. SCHROEDER, III
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`BRADLEY W. CALDWELL
`JASON D. CASSADY
`JOHN AUSTIN CURRY
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`T. JOHN WARD, JR.
`WARD, SMITH & HILL PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`R. CHRISTOPHER BUNT
`PARKER BUNT & AINSWORTH
`100 East Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`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
`
`
`
`527
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`VIRNETX INC., ET AL,
`
`PLAINTIFFS,
`
`VS.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`6:12-CV-855-RWS
`
`
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`TYLER, TEXAS
`)(
`)( OCTOBER 28, 2020
`)(
`9:09 A.M.
`)(
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL
`MORNING SESSION
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT W. SCHROEDER, III
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`BRADLEY W. CALDWELL
`JASON D. CASSADY
`JOHN AUSTIN CURRY
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`T. JOHN WARD, JR.
`WARD, SMITH & HILL PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`R. CHRISTOPHER BUNT
`PARKER BUNT & AINSWORTH
`100 East Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`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 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 105 PageID #: 63844
`
`528
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
`ANDY TINDEL
`MT2 LAW GROUP
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`112 E. Line Street
`Suite 304
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`GREGORY S. AROVAS
`ROBERT A. APPLEBY
`JEANNE M. HEFFERNAN
`JOSEPH A. LOY
`LESLIE M. SCHMIDT
`AARON D. RESETARITS
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`AKSHAY S. DEORAS
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, California 94104
`MICHAEL E. JONES
`POTTER MINTON
`110 North College Avenue, Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Ms. Shelly Holmes, CSR, TCRR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston
`Marshall, Texas 75670
` (903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on a CAT system.)
`
`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 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 3 of 105 PageID #: 63845
`
`529
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Jury out.)
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`Good morning, everyone.
`I understand there are a couple of issues that we
`need to discuss before we begin with the jury this morning.
`I know there was -- Apple had an issue with respect to
`Mr. Larsen and also with respect to Mr. Weinstein's
`testimony.
`Who wishes to be heard?
`MR. JONES: Your Honor, with regard to Mr. Larsen,
`
`I will.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. JONES: For the record, Your Honor, Mike Jones
`for Apple.
`I think this is a very straightforward issue, and
`the issue is this. In looking at the hypothetical
`negotiation, one of the things the jury should consider is
`the circumstances in which other licenses were negotiated
`as compared to the circumstances of the hypothetical
`negotiation.
`In opening, Mr. Caldwell referred to Apple's
`situation as plumb out of bargaining power. With regard to
`the other licenses, with regard to Mitel, NEC, Siemens, 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
`
`09:06:31
`09:06:31
`
`09:06:33
`
`09:06:34
`
`09:08:58
`
`09:09:05
`
`09:09:07
`
`09:09:10
`
`09:09:17
`
`09:09:21
`
`09:09:21
`
`09:09:24
`
`09:09:27
`
`09:09:28
`
`09:09:29
`
`09:09:34
`
`09:09:35
`
`09:09:39
`
`09:09:45
`
`09:09:48
`
`09:09:51
`
`09:09:53
`
`09:09:56
`
`09:10:00
`
`09:10:04
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 4 of 105 PageID #: 63846
`
`530
`
`Aastra, for example, he said at the time they were all
`still saying their problems -- products might not even
`infringe or that they could remove the infringement.
`With regard to Microsoft, he stated that Microsoft
`had decided to pay for the permission to use the patents.
`Mr. Short on direct was asked the question: Now,
`did Microsoft ultimately decide to take a license?
`He answered: Yes, they did.
`Now, the circumstances of that are that Microsoft
`did decide to take a license, but they did so after a
`determination was made by the jury that they infringed.
`Obviously, you know, we understand the motion in
`limine, Your Honor. We're not asking to go into the
`verdict. We're not asking to open the door of, well,
`there's a verdict and then there were appellate rights or
`anything like that.
`What we think we should do is really what we have
`done in prior trials when there was a similar situation
`where there was a verdict against Apple and there were
`still appellate rights and stuff like that, and what we did
`is we merely told the jury there had been a determination
`made that there was infringement.
`That's what we're suggesting is that we be allowed
`to just ask the question to say that there was a
`determination made that there was infringement before a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:10:09
`
`09:10:11
`
`09:10:16
`
`09:10:18
`
`09:10:20
`
`09:10:25
`
`09:10:30
`
`09:10:34
`
`09:10:36
`
`09:10:40
`
`09:10:44
`
`09:10:46
`
`09:10:49
`
`09:10:51
`
`09:10:54
`
`09:10:58
`
`09:10:59
`
`09:11:03
`
`09:11:06
`
`09:11:08
`
`09:11:10
`
`09:11:13
`
`09:11:15
`
`09:11:17
`
`09:11:20
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 5 of 105 PageID #: 63847
`
`531
`
`decision that's been called, and that's what's been
`represented by the other side, was made to take a license.
`We think that adequately tells the jury what they need to
`know about how to compare the two circumstances.
`And that's our request, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
`Can I ask you, Mr. Caldwell, to let me follow up
`with Mr. Jones on one thing?
`How -- how near in time to the opening did
`Mr. Caldwell refer to Apple being out of whatever the
`phrase was used -- out of -- out of options or something
`along those lines, how near in time did that comment come
`to the discussion of the Microsoft license?
`MR. JONES: I think it was at the same time, but
`I -- I couldn't swear to you on that, Your Honor. Just off
`the top of my head, if -- and if Mr. Caldwell, I've said
`something wrong, it's because of my memory. But I thought
`it was all at the same time.
`THE COURT: Do we have the transcript? It looks
`like Ms. Schmidt might have the transcript.
`MR. JONES: The statement that they were plumb out
`
`of --
`
`THE COURT: Could you put it on the ELMO, please?
`MR. JONES: Sure. The statement that they were
`plumb --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:11:23
`
`09:11:27
`
`09:11:30
`
`09:11:33
`
`09:11:36
`
`09:11:37
`
`09:11:55
`
`09:11:58
`
`09:12:00
`
`09:12:04
`
`09:12:10
`
`09:12:15
`
`09:12:19
`
`09:12:21
`
`09:12:24
`
`09:12:30
`
`09:12:33
`
`09:12:37
`
`09:12:40
`
`09:12:42
`
`09:12:59
`
`09:13:01
`
`09:13:01
`
`09:13:04
`
`09:13:13
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 6 of 105 PageID #: 63848
`
`532
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Jones, you're going to have to get
`by the mic, I apologize, or take the --
`MR. JONES: Sure. I apologize.
`THE COURT: That's all right.
`MR. JONES: The statement they were plumb out of
`bargaining power is on Page 300.
`And the other statement is on Page 307, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
`Mr. Caldwell.
`MR. CALDWELL: Thank you, Your Honor.
`May I start by actually just responding to the
`question you asked and provide context actually how this
`came up?
`THE COURT: Sure. Sure.
`MR. CALDWELL: So here's Page 299. On Page 299, I
`referred to the fact that Apple had already been determined
`to be infringing, which had already come in the preliminary
`instructions.
`And then on the next page is where I made this
`remark that they're -- they raised a complaint about for
`the first time last night -- that there is another fact you
`will learn, which was when they came to that negotiation
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:13:13
`
`09:13:16
`
`09:13:17
`
`09:13:18
`
`09:13:19
`
`09:13:22
`
`09:13:29
`
`09:13:35
`
`09:13:35
`
`09:13:37
`
`09:13:37
`
`09:13:40
`
`09:13:41
`
`09:13:42
`
`09:13:49
`
`09:13:52
`
`09:13:53
`
`09:13:54
`
`09:14:03
`
`09:14:06
`
`09:14:10
`
`09:14:11
`
`09:14:15
`
`09:14:20
`
`09:14:24
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 7 of 105 PageID #: 63849
`
`533
`
`table, they were plumb out of bargaining power because
`you're going to hear, and it's not in dispute, they had
`previously infringed with a different version, and you will
`also hear that at one point, they tried to go to an
`alternative that did not infringe and it did not go well.
`So literally, the point I made exactly, not seven
`pages later in a totally unrelated part of it, literally
`the point I made was what made the Apple one unique is they
`had actually tried to go to a non-infringing alternative,
`and it did not go well. It had nothing to do with anything
`about the Microsoft license whatsoever, nothing.
`Absolutely nothing.
`And everything I said about the Microsoft -- the
`only reason I say things like they had a suit against
`Microsoft, Microsoft ultimately took a license, never once
`did I attempt to mislead anybody. I was respecting the
`agreed motion in limine that's in place.
`And so what happens is they let us get a day into
`a trial, and then they want to change the story and have it
`look like we didn't tell something to the jury. That --
`that really bothers me.
`But the other problem is, the way that Mr. Jones
`started his argument was by saying, well, the reason we
`need to talk about that Microsoft came following a
`verdict -- or not a verdict -- a determination 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
`
`09:14:28
`
`09:14:31
`
`09:14:33
`
`09:14:36
`
`09:14:40
`
`09:14:43
`
`09:14:48
`
`09:14:53
`
`09:14:57
`
`09:15:00
`
`09:15:03
`
`09:15:06
`
`09:15:07
`
`09:15:09
`
`09:15:14
`
`09:15:18
`
`09:15:21
`
`09:15:24
`
`09:15:28
`
`09:15:32
`
`09:15:36
`
`09:15:38
`
`09:15:40
`
`09:15:44
`
`09:15:47
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 8 of 105 PageID #: 63850
`
`534
`
`infringement, is because we need to talk about the
`comparability of the circumstances of other licenses.
`Well, the thing is, before any of these experts
`did their reports, everybody knew that the Microsoft
`license came after there was a verdict. And if we were
`going to call it a determination of infringement or
`anything like that, the time to do that is when you -- you
`know, prior to deciding to agree to this motion in limine
`that we've been following up until this point, because
`everybody knew there was that.
`But more to the point, it's not comparable to
`Apple. What Apple wants to do is put it up and say ignore
`all the other licenses because Microsoft and Apple are
`uniquely alike because those are the only two with a prior
`determination.
`But the problem is that's a false equivalence. If
`Apple were to go down the road of Microsoft, they had a
`verdict, there wasn't denial of JMOLs, there wasn't a
`judgment, there wasn't an appeal, there wasn't an
`affirmance.
`So literally what would happen is if Apple tries
`to present now the false equivalence from the fact that
`Microsoft had a verdict and tries to equate that as
`uniquely similar to Apple's situation, the only fair way to
`respond would be to stay wait a minute, Apple had JMOLs
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:15:49
`
`09:15:52
`
`09:15:55
`
`09:15:58
`
`09:16:02
`
`09:16:05
`
`09:16:08
`
`09:16:10
`
`09:16:12
`
`09:16:15
`
`09:16:17
`
`09:16:21
`
`09:16:24
`
`09:16:26
`
`09:16:30
`
`09:16:30
`
`09:16:34
`
`09:16:37
`
`09:16:40
`
`09:16:44
`
`09:16:45
`
`09:16:48
`
`09:16:52
`
`09:16:54
`
`09:16:58
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 9 of 105 PageID #: 63851
`
`535
`
`denied, judgment granted, what about appeal. All I did was
`follow absolutely what we were supposed to do in motions in
`limine, and that's why we were kind of shocked when this
`came through at 9:00 o'clock last night.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
`Mr. Jones, anything else?
`MR. JONES: Can I say one thing, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: Yes, but you need to go to the podium
`to do it.
`MR. JONES: Your Honor, we're not accusing anybody
`of violating a motion in limine and we're not doing
`anything that we don't think's been done in prior trials.
`For example, in the 417 case, the question was asked by
`Mr. Cassady on direct of Mr. Larsen -- and, again, this
`just shows you that this is how we've viewed -- done things
`in circumstances like this -- he asked: And at that time,
`had it been -- had it been -- at that time, there's a
`determination like the one in this case that the products
`infringed like this in this case?
`Yes, sir.
`So that was how it was done in the 417 trial
`according to the transcript.
`So we're not saying anybody's done anything wrong.
`We're just saying this is the way to deal with the
`situation.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:17:01
`
`09:17:06
`
`09:17:08
`
`09:17:11
`
`09:17:13
`
`09:17:16
`
`09:17:18
`
`09:17:19
`
`09:17:21
`
`09:17:23
`
`09:17:25
`
`09:17:25
`
`09:17:30
`
`09:17:33
`
`09:17:37
`
`09:17:42
`
`09:17:45
`
`09:17:48
`
`09:17:51
`
`09:17:54
`
`09:17:55
`
`09:17:58
`
`09:17:59
`
`09:18:02
`
`09:18:04
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 10 of 105 PageID #: 63852
`536
`
`THE COURT: I understand. Mr. Jones, I'm going to
`overrule your objection. I understand where you're coming
`from on this, and I certainly -- I see the point, but I
`don't think the door has been opened wide enough here,
`particularly given where Mr. Caldwell's comments fell in
`his opening. I think there -- if they were closer in time,
`I would be considerably more concerned about it, but I
`don't think it's -- it's opened the door, you know, enough
`to introduce what would otherwise be precluded evidence.
`And I think Mr. Caldwell makes a good point,
`frankly, Mr. Jones, if -- if that came in, then it raises a
`whole host of other problematic testimony, confusing
`testimony about, you know, whether there were appeals or,
`you know, what a non-final judgment is, and I just -- I
`just think we're opening a box that none of us want to open
`if we do that.
`MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`MS. HEFFERNAN: Good morning, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MS. HEFFERNAN: Regarding the -- the Weinstein
`demonstrative, Apple does have an objection to the use
`of -- the testimony regarding the use of the opening slide
`with Mr. Weinstein.
`And I'll put that up on the --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:18:04
`
`09:18:08
`
`09:18:11
`
`09:18:14
`
`09:18:18
`
`09:18:24
`
`09:18:29
`
`09:18:35
`
`09:18:40
`
`09:18:44
`
`09:18:50
`
`09:18:54
`
`09:18:59
`
`09:19:03
`
`09:19:06
`
`09:19:09
`
`09:19:10
`
`09:19:11
`
`09:19:22
`
`09:19:23
`
`09:19:24
`
`09:19:29
`
`09:19:33
`
`09:19:36
`
`09:19:38
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 11 of 105 PageID #: 63853
`537
`
`So just to be clear, we are not objecting to the
`use of the slide. It has already been used in opening.
`The only objection is that we anticipate testimony will be
`elicited from Mr. Weinstein that during this time frame
`here, between 2009 and 2013, he had an opinion during this
`period of agreed infringement that it should be $1.20 per
`unit, for units that had both FaceTime and VOD in them and
`for units that only had VOD in them.
`And that raises a procedural issue that can cause
`substantive prejudice in this case. That was an opinion
`that he held in a separate case, the 417 case, on different
`products. Having Mr. Weinstein talk about that opinion in
`front of this jury will invite the jury to speculate, well,
`did Apple pay for its infringement of those products? You
`had an opinion of $1.20 for those units, and the parties
`agreed they infringed. Did Apple pay on those? Did it pay
`$1.20 for units with VOD only in them? That is just going
`to, I mean, undo the Court's granting of our MIL about the
`prior verdict.
`Now, to the extent there's any concern about my
`cross of Mr. Weinstein, and I -- I know Mr. Weinstein is in
`the courtroom, and that's fine -- I'm not going to cross
`Mr. Weinstein on his failure to reduce his 855 opinion for
`the fact that FaceTime does not -- has been determined not
`to infringe.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:19:43
`
`09:19:46
`
`09:19:51
`
`09:19:54
`
`09:19:59
`
`09:20:06
`
`09:20:13
`
`09:20:18
`
`09:20:21
`
`09:20:25
`
`09:20:28
`
`09:20:33
`
`09:20:36
`
`09:20:40
`
`09:20:43
`
`09:20:47
`
`09:20:52
`
`09:20:57
`
`09:21:02
`
`09:21:02
`
`09:21:05
`
`09:21:08
`
`09:21:12
`
`09:21:17
`
`09:21:21
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 12 of 105 PageID #: 63854
`538
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. HEFFERNAN: That should alleviate any issue
`with any need to do any comparison of any testimony.
`But even -- like, he can testify -- Mr. Weinstein
`can testify that he had an opinion in this case, the 855
`case, that it should be $1.20 for units with both FaceTime
`and VOD in them. We have -- we're not moving to keep out
`that testimony. He's welcome to have that opinion and
`express it in front of the jury.
`On that point, I will just renew for preservation
`purposes, I guess, our Daubert on that issue, but it's not
`an issue that we're going to explore.
`THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`Mr. Cassady, are you addressing this?
`MR. CASSADY: Yes, Your Honor.
`May I be heard?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. CASSADY: Thank you.
`Your Honor, the issue here is that this slide has
`already made it in front of the jury. Mr. Weinstein's
`testimony is going to be factual about this slide. The
`issue --
`THE COURT: Factual as in how?
`MR. CASSADY: Factual as in he's going to say his
`opinion has been consistent with regards to the units in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:21:21
`
`09:21:22
`
`09:21:25
`
`09:21:29
`
`09:21:34
`
`09:21:38
`
`09:21:43
`
`09:21:46
`
`09:21:48
`
`09:21:50
`
`09:21:54
`
`09:21:57
`
`09:21:59
`
`09:22:02
`
`09:22:06
`
`09:22:10
`
`09:22:13
`
`09:22:14
`
`09:22:14
`
`09:22:20
`
`09:22:22
`
`09:22:26
`
`09:22:27
`
`09:22:29
`
`09:22:31
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 13 of 105 PageID #: 63855
`539
`
`this -- in this case.
`THE COURT: Well, that's what Ms. Heffernan is
`concerned about.
`MR. CASSADY: Right.
`THE COURT: So the fact that it's factual I'm not
`sure makes a difference.
`MR. CASSADY: Right. Your Honor, this is exactly
`the argument we made in the motion in limine, and Your
`Honor said that the verdicts and -- and other issues will
`not come in, but your ruling was explicit that we were able
`to use Mr. Weinstein's opinions on the prior case and we
`were able to use the cross-examination of Mr. Bakewell of
`all opinions from both cases. And the reason why is
`because the theme that's being presented right now is we
`needed to deal with the '504 and '211. That's the theme.
`And so the point is we have evidence that our
`witnesses are being consistent and that theirs are being
`inconsistent.
`THE COURT: Well, why don't we wait and see what
`happens on cross, Mr. Cassady?
`MR. CASSADY: Well, Your Honor, it's already out
`there. They've opened and argued this -- they already said
`in opening that we didn't deal with the '504 and '211.
`They already said that the licenses in this case were for
`the '135, '504, and '211, and we have not dealt with those.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:22:34
`
`09:22:35
`
`09:22:38
`
`09:22:39
`
`09:22:39
`
`09:22:41
`
`09:22:42
`
`09:22:43
`
`09:22:46
`
`09:22:47
`
`09:22:51
`
`09:22:55
`
`09:22:58
`
`09:23:00
`
`09:23:04
`
`09:23:08
`
`09:23:09
`
`09:23:14
`
`09:23:14
`
`09:23:17
`
`09:23:19
`
`09:23:20
`
`09:23:20
`
`09:23:20
`
`09:23:24
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 14 of 105 PageID #: 63856
`540
`
`That -- they've already put that out there.
`So the issue is --
`THE COURT: Do we -- do we -- can I see that
`transcript?
`MR. CASSADY: Yes.
`THE COURT: Do you have that?
`MR. CASSADY: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Could you put it on the ELMO?
`MR. CASSADY: I will. For Shelly's sake, I'll try
`and pull this mic over here.
`THE COURT: That will help me, Mr. Cassady.
`MR. CASSADY: Okay. It's a little small, Your
`Honor, so I'm going to do the best I can to get it to you.
`Okay. Your Honor, let me see, I don't know if
`that helps you or not. Can you read that?
`THE COURT: Yes, I can.
`MR. CASSADY: Okay. So what we then -- each of
`these squares is the front page of the license agreements.
`Sorry.
`
`THE COURT: Is this -- is this Mr. -- I'm sorry.
`Is this Mr. Arovas?
`MR. CASSADY: This is Mr. Arovas, yes, Your Honor,
`and the highlighted portion. And what you'd see is that
`each of these five licenses, Aastra, NEC, Avaya, Mitel, and
`Siemens, they all -- out on the very first page three
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:23:28
`
`09:23:30
`
`09:23:30
`
`09:23:31
`
`09:23:32
`
`09:23:32
`
`09:23:34
`
`09:23:35
`
`09:23:38
`
`09:23:45
`
`09:23:46
`
`09:23:47
`
`09:23:51
`
`09:23:53
`
`09:24:02
`
`09:24:04
`
`09:24:05
`
`09:24:08
`
`09:24:12
`
`09:24:13
`
`09:24:14
`
`09:24:15
`
`09:24:18
`
`09:24:21
`
`09:24:28
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 15 of 105 PageID #: 63857
`541
`
`particularly important patents that drove those license
`agreements [sic].
`And then he goes on to say: And the two other
`patents, the '504 and the '211 patents, those three
`particular important patents, there's a lot more that are
`also contributing to the value and the price they paid.
`And we know that the reasonable royalty that
`you've determined in this case is for all -- is not for all
`three of these patents. In fact, two of those three
`patents Apple doesn't infringe, doesn't use, it's no --
`it's not part of the reasonable royalty analysis at all.
`And so then we go on. What people are negotiating
`over is the two patents in this case, not the '504 or the
`'211, that Apple doesn't infringe but were called out as
`some of the most important patents.
`And it just goes on with this same theme. He goes
`through all -- he's saying over and over again the '504 and
`'211 is the critical non-infringed patents and that -- and
`our opinion has always been and our testimony from our
`witnesses has always been that it's consistently one rate,
`whether it's multiple patents or not.
`So the issue here is they're making a theme out of
`the very argument we have with regards to the motion in
`limines, and what's going to happen is they won't cross
`Mr. Weinstein on 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
`
`09:24:34
`
`09:24:36
`
`09:24:37
`
`09:24:46
`
`09:24:50
`
`09:24:53
`
`09:24:56
`
`09:25:06
`
`09:25:11
`
`09:25:14
`
`09:25:19
`
`09:25:22
`
`09:25:28
`
`09:25:32
`
`09:25:35
`
`09:25:37
`
`09:25:41
`
`09:25:44
`
`09:25:48
`
`09:25:50
`
`09:25:54
`
`09:25:56
`
`09:25:59
`
`09:26:01
`
`09:26:04
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 16 of 105 PageID #: 63858
`542
`
`THE COURT: Well, how -- I don't understand how at
`all this implicates Mr. Weinstein's prior opinions. What's
`it got to do with his prior opinions?
`MR. CASSADY: It's a consistency, Your Honor.
`They're -- they're going to attack Mr. Weinstein's opinion
`as not -- not taking the '504 and '211 out of it.
`THE COURT: And like I said, let's see what
`happens on cross.
`MR. CASSADY: Now, Your Honor, they're going to do
`it with Mr. Bakewell. Now that you -- now that you're
`saying let's see what happens on cross, they'll do it with
`Mr. Bakewell after Mr. Weinstein is off the stand. That's
`the -- that's -- that's trial by ambush, Your Honor. Like
`don't bring it up with the witness that can answer it, but
`bring it up with the witness that you can't bring the issue
`up --
`
`THE COURT: I don't understand what -- what you're
`trying to do not bolstering the witness's testimony. Why
`is it not?
`MR. CASSADY: The -- they have -- they have
`already brought an issue in the case that the '504 and '211
`must be removed from this thing. They've already
`criticized our opinion in this case because they're saying
`you must take the '504 and '211 out. And that's not what's
`happened here. That's the argument they're making.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:26:05
`
`09:26:06
`
`09:26:10
`
`09:26:13
`
`09:26:15
`
`09:26:17
`
`09:26:19
`
`09:26:21
`
`09:26:23
`
`09:26:24
`
`09:26:25
`
`09:26:26
`
`09:26:28
`
`09:26:30
`
`09:26:33
`
`09:26:36
`
`09:26:36
`
`09:26:37
`
`09:26:42
`
`09:26:42
`
`09:26:44
`
`09:26:47
`
`09:26:49
`
`09:26:52
`
`09:26:56
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 17 of 105 PageID #: 63859
`543
`
`It's the theme of their -- it's the theme of their
`opening, and it's precisely what they're going to do. And
`they'll -- maybe they'll ask Mr. Weinstein about it, but
`that's the intent. That intent is so that Mr. Bakewell can
`still criticize it --
`THE COURT: That's why we have rebuttal cases.
`MR. CASSADY: So, okay, that's -- I mean, that's
`one way to look at it, Your Honor, and I -- I appreciate
`that. And as long as Your Honor is of the perception that
`Mr. Weinstein can rebut --
`THE COURT: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying
`that's why we have rebuttal cases so that you can deal with
`issues that come up during, you know -- the opposing
`party's case-in-chief. We'll have to address that when we
`get to it.
`MR. CASSADY: Okay. Well, I mean, I guess, Your
`Honor, that my issue is if the grounds of why Mr. Weinstein
`can't get into it is because that's why you have rebuttal
`cases, but then we can't be comforted that we get to have a
`rebuttal case if they do it, that's where my concern is,
`Your Honor. Because this is where I get to talk about it.
`When I close my case, this is my evidence, and that's
`statements I'm relying on. And when they go and make a
`criticism of it but I can't bring my affirmative evidence
`in, that's the issue I have.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:27:05
`
`09:27:07
`
`09:27:11
`
`09:27:13
`
`09:27:15
`
`09:27:16
`
`09:27:18
`
`09:27:21
`
`09:27:22
`
`09:27:27
`
`09:27:29
`
`09:27:32
`
`09:27:35
`
`09:27:40
`
`09:27:43
`
`09:27:43
`
`09:27:45
`
`09:27:49
`
`09:27:52
`
`09:27:55
`
`09:27:58
`
`09:28:01
`
`09:28:04
`
`09:28:08
`
`09:28:09
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 18 of 105 PageID #: 63860
`544
`
`THE COURT: You're asking me to promise you I'm
`going to allow you to do that on rebuttal, and I'm not --
`I'm unwilling to do that right now.
`MR. CASSADY: I understand, Your Honor. I'm
`simply letting you know my concern, and I understand where
`you're coming from. I'm -- I'm not arguing with that.
`THE COURT: I -- I think you can get into the -- I
`mean, I think there are ways to do what you're trying to
`achieve, Mr. Cassady, without getting into Mr. Weinstein's
`previous opinions. And, you know, I mean, I can't tell you
`how to do that. I'm just not sure that going back through
`the tortured history of this case and every opinion
`Mr. Weinstein has had is the only way that you can rebut
`Apple's theme.
`MR. CASSADY: I understand what you're saying,
`Your Honor. I'll take your guidance, and I'll do the best
`I can. I mean, I will note also they crossed Dr. Short on
`it as well, but I understand where Your Honor is on it, and
`I will do my best to handle it as it is.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. CASSADY: Now, is the slide itself -- I mean,
`just to be fair, Your Honor, are the slides in opening --
`THE COURT: I think Ms. Heffernan said she didn't
`have any objection to the slide.
`MR. CASSADY: Okay. Okay. Thank you, 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
`
`09:28:09
`
`09:28:12
`
`09:28:15
`
`09:28:17
`
`09:28:19
`
`09:28:22
`
`09:28:23
`
`09:28:25
`
`09:28:28
`
`09:28:31
`
`09:28:40
`
`09:28:43
`
`09:28:46
`
`09:28:51
`
`09:28:52
`
`09:28:54
`
`09:28:56
`
`09:28:59
`
`09:29:03
`
`09:29:06
`
`09:29:07
`
`09:29:08
`
`09:29:08
`
`09:29:10
`
`09:29:11
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 19 of 105 PageID #: 63861
`545
`
`THE COURT: Anything else we need to discuss
`before we have the jury brought in?
`MR. AROVAS: This is not an issue, Your Honor,
`just an update. The parties did discuss JMOLs and just
`wanted to make sure Your Honor was fine that we follow the
`same procedure we followed in prior cases. We bring all
`the JMOLs at the conclusion of all of the evidence.
`THE COURT: That -- that's correct, yes.
`MR. AROVAS: That's fine. All right. We just
`wanted to make sure it was okay with the Court.
`THE COURT: Yes, absolutely.
`MR. AROVAS: I'm told we need to hand up the
`admitted list, as well.
`THE COURT: Okay. You want to read that into the
`record now or do you want to do it in front of the jury?
`MR. AROVAS: Do you have a preference?
`THE COURT: Do you care?
`MR. AROVAS: I don't care.
`MR. CASSADY: I prefer to do it in front of the
`
`jury.
`
`THE COURT: Let's do it in front of the jury.
`MR. AROVAS: That's fine.
`THE COURT: It's good to have some drama
`occasionally.
`MR. AROVAS: That's fine.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:29:14
`
`09:29:16
`
`09:29:19
`
`09:29:24
`
`09:29:29
`
`09:29:31
`
`09:29:34
`
`09:29:39
`
`09:29:41
`
`09:29:43
`
`09:29:45
`
`09:29:48
`
`09:29:51
`
`09:29:52
`
`09:29:54
`
`09:29:57
`
`09:29:59
`
`09:30:00
`
`09:30:01
`
`09:30:03
`
`09:30:03
`
`09:30:05
`
`09:30:06
`
`09:30:09
`
`09:30:09
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 20 of 105 PageID #: 63862
`546
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Pearson?
`MR. PEARSON: I apologize. Mr. Curry has
`something to say.
`THE COURT: Okay. Good morning, Mr. Curry.
`MR. CURRY: Good morning. Small housekeeping
`matter. Will the Court excuse Dr. Jones?
`THE COURT: Any objection to Dr. Jones being
`excused?
`MR. AROVAS: No, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. He may be excused. Thank you,
`Mr. Curry.
`MR. CURRY: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: I understand -- did -- did the
`plaintiffs not have an objection to a demonstrative of
`Mr. Blaze's?
`MR. CASSADY: Yes, Your Honor, there is an
`objection to Dr. Blaze.
`THE COURT: Do we need to deal with that now?
`MR. CALDWELL: It doesn't seem like we do. It
`seems like it's -- at the very least, it will be at the
`tail end of the day if it even happens.
`THE COURT: Okay. Okay. So let me get a little
`sense from the parties about what you think the day will
`hold. Do the plaintiffs -- or does the plaintiff expect to
`rest today?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:30:10
`
`09:30:12
`
`09:30:15
`
`09:30:15
`
`09:30:17
`
`09:30:19
`
`09:30:23
`
`09:30:25
`
`09:30:25
`
`09:30:26
`
`09:30:31
`
`09:30:32
`
`09:30:33
`
`09:30:35
`
`09:30:38
`
`09:30:38
`
`09:30:39
`
`09:30:41
`
`09:30:43
`
`09:30:46
`
`09:30:48
`
`09:30:51
`
`09:30:53
`
`09:30:56
`
`09:30:59
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 21 of 105 PageID #: 63863
`547
`
`MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, I think it would be a
`close call.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. CASSADY: We're -- we're going to present
`Mr. Larsen, and then present Mr. Weinstein. And it depends
`on the cross-examination of those particular witnesses
`whether or not we call an additional witness, which we put
`on our list Ms. Mewes. But, again, that's -- that's in
`question right now.
`THE COURT: Okay. My -- the -- my only concern is
`I know that Apple has two witnesses who are testifying
`remotely. And Mr. Jackson, our IT specialist, is not in
`Tyler today. We didn't expect any -- either of those
`witnesses to be necessary today. He will be here tomorrow.
`He can manage it remotely, Mr. Jackson, that is, but we
`just need a heads-up to know whether we need him in place
`to be able to do that.
`MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, I believe the majority
`of the time today will be taken up by my direct examination
`of my witnesses. But I can't control the amount of time
`they're going to cross. But I believe those witnesses will
`probably end up tomorrow. That was my imagination. I
`don't imagine a damages trial they're not going to cross
`Mr. Larsen and Mr. Weinstein for a good long time.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thoughts from Apple about that?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:30:59
`
`09:31:01
`
`09:31:01
`
`09:31:02
`
`09:31:04
`
`09:31:08
`
`09:31:12
`
`09:31:15
`
`09:31:19
`
`09:31:20
`
`09:31:22
`
`09:31:25
`
`09:31:30
`
`09:31:34
`
`09:31:38
`
`09:31:44
`
`09:31:48
`
`09:31:50
`
`09:31:51
`
`09:31:54
`
`09:31:58
`
`09:32:01
`
`09:32:05
`
`09:32:08
`
`09:32:10
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 989 Filed 11/02/20 Page 22 of 105 PageID #: 63864
`548
`
`Mr. Jones maybe was listening.
`MR. AROVAS: I -- I apologize, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: The issue is whether we'll get to
`either of the remote Apple witnesses today because we've
`got a little bit of an IT situation if we do. It's not
`insurmountable. We just need a little bit of advance
`notice.
`MS. HEFFERNAN: Your Honor, we don't -- we're not
`going to get to the remote witnesses today.
`THE COURT: Fair
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
