Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 140 PageID #: 64398
`1064
`
`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 30, 2020
`)(
`8:25 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
`
`
`1064
`
`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 30, 2020
`)(
`8:25 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 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 140 PageID #: 64399
`1065
`
`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 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 3 of 140 PageID #: 64400
`1066
`
`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.
`All right. We circulated last evening a final
`jury instructions and a verdict form which I think the
`parties in principal have agreed to.
`Ms. Schmidt, I do know that Apple filed an
`objection either last night or this morning related to some
`of the specific language, and I'll be happy to hear from
`you about that at the appropriate time.
`Maybe we should just begin with instructions,
`though.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: So whoever wants to go first may do
`
`so.
`
`Good morning, Mr. Summers.
`MR. SUMMERS: Good morning, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: I feel like we were just here.
`MR. SUMMERS: I feel the same.
`Thanks to the Court for circulating those last
`night. VirnetX will only have two objections to put on the
`record to the Court's proposed charge.
`The -- the first one will be on Page 15. This is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`08:23:55
`
`08:23:55
`
`08:23:58
`
`08:25:21
`
`08:25:22
`
`08:25:32
`
`08:25:37
`
`08:25:42
`
`08:25:46
`
`08:25:51
`
`08:25:54
`
`08:25:55
`
`08:25:59
`
`08:26:00
`
`08:26:01
`
`08:26:05
`
`08:26:11
`
`08:26:14
`
`08:26:15
`
`08:26:17
`
`08:26:19
`
`08:26:22
`
`08:26:27
`
`08:26:32
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 4 of 140 PageID #: 64401
`1067
`
`in the Section 5 infringement generally. VirnetX had
`proposed that there be instructions on specifically that
`infringement means to make, use, sell, offer to sell the
`patented product and also proposed a brief sentence about
`how you have to practice all of the limitations in the
`claim to infringe the patent. The specific language is in
`the proposals we've made and filings with the Court, so I
`don't -- don't feel the need to reiterate that specific
`language, but we would maintain the objection to exclusion
`of that proposal.
`THE COURT: Understood, Mr. Summers. Thank you.
`Ms. Schmidt, anything you wish to say about that?
`MS. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
`Your Honor, you would -- would you like me to
`respond to Mr. Summers's proposals?
`THE COURT: Yes, if you wish to.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Your Honor, for the reasons we've discussed -- we
`discussed yesterday, we -- we agree with the Court that --
`that the infringement instruction should be limited to what
`it is in the Court's proposal and that indirect
`infringement, there's no reason to instruct the jury on
`that since it's not at issue.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Schmidt.
`Mr. Summers?
`
`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
`
`08:26:37
`
`08:26:42
`
`08:26:47
`
`08:26:52
`
`08:26:57
`
`08:27:00
`
`08:27:05
`
`08:27:10
`
`08:27:14
`
`08:27:17
`
`08:27:18
`
`08:27:22
`
`08:27:26
`
`08:27:32
`
`08:27:36
`
`08:27:38
`
`08:27:40
`
`08:27:40
`
`08:27:44
`
`08:27:49
`
`08:27:52
`
`08:27:54
`
`08:27:56
`
`08:28:00
`
`08:28:04
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 5 of 140 PageID #: 64402
`1068
`
`MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`And then the -- the next issue would be -- I said
`there were two. There's actually three. In the exclusion
`of the section right after infringement generally, we had
`for preservation purposes proposed an inducement
`instruction, and I'd like to reiterate that on the record
`that we do think that's appropriate because the jury is
`evaluating in part the VPN on Demand inducement. But we
`understand the Court's ruling on that.
`So moving on to the -- the final thing on Page 20,
`and this is the proposal we had proposed last -- last night
`at the informal charge conference in the section about
`comparable licenses, VirnetX proposes that, at the bottom
`of the page after the clause including the type of
`technology license, to include the phrase such as whether
`the license covered the use of the claimed invention or
`similar technology.
`I won't reiterate the argument from last night,
`but we do think that's an accurate statement of law, and
`it's very important to the jury to understand that in
`comparability issues, it's what's licensed by the licensor
`to the licensee and not some issue about what the licensed
`product is.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Summers.
`Ms. Schmidt, anything you want to add 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
`
`08:28:06
`
`08:28:07
`
`08:28:14
`
`08:28:19
`
`08:28:22
`
`08:28:27
`
`08:28:30
`
`08:28:34
`
`08:28:38
`
`08:28:39
`
`08:28:43
`
`08:28:49
`
`08:28:53
`
`08:28:58
`
`08:29:01
`
`08:29:04
`
`08:29:08
`
`08:29:10
`
`08:29:14
`
`08:29:16
`
`08:29:24
`
`08:29:31
`
`08:29:37
`
`08:29:41
`
`08:29:43
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 6 of 140 PageID #: 64403
`1069
`
`MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`I jumped the gun on indirect infringement, so I
`got that one covered.
`But with respect to the -- the proposal on the
`comparable licenses, for the reasons we discussed
`yesterday, we -- we don't think that that addition would be
`appropriate.
`THE COURT: Very well. Thank you, Ms. Schmidt.
`MS. SCHMIDT: And, Your Honor, would you like to
`hear from Apple now with respect to its objections for
`preservation?
`THE COURT: Yes, please.
`MS. SCHMIDT: So, Your Honor, the -- the first --
`the first objection we would have is just to Instruction 2,
`contentions of the parties. Our -- our position is that
`because the patents have been held unpatentable, they
`cannot be infringed.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. SCHMIDT: The -- the next instruction, Your
`Honor, where we have an objection is to -- in 5-1 damages
`generally, where it says: The parties should expect --
`should expect to pay and should expect to receive.
`Our position is that that should be willing to
`
`pay.
`
`THE COURT: I -- I think that's -- I think 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
`
`08:29:47
`
`08:29:49
`
`08:29:53
`
`08:29:54
`
`08:29:58
`
`08:30:00
`
`08:30:04
`
`08:30:04
`
`08:30:10
`
`08:30:11
`
`08:30:14
`
`08:30:15
`
`08:30:17
`
`08:30:22
`
`08:30:27
`
`08:30:30
`
`08:30:34
`
`08:30:36
`
`08:30:36
`
`08:30:44
`
`08:30:54
`
`08:30:57
`
`08:31:01
`
`08:31:03
`
`08:31:04
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 7 of 140 PageID #: 64404
`1070
`
`instruction we're using is consistent with the instruction
`we've used throughout the -- the history.
`MS. SCHMIDT: It is, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. SCHMIDT: So this is -- I'll -- I'll just move
`as quickly as I can --
`THE COURT: I understand.
`MS. SCHMIDT: -- just for preservation.
`In -- in 6-2 there's a reference to the patents
`being infringed and valid, and we believe the patents are
`not valid. In that instruction in the second paragraph
`with the modified version of VPN on Demand was released.
`We discussed that language and our only objection is just
`to preserve our MIL objection with the references for the
`reason overall.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Then we -- we had made a proposal to
`include the expiration dates in the third paragraph in
`Instruction 6-2, and for the reasons we discussed
`yesterday, we thought that would be appropriate to include.
`In the fourth paragraph, there was a statement
`that -- about both sides being willing participants
`similarly, as have been given before, but we just maintain
`our request that that be included.
`THE COURT: Fair enough.
`
`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
`
`08:31:09
`
`08:31:12
`
`08:31:14
`
`08:31:15
`
`08:31:16
`
`08:31:18
`
`08:31:19
`
`08:31:20
`
`08:31:23
`
`08:31:29
`
`08:31:35
`
`08:31:38
`
`08:31:44
`
`08:31:48
`
`08:31:48
`
`08:31:49
`
`08:31:54
`
`08:31:59
`
`08:32:02
`
`08:32:06
`
`08:32:09
`
`08:32:14
`
`08:32:20
`
`08:32:22
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 8 of 140 PageID #: 64405
`1071
`
`MS. SCHMIDT: And then, finally -- oh, not
`finally, sorry. Second to finally, we just -- with respect
`to the -- the first paragraph after the bullet points in
`Section 6-3, there's an instruction on non-infringing
`alternatives, and we would just preserve our same argument
`that we don't think non-infringing -- well, really
`non-infringing alternatives, particularly with respect to
`the Always Mode, should have been discussed. So that's
`just a preservation objection for that one.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. SCHMIDT: And then there's also the EMVR
`instruction that we had proposed, and -- and so we just
`request that that be included, and just for preservation
`purposes.
`THE COURT: Understood, Ms. Schmidt. Thank you.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Mr. Summers, anything you wish to say
`about Ms. Schmidt's objections?
`MR. SUMMERS: No, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`Ms. Schmidt, you want to address the verdict form
`
`now?
`
`MS. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
`Does the Court need copies of the objections?
`THE COURT: I actually don't have a copy. Yeah,
`
`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
`
`08:32:23
`
`08:32:26
`
`08:32:30
`
`08:32:35
`
`08:32:39
`
`08:32:43
`
`08:32:47
`
`08:32:50
`
`08:32:52
`
`08:32:54
`
`08:32:55
`
`08:32:58
`
`08:33:01
`
`08:33:04
`
`08:33:04
`
`08:33:07
`
`08:33:08
`
`08:33:12
`
`08:33:15
`
`08:33:17
`
`08:33:17
`
`08:33:19
`
`08:33:20
`
`08:33:21
`
`08:33:30
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 9 of 140 PageID #: 64406
`1072
`
`if you've got one, that'd be great. Do you have extras?
`MS. SCHMIDT: I do. I have -- I have two extras.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Do you need one?
`MR. SUMMERS: No.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Then I have three extra.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`MS. SCHMIDT: May I proceed, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: Yes, please.
`MS. SCHMIDT: So, Your Honor, there were really I
`think two -- two objections we had. The first is -- it
`relates to the first and second questions.
`And the first question we're asking the jury to
`write in a royalty rate, and so we think, instead of
`referring to that as a royalty, we should refer the -- we
`should refer to what the jury is being asked to do is the
`royalty rate.
`And we think that should be carried over into
`Question 2 where there's a reference to a per-device
`royalty rate, just so it's clear that they're multiplying a
`rate times units to get to a royalty.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. SCHMIDT: And then the second piece is that,
`particularly with respect to the first question, the way
`it's written, it says to express the royalty rate as 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
`
`08:33:32
`
`08:33:40
`
`08:33:44
`
`08:33:45
`
`08:33:47
`
`08:33:49
`
`08:33:53
`
`08:34:01
`
`08:34:05
`
`08:34:06
`
`08:34:10
`
`08:34:17
`
`08:34:19
`
`08:34:23
`
`08:34:26
`
`08:34:30
`
`08:34:33
`
`08:34:33
`
`08:34:36
`
`08:34:42
`
`08:34:45
`
`08:34:50
`
`08:34:50
`
`08:34:53
`
`08:34:54
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 10 of 140 PageID #: 64407
`1073
`
`dollar amount per device. And then there's a dollar sign
`in the -- where the jury is supposed to write in the
`answer. And we think that that would suggest that the
`per-unit rate should be at least a dollar.
`And so our proposal would just be to strike that
`language expressed as a dollar amount per devices, and also
`to delete the dollar sign from that first -- from -- from
`the line where the jury writes that in.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Schmidt.
`Mr. Summers?
`MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`I think initially we think everything in the
`Court's verdict form and the language is fine. I don't
`think the word "royalty rate" needs to be in there, but for
`the inclusion of the word "rate," I don't think VirnetX
`would have any objection to that.
`I think we -- we do believe that expressed as a
`dollar amount per device is -- is helpful to the jury. I
`understand Apple's argument to be 19 cents isn't a dollar
`amount, but 19 cents is a dollar amount. It's 19 cents.
`You would describe that as a dollar amount.
`And the -- the point about deleting the dollar
`sign, that makes the verdict form extremely confusing in
`our view when you think about -- if you go to the store and
`you buy a candy bar and it's less than a dollar, there's
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`08:34:57
`
`08:35:00
`
`08:35:04
`
`08:35:07
`
`08:35:11
`
`08:35:14
`
`08:35:17
`
`08:35:22
`
`08:35:26
`
`08:35:30
`
`08:35:32
`
`08:35:38
`
`08:35:45
`
`08:35:48
`
`08:35:53
`
`08:35:59
`
`08:36:00
`
`08:36:06
`
`08:36:09
`
`08:36:12
`
`08:36:16
`
`08:36:18
`
`08:36:23
`
`08:36:28
`
`08:36:32
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 11 of 140 PageID #: 64408
`1074
`
`still a dollar sign next to it. It's -- it's a dollar
`amount that happens to be less than a dollar.
`So both parties are going to fill this in. In
`closing argument, one side is going to say, you know,
`dollar sign .19, the other side is going to say dollar sign
`1. -- you know, 1.20. There's -- there's not going to be
`any confusion. Whereas as I think if you do delete the
`dollar sign, it gets back there --
`THE COURT: Where -- where does the confusion
`arise if you delete the dollar sign? What's confusion --
`confusing about that?
`MR. SUMMERS: I just think that -- I mean, they
`are awarding a dollar amount, and so if you don't have a
`dollar in there and they put a number and you don't know
`whether it's dollars or cents, that -- that seems a little
`suspect for -- for no reason.
`THE COURT: Well, should we put a decimal point?
`MR. SUMMERS: I think if that would address
`Apple's issue, I would be fine with a decimal point, Your
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Schmidt, would that help?
`MS. SCHMIDT: I'm not sure, Your Honor.
`One other way to potentially solve the problem --
`or solve the potential confusion, if we told the jury --
`you know, asked the jury what royalty rate expressed as 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
`
`08:36:37
`
`08:36:40
`
`08:36:46
`
`08:36:49
`
`08:36:53
`
`08:36:58
`
`08:37:02
`
`08:37:05
`
`08:37:07
`
`08:37:09
`
`08:37:13
`
`08:37:15
`
`08:37:17
`
`08:37:21
`
`08:37:24
`
`08:37:28
`
`08:37:31
`
`08:37:35
`
`08:37:39
`
`08:37:42
`
`08:37:42
`
`08:37:44
`
`08:37:53
`
`08:37:58
`
`08:38:06
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 12 of 140 PageID #: 64409
`1075
`
`monetary amount so that they know to write in, you know,
`either $1.20 or 19 cents or whatever else they would --
`they -- they select, and then I think if we did that, I
`don't think we would need a dollar sign or the decimal
`point.
`
`MR. SUMMERS: Your Honor, one additional argument
`for a dollar sign is there has been some evidence about
`percentage royalties and, obviously, that evidence is
`showing the math of how the per-unit rates are gotten to.
`And so I think you do have a possibility that if you didn't
`have a dollar sign in the first question, they could write
`down a number referring to a percentage or something like
`that, and there's just -- there's no reason to -- to pose
`that risk when I think they are putting down a monetary
`amount.
`
`THE COURT: What -- not to belabor this, but what
`if we use the phrase dollars and/or cents?
`MS. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, I would -- that's just
`what I was discussing with Mr. Arovas, something along
`those lines, like writing down monetary amount in dollars
`or cents, something like that.
`THE COURT: Mr. Summers?
`MR. SUMMERS: I think that would be generally
`okay. I will would propose not -- I would propose
`expressed as a monetary amount per device, and then having
`
`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
`
`08:38:09
`
`08:38:13
`
`08:38:18
`
`08:38:22
`
`08:38:27
`
`08:38:40
`
`08:38:42
`
`08:38:49
`
`08:38:54
`
`08:38:58
`
`08:39:04
`
`08:39:06
`
`08:39:10
`
`08:39:13
`
`08:39:20
`
`08:39:20
`
`08:39:25
`
`08:39:32
`
`08:39:35
`
`08:39:38
`
`08:39:42
`
`08:39:43
`
`08:39:49
`
`08:39:52
`
`08:39:59
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 13 of 140 PageID #: 64410
`1076
`
`the blank being dollar sign small blank, period, large
`blank for the dollars and the cents.
`THE COURT: Would that work, Ms. Schmidt?
`MS. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, I think it would be -- I
`think our proposal would be that, instead of doing what
`Mr. Summers proposed, which I still think suggests that
`there should be something to the left of the decimal point,
`would be: What royalty rate expressed as a monetary amount
`in dollars and cents do you find. And then just have a
`blank line.
`THE COURT: Okay. Well, I tell you what I'd like
`to do is we'll hear from Dr. Bakewell this morning --
`Mr. Bakewell this morning. I don't know -- you know, I
`think we've seen dollar signs throughout this case in
`various forms I think by both sides.
`So let's see what it -- I don't know how -- of
`course, what his slides look like. I don't want to
`needlessly complicate this. I want a verdict form that is
`fair to both sides and that it will be, you know, simple
`for the jury to follow.
`So let's see how -- how his testimony comes in,
`and I'll think about this further. I think both sides made
`good arguments.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`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
`
`08:40:02
`
`08:40:08
`
`08:40:12
`
`08:40:15
`
`08:40:18
`
`08:40:22
`
`08:40:24
`
`08:40:27
`
`08:40:31
`
`08:40:34
`
`08:40:34
`
`08:40:36
`
`08:40:47
`
`08:40:50
`
`08:40:52
`
`08:40:56
`
`08:40:57
`
`08:41:00
`
`08:41:04
`
`08:41:07
`
`08:41:09
`
`08:41:17
`
`08:41:21
`
`08:41:22
`
`08:41:23
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 14 of 140 PageID #: 64411
`1077
`
`MS. SCHMIDT: There was just one other item I just
`wanted to -- to note, if that's all right?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
`So I know we -- we have the units written in
`Question 2, and so those are obviously through, I think,
`October 31st, 2020. The '135 patent expired a year ago.
`So I just want to state on the record, you know, that we're
`not agreeing here that those -- we're not agreeing that,
`you know, to extend the term of the '135 patent or anything
`like that. It's just because both patents are in the case.
`And so, you know, that's why --
`THE COURT: Sure.
`MS. SCHMIDT: -- that's why those units are there.
`But we're not agreeing that that would be for the '135
`also.
`
`THE COURT: Right. But the parties do agree that
`the total number of infringing units is the number there,
`598,629,580?
`MS. SCHMIDT: Yes, that's correct.
`THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`Mr. Summers, I think we've reached an agreement on
`the addition or inclusion of the word "rate" in both the
`first question and the second question.
`MR. SUMMERS: That's correct.
`
`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
`
`08:41:23
`
`08:41:25
`
`08:41:28
`
`08:41:29
`
`08:41:29
`
`08:41:33
`
`08:41:38
`
`08:41:42
`
`08:41:46
`
`08:41:48
`
`08:41:50
`
`08:41:54
`
`08:41:55
`
`08:41:56
`
`08:41:59
`
`08:42:01
`
`08:42:01
`
`08:42:03
`
`08:42:08
`
`08:42:12
`
`08:42:13
`
`08:42:14
`
`08:42:21
`
`08:42:25
`
`08:42:27
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 15 of 140 PageID #: 64412
`1078
`
`THE COURT: So we will -- we will include that
`word "rate" after "royalty" in both -- both questions.
`All right. What else do we need to take up?
`MR. CASSADY: Nothing from the plaintiff, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`MS. SCHMIDT: And nothing from Apple, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a short recess. As
`soon as all the jurors are here, we'll get back into the
`courtroom and get the day started.
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`(Recess.)
`(Jury out.)
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`THE COURT: Mr. Haddix, are all of our jurors
`
`here?
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. If you would, please have
`them brought into the courtroom.
`(Jury in.)
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
`And welcome back. I hope you all had a nice evening.
`Thanks for being on time this morning. We actually are
`starting a little bit early.
`At this time, Apple may call its next witness.
`
`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
`
`08:42:27
`
`08:42:29
`
`08:42:35
`
`08:42:39
`
`08:42:42
`
`08:42:42
`
`08:42:43
`
`08:42:45
`
`08:42:50
`
`08:42:52
`
`08:42:54
`
`08:51:25
`
`08:51:25
`
`08:51:42
`
`08:51:46
`
`08:51:46
`
`08:51:47
`
`08:51:49
`
`08:52:51
`
`08:52:54
`
`08:53:08
`
`08:53:13
`
`08:53:17
`
`08:53:20
`
`08:53:23
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 16 of 140 PageID #: 64413
`1079
`
`MR. AROVAS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`As we discussed at the end of yesterday, there are
`two video depositions that are going to be played. They're
`both collectively about nine minutes.
`The first of those two is Giovanni Tobia, who is
`the vice president and general counsel of Aastra who
`negotiated the Aastra license that's been introduced into
`this case.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. AROVAS: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Arovas.
`GIOVANNI TOBIA, DEFENDANT'S WITNESS
`PRESENTED BY VIDEO DEPOSITION
`(Videoclip played.)
`A. Good morning.
`Q. Can you please introduce yourself for the jury?
`A. Yes. My name is Giovanni Tobia. I go by the name of
`John Tobia. I am -- I have dual roles, but I'm the vice
`president and general counsel of Aastra Technologies
`Limited, the parent company. I'm here on behalf of my role
`as an officer of Aastra USA. I'm also the vice president
`and general counsel of Aastra USA.
`Q. And what business is Aastra USA in?
`A. Generally the telecommunications business for
`enterprise communications for businesses.
`
`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
`
`08:53:28
`
`08:53:33
`
`08:53:36
`
`08:53:41
`
`08:53:43
`
`08:53:48
`
`08:53:51
`
`08:53:54
`
`08:53:54
`
`08:53:55
`
`08:53:55
`
`08:53:57
`
`08:53:57
`
`08:54:01
`
`08:54:03
`
`08:54:05
`
`08:54:08
`
`08:54:13
`
`08:54:16
`
`08:54:19
`
`08:54:24
`
`08:54:26
`
`08:54:28
`
`08:54:30
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 17 of 140 PageID #: 64414
`1080
`
`Q. Aastra provides VoIP telephone systems among other
`things; is that right?
`A. Among other things, we provide VoIP systems for
`enterprises, as well as legacy TDM systems for enterprises.
`Q. Handing you what I've marked as Exhibit 2, which is
`the -- a document bearing production Nos. VX00509715
`through VX00509746.
`Is Exhibit 2 the license agreement entered into
`between Aastra and VirnetX?
`A. Yes, it is.
`Q. When did Aastra first enter into licensing discussions
`that ultimately led to the agreement in Exhibit No. 2?
`A. There were various discussions that were entered into
`between VirnetX and Aastra.
`I think the first set of discussions were in early
`December at the settlement conference. And thereafter,
`there were other discussions, but I think if I -- if I can
`remember correctly, I think it was in April where the
`discussions then accelerated that ultimately led to this
`license agreement.
`Q. During those discussions between Aastra and VirnetX in
`December 2011, did VirnetX make a settlement demand upon
`Aastra?
`A. Yes, it did.
`Q. How much did VirnetX ask for -- for the licenses to 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
`
`08:54:34
`
`08:54:40
`
`08:54:41
`
`08:54:45
`
`08:54:50
`
`08:54:58
`
`08:55:05
`
`08:55:14
`
`08:55:18
`
`08:55:19
`
`08:55:20
`
`08:55:26
`
`08:55:31
`
`08:55:37
`
`08:55:39
`
`08:55:42
`
`08:55:48
`
`08:55:50
`
`08:55:53
`
`08:55:59
`
`08:56:00
`
`08:56:02
`
`08:56:07
`
`08:56:07
`
`08:56:09
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 18 of 140 PageID #: 64415
`1081
`
`patents-in-suit in December of 2011?
`A. As I wasn't present at those discussions. From what I
`recall, it was something on the order of greater than a
`million dollars -- I think a million and a half dollars, if
`I recall, and an ongoing licensee that year around 2
`percent.
`Q. Did Aastra make a counteroffer during the December of
`2011 negotiations?
`A. Yes, we did.
`Q. How much did Aastra counteroffer to VirnetX at that
`time?
`A. $80,000.00 approximately for a paid-up license.
`Q. Okay. And what about with respect to Aastra's
`position?
`A. And in our -- in our opinion, we didn't infringe the
`alleged patents. From the beginning, we asserted that.
`And from our view, any settlement that was less than the
`cost to go to trial was open for discussion.
`Q. And did the amount of money contemplated by the
`settlement agreement, which is Exhibit 2, did that
`amount -- or strike that.
`Is the amount of money contemplated by the
`settlement agreement in Exhibit 2 less than what it would
`have cost Aastra to continue to defend itself in a
`litigation against VirnetX?
`
`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
`
`08:56:17
`
`08:56:18
`
`08:56:23
`
`08:56:27
`
`08:56:30
`
`08:56:37
`
`08:56:37
`
`08:56:40
`
`08:56:41
`
`08:56:42
`
`08:56:46
`
`08:56:46
`
`08:56:50
`
`08:56:51
`
`08:56:51
`
`08:56:55
`
`08:56:58
`
`08:57:01
`
`08:57:04
`
`08:57:11
`
`08:57:14
`
`08:57:15
`
`08:57:19
`
`08:57:23
`
`08:57:26
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 19 of 140 PageID #: 64416
`1082
`
`A. Significantly less, yes.
`Q. Is it fair to say that the litigation was a primary
`driver into Aastra's entering a license agreement, which is
`Exhibit 2?
`A. Yes.
`Q. My name is Jason Cassady, and I'm an attorney for
`VirnetX. Have we ever met before?
`A. No.
`Q. Okay. But you understand that I'm an attorney for the
`plaintiff in this case?
`A. Yes, I do.
`Q. Okay. Well, you're an attorney, right?
`A. Yes, I am.
`Q. Okay. You understand that the contract, as it stands,
`cannot be modified by any kind of oral understandings or
`oral agreements between the parties at this point, right?
`A. Correct. The contract as it is stands on its four
`corners.
`Q. Okay. And so the best place to look, if you want to
`understand the agreement, is to look at the agreement
`itself; is that fair?
`A. Fair.
`Q. Okay. Now, the agreement that we have in front of us
`right now, which is the license agreement between Aastra
`and VirnetX, has a 1.6 percent running royalty; isn't 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
`
`08:57:28
`
`08:57:29
`
`08:57:36
`
`08:57:40
`
`08:57:40
`
`08:57:41
`
`08:57:46
`
`08:57:48
`
`08:57:49
`
`08:57:51
`
`08:57:52
`
`08:57:53
`
`08:57:55
`
`08:57:56
`
`08:58:00
`
`08:58:04
`
`08:58:07
`
`08:58:12
`
`08:58:12
`
`08:58:14
`
`08:58:17
`
`08:58:18
`
`08:58:18
`
`08:58:24
`
`08:58:27
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 20 of 140 PageID #: 64417
`1083
`
`correct?
`A. Correct.
`Q. Okay. And what that means is that Aastra will continue
`to pay 1.6 percent of its revenue on the products that are
`covered by the license; isn't that fair?
`A. Correct, on the licensed products as defined in the
`agreement.
`(Videoclip ends.)
`MR. AROVAS: Your Honor, the next witness will be
`Sameer Mathur, who is VirnetX's vice president of corporate
`development and product marketing.
`THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Arovas.
`SAMEER MATHUR, DEFENDANT'S WITNESS
`PRESENTED BY VIDEO DEPOSITION
`(Videoclip played.)
`Q. Could you please state your name?
`A. My name is Sameer Mathur.
`Q. And where do you work?
`A. I work for VirnetX Holding Corporation.
`Q. Okay. And what is your current title?
`A. I'm vice president of corporate development and product
`marketing.
`Q. You mentioned earlier one of your responsibilities
`relates to licensing; is that correct?
`A. Yes, ma'am.
`
`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
`
`08:58:32
`
`08:58:32
`
`08:58:33
`
`08:58:37
`
`08:58:44
`
`08:58:48
`
`08:58:51
`
`08:58:52
`
`08:58:56
`
`08:59:07
`
`08:59:10
`
`08:59:11
`
`08:59:14
`
`08:59:14
`
`08:59:14
`
`08:59:16
`
`08:59:17
`
`08:59:19
`
`08:59:21
`
`08:59:23
`
`08:59:26
`
`08:59:26
`
`08:59:30
`
`08:59:33
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 21 of 140 PageID #: 64418
`1084
`
`Q. Okay. And that's been true since you started at
`VirnetX since -- in, I think, 2005?
`A. It's -- it's been awhile. That sounds right, yes,
`ma'am. About 2005, I'm -- I'm trying to remember exactly,
`but, yeah, I think that's right. And I've had that
`responsibility from the very beginning I started with this
`company.
`Q. Are there any patents in VirnetX's portfolio that
`VirnetX considers to be its key patents?
`A. Yes, ma'am.
`Q. Which patents are those?
`A. Every single one.
`Q. Okay. So VirnetX doesn't place more importance on one
`patent or another?
`A. No, ma'am.
`Q. All of VirnetX's patents are equally important, fair?
`A. Yes, ma'am, they're all -- it's the whole portfolio.
`They're all -- they're all related to a key set of
`innovations that we've done, and -- and they are our life
`and blood. So -- so -- so, no, every single one in that
`portfolio is very important.
`(Videoclip ends.)
`MS. HEFFERNAN: Good morning, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MS. HEFFERNAN: Apple calls its next witness,
`
`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
`
`08:59:34
`
`08:59:37
`
`08:59:39
`
`08:59:46
`
`08:59:50
`
`08:59:53
`
`08:59:55
`
`08:59:56
`
`09:00:00
`
`09:00:03
`
`09:00:07
`
`09:00:08
`
`09:00:10
`
`09:00:19
`
`09:00:20
`
`09:00:21
`
`09:00:24
`
`09:00:30
`
`09:00:34
`
`09:00:39
`
`09:00:43
`
`09:00:44
`
`09:00:58
`
`09:01:01
`
`09:01:02
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 22 of 140 PageID #: 64419
`1085
`
`Mr. Christopher Bakewell.
`THE COURT: Mr. Bakewell, if you'll come around
`and be sworn, please. Yes, thank you. That's good.
`(Witness sworn.)
`THE COURT: Have a seat.
`THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`CHRIS BAKEWELL, DEFENDANT'S WITNESS, SWORN
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. HEFFERNAN:
`Q. Good morning, Mr. Bakewell.
`A. Good morning.
`Q. Would you please introduce yourself to the jury?
`A. Yes. Hi, good morning. My name is Chris Bakewell.
`Q. Where have you been throughout this entire trial? Have
`you been in this courtroom?
`A. I have not been in this courtroom. There's an axillary
`courtroom down the hallway -- I think you all might have
`seen it -- and there's a video monitor set up, and I've
`been watching the trial there.
`Q. What are you here to testify about today?
`A. I'm here to testify about a reasonable royalty. I
`think we've heard a little bit about that -- at least I saw
`that my name has been mentioned a few times.
`Q. And what are your opinions in this case about what a
`reasonable royalty should be?
`
`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
`
`09:01:05
`
`09:01:20
`
`09:01:22
`
`09:01:27
`
`09:01:35
`
`09:01:36
`
`09:01:43
`
`09:01:43
`
`09:01:49
`
`09:01:50
`
`09:01:55
`
`09:01:59
`
`09:02:03
`
`09:02:04
`
`09:02:08
`
`09:02:12
`
`09:02:16
`
`09:02:17
`
`09:02:19
`
`09:02:24
`
`09:02:28
`
`09:02:30
`
`09:02:32
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 995 Filed 11/02/20 Page 23 of 140 PageID #: 64420
`1086
`
`A. Well, it's my opinion that a reasonable royalty is no
`more than 19 cents per unit, and that totals $113.7 --
`$113.7 million at a maximum.
`Q. Now, before we get into how you arrived at your
`opinions, could you tell the jury a little bit about
`yourself?
`A. Sure. So I am from Houston. I have three kids. I've
`been married for over 25 years. My kids are grown up and
`either at college or moved off.
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
