Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 595

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Samsung's Reply Claim Construction Brief filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Briggs Declaration in Support of Samsung's Reply Claim Construction Brief, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT E HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ---------------------------------x APPLE INC., a California ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) )No. 11-CV-01846LHK SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ) a Korean entity; SAMSUNG ) ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a ) New York corporation; SAMSUNG ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, ) a Delaware limited liability ) Company, ) ) Defendants. ) ---------------------------------x 14 15 16 17 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY GIVARGIS, PH.D. 18 Los Angeles, California 19 Tuesday, December 6, 2011 20 21 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 22 23 Reported by: 24 SUSAN A. SULLIVAN, CSR #3522, RPR, CRR 25 JOB NO. 44330 TSG Reporting 877-702-9580 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 5 1 2 3 MR. SHAH: and representing Apple. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 4 5 Ali Shah, WilmerHale, for the witness Thank you. And will the reporter now swear or affirm the witness. 6 7 TONY GIVARGIS, PH.D., 8 called as a witness, having been duly sworn by 9 the court reporter, was examined and testified 10 as follows: 11 12 EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. MAROULIS: 14 Q 15 today? 16 A Good, thank you. 17 Q My name is Victoria Maroulis and I will be 18 Good morning, Mr. Givargis. How are you asking you some questions today. 19 Have you ever been deposed before? 20 A No. 21 Q In that case let me briefly run you through 22 23 the rules of the deposition. First of all, do you understand that you 24 are testifying today like you would be in a court of 25 law under oath even though we're sitting in a TSG Reporting 877-702-9580 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 40 1 A No. 2 Q Is there anything in this claim that you 3 see that supports your notion of operating-system 4 independence? 5 A What I see in this sentence, passage, is, 6 again, the association between an applet running or 7 an applet that is within an application module and 8 that association to me suggests a Java-like 9 interpreted environment. 10 11 Q Did you review the testimony of the inventor of this patent? 12 A Yes. I reviewed a subset of it. 13 Q Did you see that the inventor who was 14 developing this technology was working with system- 15 dependent applets? 16 A That is correct, yes. 17 Q Which system-dependent applets was he 18 19 20 21 working with, to your understanding? MR. SHAH: If you need to see any documents to refresh your recollection, you can ask. THE WITNESS: Yes. I think this one I can 22 answer without the document, but it was a Qualcomm 23 chipset. 24 25 Q BY MS. MAROULIS: Do you disagree that the technology he was working on is described by Claim TSG Reporting 877-702-9580 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 41 1 1? 2 MR. SHAH: Object to the extent it calls for a 3 legal conclusion. 4 THE WITNESS: 5 6 I have not formed that position yet. Q BY MS. MAROULIS: Do you understand that he 7 was asked during deposition about the embodiments of 8 the patent? 9 10 MR. SHAH: Same objection. THE WITNESS: 11 Q I'm not sure exactly what he was asked. 12 Yes. BY MS. MAROULIS: If the technology that he 13 was working on embodies this claim would you agree 14 with me that the claim includes applets that are 15 also system dependent? 16 MR. SHAH: Same objection. 17 THE WITNESS: Based on -- I recognize that the 18 inventor was working with a system that was 19 OS-dependent, specifically the Qualcom chipset. 20 However, that use of the term "applet" within that 21 context was unusual or it was not consistent with 22 the common understanding of the term "applet" at the 23 time and the '711 patent does not make that 24 distinction clear. 25 Q BY MS. MAROULIS: If the '711 patent does TSG Reporting 877-702-9580 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 42 1 not make a distinction clear between system 2 dependent and system independent, do you agree then 3 that includes both? 4 MR. SHAH: 5 THE WITNESS: Objection to form. It could include, it could be 6 both, but the common understanding again would be 7 that it is consistent with applets as being 8 OS-independent, as being the more likely case. 9 10 11 12 13 Q BY MS. MAROULIS: It is more likely but it is not exclusively so, correct? MR. SHAH: Objection; mischaracterizes his testimony. THE WITNESS: If I were to read this or if 14 somebody who would be familiar with the area were to 15 read this in 2005 it would be assumed or it would be 16 understood for an applet to be an OS-independent 17 applet. 18 Q BY MS. MAROULIS: Would a person reading 19 this in 2005 be aware of applets in other language 20 environments? 21 A 22 MS. MAROULIS: 23 Yes. Okay. We can take a five-minute break. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:54 a.m. and we TSG Reporting 877-702-9580 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 43 1 are off the record. 2 (Recess) 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:59 a.m. and we 4 are back on the record. 5 BY MS. MAROULIS: 6 Q Mr. Givargis, before the break we were 7 discussing the '711 patent. Other than the 8 "specification," quote, we discussed and the coding 9 language, there's no other portion of the '711 10 patent that you are relying on in your declaration, 11 correct? 12 A I believe so, yes. 13 MS. MAROULIS: I would like to now switch to the 14 prosecution history which is Exhibit 5 and, for the 15 record, the document control numbers are 16 SAMNDCA00007840 through 8459. 17 18 19 Q What is your understanding, sir, of what a file history is? A Yes. It has three components, some of it 20 are identifying information or titles of various 21 documents and so on. 22 which is sort of the examiner's rejections and a 23 description of why those rejections are followed by 24 a response to the office action which comes from the 25 applicant in response to the rejections. Then it has another component TSG Reporting 877-702-9580

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?