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)

EXHIBIT F

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 39
1
2

operating-system independent?
A

This passage does not make reference to

3

operating-system independent.

4

association between an applet and an application

5

module, together with the claim language and the

6

prosecution, the file history, does suggest to me

7

that the applet requires the application module as

8

a, sort of as a context, and that relationship is

9

what one would expect from Java applets or Java-like

10
11

However, the

applets, that interpreted.
Q

Setting aside the claim language and

12

prosecution history, is it correct that there's

13

nothing in this particular passage that indicates

14

operating-system independence?

15
16
17
18

A

Nothing in the passage mentions anything

about being operating-system independent, yes.
Q

Let's take a look at the claim language.

For example, Claim 1 in Column 7, do you see that?

19

A

Yes.

20

Q

The relevant limitation is "Generating a

21

music background play object, wherein the music

22

background play object includes an application

23

module including at least one applet."

24
25

Is there any mention of operating-system
independence here?
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