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 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

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?