Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 323

MOTION to Amend/Correct the Procedural Schedule by Apple, Inc.. Responses due by 5/4/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Mark G. Davis, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Supplement Notice of Filing Under Seal, # 10 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion to Amend Procedural Schedule)(Pace, Christopher)

EXHIBIT A

1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 10-23580-CV-SCOLA

2
3

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

Friday, March 9th, 2012
9:47 a.m.
Miami, Florida

6

APPLE INC.,

7

Defendant.
-----------------------------APPLE INC.,

8
9

Pages 1 - 41

Counterclaim Plaintiff,
vs.

10
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
11
Counterclaim Defendant.
12
13
14
15

TRANSCRIPT OF TECHNOLOGY/LEGAL TUTORIALS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19

APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:

Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq.
David A. Perlson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

20
21
22
23
24

Marshall M. Searcy, III, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Edward M. Mullins, Esq.
ASTIGARRAGE DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, FL 33131

25
STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED, COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPT

2

1

For the Defendant:

2

Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

3
Robert T. Haslam, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

4
5
6

Christine S. Haskett, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

7
8

Jill J. Ho, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

9
10
11

Christopher R.J. Pace, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131

12
13

Wendy Anna Herby, Esq.
APPLE, INC.
1 Infinite Loop #36-3NYJ
Cupertino, CA 95014

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Reported By:

Judith M. Wolff, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
400 N. Miami Avenue, Room 8N09
Miami, FL 33128
[phone]
[e-mail]

3

1

(Court was called to order.)

2
3

THE COURT:
seated.

Good morning, everybody.

I know we're early, but is everybody here?

4

MR. POWERS:

5

THE COURT:

6

Welcome, be

We are, Your Honor.
All right, so this is Motorola versus

Apple.

7

Do you need their appearances, again, Judy?

8

MR. MULLINS:

9

THE COURT:

10
11
12
13

Edward Mullins of Astigarrage Davis --

No, we don't need them.

That will save

us 15 minutes right there.
Okay.

So we're -- well, first of all, have you

resolved the issue relating to the emergency motion to compel?
MR. POWERS:

Not fully, Your Honor, the parties have

14

met and conferred.

Our suggestion to the Court is that we

15

allow that process to continue over the next few days.

16

expect it to be productive.

17

will be able to withdraw the motion if the witnesses are made

18

available and that process is continuing, we think in a

19

productive way.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. POWERS:

22

THE COURT:

Okay.

We

Our hope, obviously, is that we

So just hold off on that for now?

Correct.
Okay.

All right.

So the next one is

23

Motorola's motion to amend the procedural schedule to serve

24

supplemental invalidity contentions.

25

MR. POWERS:

Before we begin that, Your Honor, one

4

1

quick housekeeping matter related to yesterday, if we could.

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. POWERS:

Yes.
We have a flash drive that has -- there

4

was numerous binders that were given to you yesterday that are

5

bulky, but useful obviously, in hard copy.

6

were presented were videos or animations.

7

drive that has all of the information presented to you

8

yesterday, including the animation and videos that don't

9

appear obviously, in the hard copy.

Some of those that
We have a flash

Could we hand that up?

10

THE COURT:

11

Do you want the opportunity to do the same thing,

12
13

Sure.

Mr. Verhoeven?
MR. VERHOEVEN:

We could do that as well, Your Honor,

14

I don't have it right here but we could deliver that to the

15

court, we'd also request a copy of whatever it is that

16

Mr. Powers has on that flash drive for our records as well.

17

MR. POWERS:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. POWERS:

20

THE COURT:

Of course.
Okay.

All right.

So let me hear -- yes?

Who do you wish to go first, Your Honor?
Well, it's their motion so I assume

21

they're going to go first.

22

that I agree and don't need to say anything.

23

MR. POWERS:

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. SEARCY:

Unless you're going to tell me

In that case, they should go first.
Okay.
Good morning, Your Honor.

Marshall

5

1

Searcy for Motorola, let me give you a roadmap of what I'll be

2

covering during my oral argument today.

3

First, I'll begin with the issue of prejudice.

4

Namely, the fact that there is a lack of prejudice.

5

prejudice to Apple if our motion is granted.

6

be extreme prejudice to Motorola and the process, the Court

7

and the jury, if Motorola isn't allowed to supplement its

8

references in this case, the prior art invalidity contention.

9

Next, I'll discuss efficiency.

No

And there will

Amending the

10

procedural schedule is the most efficient way to deal with the

11

issues that are raised by these new prior art references.

12

Third, I'll get into Motorola's diligence.

13

Specifically I'll contrast Motorola's diligence in trying to

14

supplement its invalidity contentions with Apple's own claim,

15

carefully-worded statement about its lack of knowledge that it

16

didn't know anything about the references involved here.

17
18
19

And before I begin with that, though, there is a
housekeeping issue that relates directly to this motion.
Apple has dropped its '646 and '116 patents.

Those

20

are the display space patents so we didn't hear a tutorial

21

about them yesterday and the issues that are raised in the

22

motion to amend the procedural schedule are now mooted about

23

that, those are the issues that related to plug and play and

24

the representations made at the prior tutorial.

25

moot in light of them dropping the patents.

Those are now

6

1

So what we're down to now, Your Honor, are two sets

2

of references.

One is the Neonode reference, the publication,

3

and the phone.

And those are items that Mr. Verhoeven showed

4

you yesterday during the tutorial.

5

patent, that goes to set-top box issues.

6

owned by a company called Rovi.

7

And the other is the '185
And that's a patent

So Your Honor, now turning to the issue of prejudice,

8

and we are talking about these two sets of references, Apple

9

isn't prejudiced by us supplementing our invalidity

10

contentions to include those two references.

11

A deposition of Neonode is currently, tentatively

12

scheduled for March 19.

13

ask questions about that reference.

14

seek the information that they claim to be looking for.

15

So Apple will have the opportunity to
To get discovery.

And to

Apple subpoenaed the company Rovi on January 23,

16

2012.

That was attached as Exhibit R to the reply in this

17

case.

And in that subpoena, Apple specifically asks Rovi

18

about the '185 patent that we're seeking to supplement our

19

invalidity contentions with.

20

So they've had the opportunity and will have --

21

THE COURT:

22
23
24
25

The subpoena or they actually spoke to

them?
MR. SEARCY:

They've subpoenaed them.

It's my

understanding -THE COURT:

They took a deposition or they -- I mean,

7

1
2

-MR. SEARCY:

That they are currently in negotiations

3

for a deposition with Rovi.

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. SEARCY:

6

THE COURT:

8

MR. SEARCY:

10

That they have been meeting and

conferring with counsel for Rovi on that.

7

9

Okay.

Okay.
And I believe that they are currently

seeking to take a deposition of Rovi pursuant to that
subpoena.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. SEARCY:

Okay.
Okay.

So Apple has had and will have

13

the opportunity to take discovery with regard to these

14

supplemental references.

15

discovery will be even more present now that the Court has

16

agreed to extend the discovery schedule and the parties have

17

agreed to that.

18
19

And that opportunity to take

So they'll have the opportunity to get the discovery
that they say they couldn't otherwise get on these references.

20

So they can't show prejudice.

21

On the other hand, as we saw yesterday during the

22

tutorial, these are very important references, very important

23

pieces of prior art that go to the validity of the patents

24

that Apple has raised here.

25

And certainly the video, the Neonode phone that we

8

1

showed you yesterday, that's something that a jury should be

2

allowed to see.

3

allowed to consider in determining the issues in this case.

4

So there will be a prejudice to Motorola, prejudice to the

5

jury and even to the Court in not being able to consider all

6

of the prior art that is critical to the patents that are

7

being considered in this case.

8
9
10

That's something that the Court should be

On balance, the prejudice falls far in favor of
Motorola.

Motorola would be extremely prejudiced if the

schedule is not amended.

11

Now I want to talk to you about efficiency, because

12

that's another reason why these references, the Neonode and

13

the '185 patent references that I've been describing,

14

shouldn't be excluded.

15

These references raises issues -- they raise issues

16

that will have to be tried.

That will have to be considered

17

by a court.

18

litigation, should Apple decide to raise these same patents in

19

the second litigation that's currently before the Court.

20

It might be considered in a separate action for

They might be considered in the second

21

declaratory relief that might be necessary if these references

22

are excluded.

23

important issues that relate to these patents have to be

24

decided.

25

But somehow, these prior art issues, these

The most efficient place to decide that, Your Honor,

9

1

is here, in front of this Court, where these issues will be

2

tried to a jury, and where they can all be considered and

3

where they'll, as we've discussed, will have been complete

4

discovery on that.

5
6
7

So it makes sense to get rid of these issues, to
resolve these issues now.
Now turning to the issue of diligence.

In their

8

opposition, Apple says two things.

First they say that we

9

should have known about these Neonode references.

Yet at the

10

same time they say, in very carefully worded statements, turn

11

to page 3, turn to page 4 of their opposition, they make

12

statements like, there was no evidence that Apple had been in

13

possession of Juels or Neonode prior to the June 20, 2011

14

deadline for invalidity contentions.

15

They say on page 4, Motorola points to no evidence

16

that anyone at Apple was aware of those references during the

17

relevant time frame.

18

THE COURT:

What does that mean?

They're not saying

19

nobody at Apple knew about it, they're saying you haven't

20

produced any evidence yet that anybody at Apple knew about it.

21

MR. SEARCY:

It's very carefully worded, Your Honor.

22

And the reason why it's carefully worded is because it flies

23

in the face of a lot of things we know.

24

were in litigation with Samsung in the Dutch Court and that's

25

where the Neonode reference appeared and that's where the

We know that they

10

1

Dutch court held that this Neonode reference may invalidate

2

the slide-to-unlock patent.

3

We know from discovery that was taken recently that

4

Apple submitted what's called an "information disclosure

5

statement."

6

slide-to-unlock patent application.

7

who is an attorney for Apple, included a reference to a

8

Neonode manual and included that, with that a citation to a

9

website, ebookspdf.com, gadget/2818/neonode N1m manual.

10

That was submitted in connection with the '849
And in it, Robert Beyer,

So all of this is to show that if there's a -- sort

11

of harkening back to the point of prejudice, if there's

12

prejudice here, it's because Apple didn't produce something

13

that they knew or should have known about and that was, in

14

fact, requested for production.

15

But it also goes, Your Honor, to the issue of

16

Motorola's own prejudice.

17

taking Apple's statements in their brief at face value, that

18

there's no evidence that they knew about it.

19

indicate to the Court that they didn't know about it, it

20

certainly wouldn't be fair to expect that Motorola would

21

somehow know about it.

22

You know, even assuming, even

Trying to

And that goes to one of the issues, one of the points

23

that's raised in the Amerson case.

When you're talking about

24

a search for prior art, Your Honor, you're talking about a

25

worldwide search, looking for prior art, the references to

11

1

patents that are brought up in patent litigation.

2

And certainly if you look to the disclosures that

3

were provided in this case, Your Honor, they're diligently

4

provided.

5

they're extensive, and in light of that with Apple saying they

6

don't know about this Neonode reference, they certainly can't

7

claim that we weren't diligent, considering our position, in

8

us not knowing about it.

9

They contain analysis, they contain claim charts,

As to the issue of the '185 patent, that's the Rovi

10

patent that goes to set-top box issues, if you look to the

11

face of the Rovi patent, that patent actually was filed after

12

the three Apple interactive programming guide patents that are

13

at issue in this case.

14

patent, it's the set-top box that's actually an interactive

15

programming like that.

And part, earlier I described the '185

16

So someone looking at that information, the face of

17

the patent, and we saw the -- how the face of patents looked

18

yesterday at the tutorial, with the filing date on it.

19

wouldn't know from the face of it that that was prior art.

20

You

It's only afterwards when we actually dug into the

21

file history, that's all the documents that went back and

22

forth between the PTO, you know, a file about that thick, that

23

we found this declaration from the inventors claiming that

24

they had invented the inventions in the Rovi patent first.

25

And thus should have priority over these Apple patents.

12

1

So we were diligent in locating it.

Diligent in

2

finding it and now we've brought it to the Court's attention

3

so that it can be tried in this case.

4

issues can be decided, as they should be on these patents.

5

So that all of the

So in sum, Your Honor, there's no prejudice to Apple.

6

We've acted diligently.

The most efficient way to deal with

7

this prior art, to deal with these issues is to deal with them

8

before this Court and have a full and fair hearing on these

9

issues in front of the jury.

10

THE COURT:

And the only disruption, if any, would be

11

that one deposition is already scheduled for the 19th and the

12

other one is in the works and there's no other delays that

13

this would cause.

14

MR. SEARCY:

That's correct, Your Honor, because the

15

subpoena, the other one that I referenced, that subpoena was

16

issued back in January.

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. SEARCY:

19

THE COURT:

20

So that is in the works.

Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor.
All right.

Who's going to make the

preparation on behalf of Apple?

21

MR. POWERS:

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. POWERS:

I will, Your Honor.
All right.

Mr. Powers.

The starting place obviously, in any

24

motion, is to consider who has the burden of proof and what it

25

is.

The burden of proof in this case, under all the case law

13

1

is clear.

It is on Motorola.

2

establish diligence -- not generally, but specifically with

3

respect to the items that Motorola seeks to add.

4

So let's --

5

THE COURT:

And the initial burden is to

Let me go back to the beginning, because

6

in their first motion in front of Judge Ungaro, they suggest

7

that when the validity contentions were first scheduled, that

8

there was an understanding that those were preliminary.

9

it seems -- they seem to, in the motion, that all the parties

And

10

had kind of moved forward with that assumption until Judge

11

Ungaro said no, I didn't say that they were preliminary and

12

I'm not extending my deadline.

13

So were there any discussions between or among the

14

lawyers concerning whether these were preliminary or final

15

invalidity contentions?

16

MR. POWERS:

I don't believe so, Your Honor.

And I

17

think what Motorola said was a slightly different version of

18

what you said.

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. POWERS:

Okay.
I think what Motorola said was not that

21

the parties had an explicit understanding which they shared

22

with each other that they were preliminary, but that both

23

sides put caveats into their contentions saying the word

24

"preliminary" and saying we hope to have the right to amend

25

them.

14

1

THE COURT:

2

Okay.

MR. POWERS:

So, and that difference, I think is an

3

important difference.

4

operating under that assumption.

5

communications of the sort that you described.

6

THE COURT:

7

MR. POWERS:

It's not as if both of us were
I'm not aware of any

Okay.
And the fact, the mere fact that a

8

lawyer puts into, whether it's us or them, a statement that

9

it's preliminary, we have the right to add, doesn't change the

10

fact that it is or is not preliminary based on the Court's

11

rules.

12

And in this case, Judge Ungaro's rule, I think in

13

fairness, was fairly clear it was not preliminary and Judge

14

Ungaro thought there was no ambiguity about that question.

15

To the extent that there's an argument that the

16

parties had explicitly or sub silentio interpreted that order

17

in a way and operated under that understanding, I don't think

18

that's fair.

19

Back to the burden of proof, the Southern Grout case

20

in the Eleventh Circuit and all the other cases in other

21

courts that have similar rules and similar processes make

22

quite clear it is Motorola that bears the burden of proof on

23

this issue.

24
25

That's not an accidental thing.

The reason for this

sequence of events that is laid out in patent cases is that

15

1

every statement -- and I was one of the people who wrote the

2

local rules for the Northern District of California.

3

a very conscious sequence of events that take place because

4

subsequent events use prior events.

5

parties make decisions based on what happens previously.

6

There's

And everything -- and the

And that sequence, if upset, goes directly to the

7

prejudice question.

There is, in fact -- I don't want to jump

8

to the prejudice issue yet because that's a separate question

9

of burden of proof -- but the prejudice is inherent in the

10

sequence.

11

place in terms of contentions and then Markman hearings and

12

expert reports and all of that is because people rely on

13

what's said in those positions in making decisions for

14

subsequent actions.

15

The logic of the sequence of the events that take

So the prejudice isn't just that we have to go take

16

another deposition.

We're all big boys and girls, we can go

17

take another deposition.

18

prejudice is the logic inherent in the way the system is set

19

up by which everyone does rely on what's said before.

20

really the prejudice issue.

That's not the prejudice.

The

That's

21

But let's move back to the burden of proof.

22

burden of proof under all the case law is that Motorola has to

23

show it was diligent.

24

the prime reference that they wanted to show you and it's one

25

they showed you yesterday.

Let's start with Neonode.

The

Neonode is

16

1

Let's talk a little bit about what Neonode is first

2

so we know what we're talking about, and then I want to talk

3

about the lack of diligence.

4

They showed you a video.

What they didn't show you

5

is that video was dated 2007.

6

application.

7

What they showed you was a 2007 video.

8
9
10

The video's irrelevant.

Meaningless.

evidence is a device, a physical Neonode device.

If that

device was not sold in the United States prior to -THE COURT:

12

MR. POWERS:

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. POWERS:

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. POWERS:

17

THE COURT:

19

It's not prior art.

Now, what they also say they want to get into

11

18

Two years after the

What is the date of -December 2005 is the prior date -Is the Apple -Is the Apple date.
12/05.
The filing date of the '849 patent.
When did Neonode get their patent?

Wasn't it like in 2002?
MR. POWERS:

Well, no, no, no.

We don't know the

20

answer to that question but there is -- what we know is the

21

video that they showed you, is 2007, two years later.

22

know is that the --

23

MS. HO:

Isn't Neonode suing Apple now?

24

MR. POWERS:

No.

25

THE COURT:

Okay.

Not that I'm aware of.

What we

17

1

MR. POWERS:

There's three things they're trying to

2

get into evidence.

Let's talk about this specifically because

3

Neonode isn't just a thing in the air.

4

things.

5

doesn't matter.

One's the video.

6

There's three specific

That's 2007, two years late,

Second is a physical device, a physical Neonode

7

phone.

Now, a physical Neonode phone under the rules is prior

8

art only if it was sold in the United States more than a year

9

before 2005.

10

Well, there's zero evidence of that and I, based on

11

what I've seen, I don't think it was.

12

evidence of that.

13

the physical device is not prior art either.

14

undated.

15

there are very specific rules under Section 102 about what

16

constitutes prior art.

17

Now, maybe they have

If so, they haven't showed it to us.

But

Obviously, it's

We don't know what the date of that device is.

But

If you sell something in Finland, that may very well

18

not be prior art in the United States.

19

specific rules that they have not even attempted to satisfy as

20

to whether any of this is prior art.

21

And there's highly

The third reference, the third piece of Neonode is a

22

user's guide.

23

request is completely undated.

24

that's prior art.

25

The user's guide that they submitted with their
So we have no idea whether

So at the moment they've submitted to you three

18

1

things which they seek to add as prior art, as to which there

2

is zero foundation that any of it is prior art at all.

3

sort of sends the prejudice argument out the window until they

4

can actually prove its prior art.

5

video doesn't even come close.

6

Which

And showing you a 2007

But the diligence argument is worse than that.

The

7

diligence argument in this case is -- is amazing.

The first

8

thing you do, when you're a defendant on a patent, and a

9

patent is asserted against you, the very first thing you do

10

after reading the patent, is you read its file history.

11

patent litigator knows that.

12

Any

You read the file history and you read the file

13

history for a variety of reasons.

14

prior art.

15

One of which is to look for

In the file history of the '849 patent in suit in

16

this case, our patent lawyer disclosed a Neonode user guide.

17

So their idea or their argument that they couldn't have found

18

it assumes they didn't do the first thing that any competent

19

patent litigator does, which is read the file history of the

20

very patent that's asserted against you.

21

Had they read that, they would have said, oh,

22

Neonode, all right, let's go find out what we know about

23

Neonode.

24
25

That's what diligent patent litigators do.
If you see something cited as prior art or potential

prior art, you go find out more about it.

19

1

They obviously didn't do that.

So whatever else they

2

did in ginning up these thousands of pages of things that they

3

gave to the Court, that's not diligence as to Neonode.

4

Neonode, all they had to do was read the very file history of

5

the patent that was asserted against them.

6

that satisfies a diligence requirement means there is no

7

diligence requirement.

8

jurisdictionally on this motion.

9
10

As to

Now, to say that

Yet that is the requirement

And I completely understand the pragmatism that
underlies the Court's comments yesterday and today.

11

But at some point, at some point a line has to be

12

drawn.

13

at the very end of the case after all sorts of decisions have

14

been made, after all sorts of processes occurred on something

15

so basic.

16

an obscure database that wasn't available until recently.

17

they had to do was do the first thing that any competent

18

patent litigator does.

19

We can't just keep throwing things in over the transom

This isn't something where they had to go search in

And they didn't.

And that isn't diligence.

All

That

20

doesn't justify upsetting a carefully crafted schedule that

21

would prejudice Apple because of the carefully crafted

22

schedule.

23

THE COURT:

So I'm going to grant or deny their

24

motion, and in the United States or at least in the Southern

25

District of Florida, you're going to, let's say, go for it,

20

1

you're going to win, okay.

2

other countries, okay.

3

they're going to show that Neonode had its patent in 19 --

4

2002 and it's prior art and the lawyers raise it in that case,

5

so now you're going to have inconsistent verdicts in different

6

countries.

MR. POWERS:

8

THE COURT:

I understand Your Honor's point.
I mean a trial, like the -- ultimately a

search for the truth about what really happened here?

10
11

And they're going to win because

You know, I mean, isn't --

7

9

And there's this litigation in

MR. POWERS:

Why --

A trial is certainly a search for the

truth.

12

There's two strands to the point Your Honor's asking.

13

One strand is that the rules are different in different

14

countries.

15

not prior art in the United States, the rules are different in

16

other jurisdictions.

17

What is prior art in the United States and what is

So you heard yesterday a reference to Neonode being

18

the basis for a preliminary possible recommendation in

19

validity, Neonode is a European company.

20

So perhaps things that aren't prior art in the United

21

States which has territorial limits on certain aspects of

22

prior art don't apply in a European court based on a European

23

product.

24

jurisdiction on that particular issue.

25

inconsistent results, was resulting from inconsistent or

I don't know the rules there for that particular
But the fact of

21

1

different rules --

2

THE COURT:

Yeah, but I don't have any control to

3

change the rules of Sweden or Germany or the Netherlands,

4

okay.

5

MR. POWERS:

6

THE COURT:

Understood.
I do have control to make sure that

7

whatever decision is made in our courts is based upon all the

8

facts that are available within reason, so that we don't have

9

inconsistent -- I mean, our world is getting smaller and I

10

can't imagine Apple wants to, you know, win in one country and

11

lose in another -- I don't know why they want to be going

12

around the world -- I don't know, maybe the lawyers do, but I

13

can't imagine Apple and Motorola want to have a hundred

14

litigations.

15

I'm sure at some point they want to know who's right

16

about this and who's wrong and let's move on.

17

you know, some procedural issue that doesn't really resolve

18

who's right and wrong, okay, I just don't know that that

19

serves anybody's interest.

20

MR. POWERS:

And to have,

I hear your point, Your Honor, and that

21

is the pragmatism I was referring to earlier.

22

there is a lot of common sense appeal to a pragmatic approach.

23

And certainly

My point was that as -- as you noted in your last

24

comment, within reason.

25

has to bend to process.

There is a point at which pragmatism

22

1

THE COURT:

2

MR. POWERS:

3

THE COURT:

Right.
Process does matter.
So what are you going to have to do if I

4

grant their motion, that you wouldn't have had to do if I deny

5

it?

6

MR. POWERS:

If you grant their motion, the discovery

7

is going to be far beyond what was just discussed in terms of

8

a deposition or two.

9

THE COURT:

10

Okay.

MR. POWERS:

So for example, if the '185 patent comes

11

in, we'll have to go depose those inventors.

12

amount of discovery required -- let's be clear what the issue

13

was that they're now going to claim.

14

There's a -- the

On the '185 patent as he admitted, the '185 patent on

15

its face isn't prior art.

16

prove based on what those inventors actually did.

17

fact, the '185 invention was made sufficiently earlier, and

18

there's a whole body of law about burdens of proof and

19

corroboration, that type of analysis is an incredibly

20

fact-intensive analysis.

21

They're going to have to try to
That, in

We're talking many depositions, we're talking many --

22

extensive document reviews.

23

with that issue because it's a separate question.

24
25

Probably another expert to deal

So all of that hasn't been done because no one knew
it needed to be done.

23

1

And that's not just a single deposition of somebody,

2

to ask them what they did.

3

When you're swearing behind a date, the procedural rules on

4

corroborating an attempt to get behind your effective filing

5

date require a very exacting analysis of the evidence and a

6

very exacting analysis -- not just depositions of the

7

inventors because the inventors can't corroborate the earlier

8

invention.

9

That's a very intensive analysis.

The rule is, and it makes sense, the rule is that if

10

an inventor is trying to say I actually get an earlier date

11

than that effective date that's shown on the patent, that

12

requires corroboration by someone other than an inventor.

13

Because otherwise the inventor could just say it.

14

--

15
16

THE COURT:

And there's

Is that when the inventor is one of the

parties, though?

17

MR. POWERS:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. POWERS:

No, no -Even when he's not the party.
On '185, all inventors are going to be

20

third parties.

So we're talking about depositions of all the

21

inventors and anybody that gets put up as a third party

22

corroborator and anybody that even -- that isn't put up as a

23

third party corroborator because they may put up person one

24

who will attempt to corroborate but persons two, three and

25

four were also working with that team and their testimony may

24

1

be quite different.

2
3

So that is just a mare's nest of stuff.
deposition.

Not even --

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. POWERS:

6

THE COURT:

7

What's a "mare's nest"?
It's a mess.
I looked up genericize.

So you're one for one.

8

MR. POWERS:

9

THE COURT:

10

MR. POWERS:

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. POWERS:

That is a word.

So what is that, M-A-R-E?

M-A-R-E.
Like a horse's nest.
Exactly.

It's a mess.

A mare's nest.

going to look that up.

13

Not a single

Never heard of that.

I'm

Go ahead.

So the amount of discovery and -- it's

14

not just one round of discovery.

15

question.

16

person.

17

That is a big complicated

That is not resolvable by going to talk to one

Now, Neonode, all sorts of discovery has to happen

18

about whether something was sold or not sold.

19

can't just walk into a court with a physical device and say

20

here it is.

21

about whether that thing is prior art or not.

22

prior art only under very specific conditions so we have to go

23

establish that.

24
25

I mean, you

Section 102 says there's elaborate specific rules

THE COURT:

That thing is

Tell me what -- wasn't the Neonode

brought up in some other litigation involving Apple?

25

1
2

MR. POWERS:
reference --

3

THE COURT:

4

MR. POWERS:

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. POWERS:

7

THE COURT:

8

My understanding is that the Neonode

Right.
Was raised in a European litigation.
Involving Apple.
Involving Apple.
Okay.

I know you're not there, but Apple

was there.

9

MR. POWERS:

10

THE COURT:

Apple was there.
So wouldn't they be doing, the same

11

things you say have to be done, wouldn't that have been done

12

in that case?

13

MR. POWERS:

Well, I don't know but probably not

14

because that's in Europe.

And the rules are different.

You

15

don't have to show sales in the United States in Europe to

16

make it prior art.

I'm fairly confident of that.

17

THE COURT:

Do they have depositions in Europe?

18

MR. POWERS:

I don't know -- I believe that

19

litigation was in the Hague, and the Hague, there typically

20

are no depositions.

21

don't really get discovery.

22

record, typically.

23

had no discovery at all.

24
25

So the rules are quite different.

You

That -- it's based on a paper

I've done two trials in the Hague and we

And so the idea that this has all been done and we
can wrap it up in a bow and move it over here, that is not

26

1

true.

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. POWERS:

Okay.
Not only because they don't really have

4

discovery there, but also because the issues are different.

5

What's prior art there isn't prior art here.

6

things have to be proved.

7

And so different

And so all of that becomes a substantial -- and we're

8

talking about -- we have a summary judgment date in this case

9

of May 18 and an October trial date and we're talking about

10

opening up two large, new questions that aren't going to get

11

resolved with a single deposition sometime in the next --

12
13

THE COURT:

How long do you think that's going to

take?

14

MR. POWERS:

I don't know.

The short answer is, I

15

don't know, because you have to do the first wave of discovery

16

and see what that produces.

17

alone, even if it's third parties and third parties scattered

18

all over who knows where, that's at least a month just to go

19

find them and do it.

20

to arrange in a very prompt time.

21
22

I do know that the '185 discovery

And third parties are obviously harder

And sometimes they're hard to find.
idea.

23

So we have no

That process has just started.
There's initial discussions about the Rovi

24

deposition, that's true.

25

case.

That's not in connection with this

That was in connection with case number two, as I

27

1

understand it.

2

But, that's just the first step.

3

And then the question is all of that -- and I do

4

appreciate Your Honor's point that there's a tension between

5

process and substance and merit.

6

completely.

7

I appreciate that

I get that.

We're up against the very end of a schedule.

8

literally, summary judgment's in May.

9

created as we speak.

Expert reports being

All of that would be thrown out if we go

10

down this path.

11

complete this process under that schedule.

12

I mean,

All of it, because there's no way we can
Zero chance.

And then the question is, why would we turn that

13

completely upside down when the requester was so obviously not

14

satisfying the diligence requirement the cases impose?

15

they had to do was read the file history.

16

All

That's it.

And so obviously it's Your Honor's decision, but if

17

we were six months from trial, I would see the point.

18

months from summary judgment, rather.

19

Six

there was --

Or something where

20

THE COURT:

I think we are six months from trial.

21

MR. POWERS:

Yes, we are six months from trial.

22

THE COURT:

23
24
25

Seven months from trial.

Your vocabulary

is better than your math.
MR. POWERS:

Okay.

Okay.

But we are in the midst of

right now doing all the expert reports, having the SJ process.

28

1

None of that would then be able to go forward.

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. POWERS:

Okay.
And it just -- it doesn't make sense to

4

me, obviously it's your decision, it doesn't make sense to me

5

to break all of that in a situation where the diligence

6

requirement that is required is so obviously blatantly not

7

met.

8

THE COURT:

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

9

I'll give you a chance for a brief response.

10

MR. SEARCY:

Thank you, Your Honor.

11

So, Your Honor, first of all we heard a discussion

12

from Mr. Powers about how you have to rely on what's been said

13

before.

14

discovery on things that they knew about.

15

what they said to us and they didn't provide us with the

16

discovery that they were supposed to provide.

17

And here, we're relying on Apple to provide us with
We're relying on

So when you talk about the burden of proof and you

18

talk about diligence, that's where you start.

19

about reliance on what's been said before, Apple didn't

20

provide what they were supposed to provide.

21

When you talk

In discussing the Neonode reference, his second

22

point, what Mr. Powers did is he actually attacked the merits

23

of the reference.

24

the U.S.

25

itself is a prior publication, which is prior art.

He claimed that the phone wasn't sold in

He ignored the fact that the Neonode reference
And then

29

1

he said well, there's no evidence that the phone is sold in

2

the U.S.

3

Well, these are infringement -- or these are

4

invalidity contentions, Your Honor.

That's why you have

5

discovery.

6

Neonode and you find out what attempts they made to sell that

7

phone in the U.S.

8

reference.

9

have the contentions, to get these things out there so that

You go, you ask the questions of the folks at

You find out what happened with the

That's why you have the discovery, that's why you

10

everybody can do it.

11

right now.

12

That's the process that's taking place

As to his third point, and this one was maybe the

13

most interesting, he admitted to you that Apple knew about a

14

Neonode reference and submitted it in its file history on the

15

application for the slide-to-unlock patent.

16

Apple's attorney knew about this, and knew about -- in the

17

file history and Apple knew about it, then they should have

18

submitted this reference to us in discovery, they didn't do

19

that until we asked for it once we found out about the Dutch

20

litigation.

21

And obviously if

And obviously, if Apple knew about this Neonode

22

reference, Your Honor, they can't really be prejudiced now by

23

having to litigate it.

24

basically takes away any of their arguments of prejudice.

25

he raised some other issues and we'll get to that in a second.

So what he's admitted to you, it
But

30

1

Your Honor, you raised the issue of inconsistent

2

judgments and Apple doesn't have an answer for that.

3

we know that Apple is seeking right now a preliminary

4

injunction on this slide-to-unlock patent against another

5

party, Samsung, in the Northern District of California.

6

So these issues are going to be out there.

In fact,

And there

7

needs to be a chance for consistent judgments and for the

8

opportunity for the Court in this case, for the jury in this

9

case to hear all the facts.

10

issues.

11

To get to the bottom of the

And that's what we're seeking to do here.
With the issue of discovery, Your Honor, first of

12

all, Mr. Powers told you something that was incorrect.

13

think it was a mistake on his part.

He told you that Rovi had

14

been subpoenaed in a different case.

Again, Exhibit R to our

15

reply brief is a subpoena that was issued by Apple on January

16

23, by Weil Gotshal, the Weil Gotshal firm, and included on

17

the service list is Mr. Powers, that's on page 2 of Exhibit R,

18

if the Court wishes to look at that.

19

I

THE COURT:

And that was in a 2010 case, not the 2012

21

MR. SEARCY:

No, Your Honor, that was in this case.

22

THE COURT:

The 2010 case.

23

MR. SEARCY:

That's right.

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. SEARCY:

20

case.

Okay.
And Your Honor, with regard to the

31

1

discovery that Apple claims that they need, we didn't hear any

2

specifics.

3

other things that might potential -- that the expert schedule

4

will have to change.

5

But we didn't hear any specifics because what we're talking

6

about here are two depositions that are scheduled to take

7

place and where they'll have the opportunity ask these

8

questions concerning the prior art.

9

We heard a lot of -- of a parade of horribles and

There might have to be a new expert.

And if from that Apple decides that they need to take

10

additional depositions, they'll have the opportunity to do

11

that.

12

schedule.

13

That certainly doesn't require changing the expert's

But in addition to that, maybe even more importantly,

14

Mr. Powers was talking about the '185 patent, and with that

15

patent, that's the patent to Rovi, he said that they'd have to

16

show that the inventors came up with the idea first, that

17

there would be intensive documents that would have to be

18

reviewed for that.

19

Well, Your Honor, that's all our problem.

20

ones, as Motorola, who have to show that this is prior art.

21

Who would have to show that this '185 patent which has a

22

filing date after these three Apple patents, should actually

23

be considered to be prior art.

24
25

So we'd have to make that showing.
us.

Not on Apple.

We're the

The burden is on

That's a burden that, if we choose to, we

32

1

can take on and we'll get it done within the discovery period.

2

So the burden again, is on us.

3

here.

4

all the facts of the case decided.

5

There's no prejudice to Apple

There's extreme prejudice to Motorola and to getting

Your Honor, in the end, the procedural schedule

6

should be amended and these few references should be allowed

7

to be supplemented in Motorola's invalidity contentions.

8

Thank you.

9

THE COURT:

All right.

Thank you.

All right, I'll

10

take this matter under advisement, I'll get the order out in

11

the next couple of days.

12

Yes?

13

MR. POWERS:

14

Your Honor, may I have just 30 seconds

to respond to one new point that he had made?

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. POWERS:

Okay.
Just 30 seconds.

First, counsel is

17

right that Rovi was served in this case, I was wrong about

18

that.

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. POWERS:

Okay.
But counsel said twice that we didn't

21

give them the discovery on these references.

And that's just

22

not true.

23

argument about we had carefully worded declarations, et

24

cetera, they put in two declarations which could have

25

satisfied their diligence requirement.

Because he's insinuating and this is part of his

They spoke to none of

33

1

it.

They had two.

An original and a reply.

2

Our point in our declaration was the prior art in the

3

Netherlands, the Hague case, which is now what they're seeking

4

to add, was not cited, as we understand it, until an August 3

5

prior art filing.

6

So their argument was, we should have produced it to

7

them before June 20 which is the deadline for the prior art

8

contentions.

9

because it wasn't cited in the Netherlands until August 3.

10

Our point is, we didn't have it before June 20

The one thing we did have which was what we submitted

11

in the patent office, we did produce to them.

So they could

12

have either read that as part of reading the file history

13

which every patent litigator does, or reading what we produced

14

to them.

Apparently they did neither.

15

Thank you.

16

THE COURT:

17

So I'm going to take this matter under advisement,

All right.

Thank you.

18

I'll get the order out in the next couple days.

19

going to let me know in the next couple of days if the other

20

emergency motion to compel needs my attention.

21
22

You all are

Are there any other matters we can take up this
morning?

23

MR. POWERS:

Not from us, Your Honor.

24

MR. VERHOEVEN:

25

THE COURT:

No, Your Honor.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll be in recess on

34

1
2

this case, then.

All right.

(Court recessed at 10:29 a.m.)

3
4

* * *

5
6

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
from the record of proceedings in the above matter.

7
8

Date:

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

s/ JUDITH M. WOLFF, CERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTER
Signature of Court Reporter

'
'116 [1] 5/19
'185 [13] 6/4 6/18 8/13 11/9 11/13
22/10 22/14 22/14 22/17 23/19 26/16
31/14 31/21
'646 [1] 5/19
'849 [3] 10/5 16/16 18/15

0
05 [1] 16/15

1
10-23580-CV-SCOLA [1] 1/2
102 [2] 17/15 24/20
10:29 [1] 34/2
10th [1] 1/21
12/05 [1] 16/15
1200 [1] 2/12
1395 [1] 2/12
15 [1] 3/10
15th [1] 34/8
16th [1] 1/24
18 [1] 26/9
19 [2] 6/12 20/3
19th [1] 12/11

2
20 [3] 9/13 33/7 33/8
2002 [2] 16/18 20/4
2005 [2] 16/12 17/9
2007 [5] 16/5 16/7 16/21 17/4 18/4
201 [2] 2/2 2/9
2010 [2] 30/19 30/22
2011 [1] 9/13
2012 [4] 1/4 6/16 30/19 34/8
22nd [1] 1/19
23 [2] 6/15 30/16

3
30 [2] 32/13 32/16
305 [1] 2/21
33128 [1] 2/20
33131 [2] 1/24 2/12
333 [1] 2/4
36-3NYJ [1] 2/14
3NYJ [1] 2/14

4
400 [1] 2/20
41 [1] 1/7

5
50 [1] 1/19
523-5294 [1] 2/21
5294 [1] 2/21

7
700 [1] 2/4
701 [1] 1/24

8
865 [1] 1/21
8N09 [1] 2/20

9
90017 [1] 1/22
94065 [3] 2/2 2/5 2/10
94111 [2] 1/19 2/7
95014 [1] 2/15
9:47 [1] 1/5
9th [1] 1/4

A
a.m [2] 1/5 34/2

able [3] 3/17 8/5 28/1
about [52]
above [1] 34/6
accidental [1] 14/24
acted [1] 12/6
action [1] 8/20
actions [1] 15/14
actually [9] 6/21 11/11 11/14 11/20
18/4 22/16 23/10 28/22 31/22
add [4] 13/3 14/9 18/1 33/4
addition [1] 31/13
additional [1] 31/10
admitted [3] 22/14 29/13 29/23
advisement [2] 32/10 33/17
after [6] 11/11 16/5 18/10 19/13 19/14
31/22
afterwards [1] 11/20
again [3] 3/7 30/14 32/2
against [5] 18/9 18/20 19/5 27/7 30/4
agree [1] 4/22
agreed [2] 7/16 7/17
ahead [1] 24/12
air [1] 17/3
all [50]
allow [1] 3/15
allowed [4] 5/7 8/2 8/3 32/6
alone [1] 26/17
already [1] 12/11
also [5] 4/15 10/15 16/8 23/25 26/4
amazing [1] 18/7
ambiguity [1] 14/14
amend [3] 3/23 5/22 13/24
amended [2] 8/10 32/6
Amending [1] 5/9
Amerson [1] 10/23
among [1] 13/13
amount [2] 22/12 24/13
analysis [6] 11/4 22/19 22/20 23/2 23/5
23/6
Angeles [1] 1/22
animation [1] 4/8
animations [1] 4/6
Anna [1] 2/13
another [6] 8/12 15/16 15/17 21/11
22/22 30/4
answer [3] 16/20 26/14 30/2
any [15] 9/20 12/10 12/23 13/13 14/4
17/20 18/2 18/10 18/18 19/17 21/2
29/24 31/1 31/5 33/21
anybody [3] 9/20 23/21 23/22
anybody's [1] 21/19
anyone [1] 9/16
anything [2] 4/22 5/16
Apparently [1] 33/14
appeal [1] 21/22
appear [1] 4/9
appearances [2] 1/17 3/7
appeared [1] 9/25
APPLE [50]
Apple's [3] 5/14 10/17 29/16
application [3] 10/6 16/6 29/15
apply [1] 20/22
appreciate [2] 27/4 27/5
approach [1] 21/22
are [40]
aren't [2] 20/20 26/10
argument [8] 5/2 14/15 18/3 18/6 18/7
18/17 32/23 33/6
arguments [1] 29/24
around [1] 21/12
arrange [1] 26/20
art [40]
ask [4] 6/13 23/2 29/5 31/7
asked [1] 29/19
asking [1] 20/12

asks [1] 6/17
aspects [1] 20/21
asserted [3] 18/9 18/20 19/5
assume [1] 4/20
assumes [1] 18/18
assuming [1] 10/16
assumption [2] 13/10 14/4
ASTIGARRAGE [2] 1/23 3/8
attached [1] 6/16
attacked [1] 28/22
attempt [2] 23/4 23/24
attempted [1] 17/19
attempts [1] 29/6
attention [2] 12/2 33/20
attorney [2] 10/7 29/16
August [2] 33/4 33/9
available [3] 3/18 19/16 21/8
Avenue [3] 1/24 2/12 2/20
aware [3] 9/16 14/4 16/24
away [1] 29/24

B
back [6] 10/11 11/21 12/16 13/5 14/19
15/21
balance [1] 8/8
based [7] 14/10 15/5 17/10 20/22 21/7
22/16 25/21
basic [1] 19/15
basically [1] 29/24
basis [1] 20/18
be [50]
bears [1] 14/22
because [24] 8/11 9/22 10/12 12/14
13/5 15/3 15/8 15/12 17/2 19/21 20/2
22/23 22/24 23/7 23/13 23/23 25/14
26/3 26/4 26/15 27/10 31/5 32/22 33/9
becomes [1] 26/7
been [11] 7/5 8/13 9/3 9/12 19/14
22/24 25/11 25/24 28/12 28/19 30/14
before [11] 1/14 3/25 5/17 8/19 12/8
15/19 17/9 28/13 28/19 33/7 33/8
begin [3] 3/25 5/3 5/17
beginning [1] 13/5
behalf [1] 12/20
behind [2] 23/3 23/4
being [4] 8/5 8/7 20/17 27/8
believe [3] 7/8 13/16 25/18
bend [1] 21/25
better [1] 27/23
between [3] 11/22 13/13 27/4
Beyer [1] 10/6
beyond [1] 22/7
big [2] 15/16 24/14
binders [1] 4/4
bit [1] 16/1
blatantly [1] 28/6
body [1] 22/18
both [2] 13/22 14/3
bottom [1] 30/9
bow [1] 25/25
box [3] 6/5 11/10 11/14
boys [1] 15/16
break [1] 28/5
Brickell [2] 1/24 2/12
brief [3] 10/17 28/9 30/15
brought [3] 11/1 12/2 24/25
bulky [1] 4/5
burden [12] 12/24 12/25 13/1 14/19
14/22 15/9 15/21 15/22 28/17 31/24
31/25 32/2
burdens [1] 22/18
BURLING [2] 2/4 2/6

C
CA [7] 1/19 1/22 2/2 2/5 2/7 2/10 2/15

continuing [1] 3/18
contrast [1] 5/13
California [3] 1/19 15/2 30/5
control [2] 21/2 21/6
called [3] 3/1 6/6 10/4
copy [3] 4/5 4/9 4/15
came [1] 31/16
correct [3] 3/21 12/14 34/5
can [10] 9/2 12/3 12/4 15/16 18/4
corroborate [2] 23/7 23/24
corroborating [1] 23/4
25/25 27/10 29/10 32/1 33/21
can't [8] 7/20 11/6 19/12 21/10 21/13 corroboration [2] 22/19 23/12
corroborator [2] 23/22 23/23
23/7 24/19 29/22
carefully [7] 5/15 9/10 9/21 9/22 19/20 could [7] 4/1 4/9 4/13 4/14 23/13 32/24
19/21 32/23
33/11
carefully-worded [1] 5/15
couldn't [2] 7/19 18/17
case [34] 1/2 4/23 5/8 6/17 8/3 8/7
counsel [3] 7/6 32/16 32/20
Counterclaim [2] 1/9 1/11
10/23 11/3 11/13 12/3 12/25 12/25
countries [3] 20/2 20/6 20/14
14/12 14/19 15/22 18/7 18/16 19/13
20/4 25/12 26/8 26/25 26/25 30/8 30/9 country [1] 21/10
couple [3] 32/11 33/18 33/19
30/14 30/19 30/20 30/21 30/22 32/4
course [1] 4/17
32/17 33/3 34/1
cases [3] 14/20 14/25 27/14
court [23] 1/1 2/19 3/1 3/14 4/15 5/6
cause [1] 12/13
7/15 8/2 8/5 8/17 8/19 9/1 9/24 10/1
caveats [1] 13/23
10/19 12/8 19/3 20/22 24/19 30/8
certain [1] 20/21
30/18 34/2 34/10
certainly [7] 7/25 10/20 11/2 11/6
Court's [3] 12/2 14/10 19/10
courts [2] 14/21 21/7
20/10 21/21 31/11
CERTIFIED [1] 34/10
covering [1] 5/2
certify [1] 34/5
COVINGTON [2] 2/4 2/6
cetera [1] 32/24
crafted [2] 19/20 19/21
chance [3] 27/11 28/9 30/7
created [1] 27/9
change [3] 14/9 21/3 31/4
critical [1] 8/6
changing [1] 31/11
CRR [1] 2/19
Charles [1] 1/17
Cupertino [1] 2/15
charts [1] 11/4
currently [4] 6/11 7/2 7/8 8/19
choose [1] 31/25
CV [1] 1/2
Christine [1] 2/6
D
Christopher [1] 2/11
database [1] 19/16
Circuit [1] 14/20
date [14] 11/18 16/11 16/12 16/14
citation [1] 10/8
cited [3] 18/24 33/4 33/9
16/16 17/14 23/3 23/5 23/10 23/11
claim [5] 5/14 6/14 11/4 11/7 22/13
26/8 26/9 31/22 34/8
dated [1] 16/5
claimed [1] 28/23
David [1] 1/18
claiming [1] 11/23
DAVIS [2] 1/23 3/8
claims [1] 31/1
days [4] 3/15 32/11 33/18 33/19
clear [4] 13/1 14/13 14/22 22/12
deadline [3] 9/14 13/12 33/7
close [1] 18/5
deal [5] 5/10 12/6 12/7 12/7 22/22
come [1] 18/5
December [1] 16/12
comes [1] 22/10
decide [2] 8/18 8/25
comment [1] 21/24
decided [3] 8/24 12/4 32/4
comments [1] 19/10
decides [1] 31/9
common [1] 21/22
decision [3] 21/7 27/16 28/4
communications [1] 14/5
decisions [3] 15/5 15/13 19/13
company [3] 6/6 6/15 20/19
declaration [2] 11/23 33/2
compel [2] 3/12 33/20
declarations [2] 32/23 32/24
competent [2] 18/18 19/17
declaratory [1] 8/21
complete [2] 9/3 27/11
completely [4] 17/23 19/9 27/6 27/13 defendant [4] 1/7 1/11 2/1 18/8
delays [1] 12/12
complicated [1] 24/14
deliver [1] 4/14
concerning [2] 13/14 31/8
deny [2] 19/23 22/4
conditions [1] 24/22
depose [1] 22/11
conferred [1] 3/14
deposition [12] 6/11 6/25 7/3 7/9 12/11
conferring [1] 7/6
confident [1] 25/16
15/16 15/17 22/8 23/1 24/3 26/11
connection [3] 10/5 26/24 26/25
26/24
depositions [7] 22/21 23/6 23/20 25/17
conscious [1] 15/3
consider [3] 8/3 8/5 12/24
25/20 31/6 31/10
considered [6] 8/7 8/16 8/17 8/20 9/2 described [2] 11/13 14/5
describing [1] 8/13
31/23
determining [1] 8/3
considering [1] 11/7
device [7] 16/9 16/9 16/10 17/6 17/13
consistent [1] 30/7
constitutes [1] 17/16
17/14 24/19
did [8] 16/17 19/2 22/16 23/2 28/22
contain [2] 11/4 11/4
contention [1] 5/8
33/10 33/11 33/14
didn't [16] 5/16 5/20 10/12 10/19 13/11
contentions [13] 3/24 5/14 6/10 6/19
9/14 13/7 13/15 13/23 15/11 29/4 29/9 16/4 18/18 19/1 19/19 28/15 28/19
29/18 31/1 31/5 32/20 33/8
32/7 33/8
difference [2] 14/2 14/3
continue [1] 3/15

C

different [12] 13/17 20/5 20/13 20/13
20/15 21/1 24/1 25/14 25/20 26/4 26/5
30/14
diligence [15] 5/12 5/13 9/7 13/2 16/3
18/6 18/7 19/3 19/6 19/7 19/19 27/14
28/5 28/18 32/25
diligent [5] 11/7 12/1 12/1 15/23 18/23
diligently [2] 11/3 12/6
directly [2] 5/18 15/6
disclosed [1] 18/16
disclosure [1] 10/4
disclosures [1] 11/2
discovery [26] 6/13 7/13 7/15 7/16 7/18
9/4 10/3 22/6 22/12 24/13 24/14 24/17
25/21 25/23 26/4 26/15 26/16 28/14
28/16 29/5 29/8 29/18 30/11 31/1 32/1
32/21
discuss [1] 5/9
discussed [2] 9/3 22/7
discussing [1] 28/21
discussion [1] 28/11
discussions [2] 13/13 26/23
display [1] 5/20
disruption [1] 12/10
DISTRICT [6] 1/1 1/1 1/15 15/2 19/25
30/5
do [28] 3/7 4/11 4/11 4/13 4/19 18/8
18/9 18/18 18/23 19/1 19/4 19/17
19/17 21/6 21/12 22/3 22/4 25/17
26/12 26/15 26/16 26/19 27/3 27/15
29/10 29/18 30/10 31/10
document [1] 22/22
documents [2] 11/21 31/17
does [6] 9/18 15/19 18/19 19/18 22/2
33/13
doesn't [9] 14/9 17/5 18/5 19/20 21/17
28/3 28/4 30/2 31/11
doing [2] 25/10 27/25
Dolphin [1] 2/4
don't [25] 3/9 4/8 4/14 4/22 11/6 13/16
14/17 15/7 16/19 17/11 17/14 20/22
20/23 21/2 21/8 21/11 21/12 21/18
25/13 25/15 25/18 25/21 26/3 26/14
26/15
done [7] 22/24 22/25 25/11 25/11
25/22 25/24 32/1
down [3] 6/1 27/10 27/13
drawn [1] 19/12
drive [4] 2/4 4/3 4/7 4/16
dropped [1] 5/19
dropping [1] 5/25
dug [1] 11/20
during [4] 5/2 6/4 7/21 9/16
Dutch [3] 9/24 10/1 29/19

E
each [1] 13/22
earlier [5] 11/13 21/21 22/17 23/7
23/10
early [1] 3/3
ebookspdf.com [1] 10/9
Edward [2] 1/23 3/8
effective [2] 23/4 23/11
efficiency [2] 5/9 8/11
efficient [3] 5/10 8/25 12/6
either [2] 17/13 33/12
elaborate [1] 24/20
Eleventh [1] 14/20
else [1] 19/1
EMANUEL [2] 1/18 1/21
emergency [2] 3/12 33/20
end [3] 19/13 27/7 32/5
Esq [10] 1/17 1/18 1/20 1/23 2/1 2/3
2/6 2/8 2/11 2/13
establish [2] 13/2 24/23

his [4] 28/21 29/12 30/13 32/22
history [11] 11/21 18/10 18/12 18/13
et [1] 32/23
18/15 18/19 19/4 27/15 29/14 29/17
Europe [3] 25/14 25/15 25/17
33/12
European [4] 20/19 20/22 20/22 25/4
Ho [1] 2/8
even [11] 7/15 8/5 10/16 10/16 17/19
hold [1] 3/20
Honor [32] 3/4 3/13 3/25 4/13 4/19
18/5 23/18 23/22 24/3 26/17 31/13
events [5] 14/25 15/3 15/4 15/4 15/10 G
4/25 6/1 6/7 8/25 9/21 10/15 10/24
every [2] 15/1 33/13
gadget [1] 10/9
11/3 12/5 12/14 12/18 12/21 13/16
everybody [3] 3/2 3/3 29/10
gadget/2818/neonode [1] 10/9
21/20 28/10 28/11 29/4 29/22 30/1
everyone [1] 15/19
gave [1] 19/3
30/11 30/21 30/25 31/19 32/5 32/13
everything [1] 15/4
generally [1] 13/2
33/23 33/24
evidence [10] 9/12 9/15 9/20 10/18
genericize [1] 24/6
Honor's [4] 20/7 20/12 27/4 27/16
Germany [1] 21/3
HONORABLE [1] 1/14
16/9 17/2 17/10 17/12 23/5 29/1
exacting [2] 23/5 23/6
get [19] 5/12 6/13 7/18 7/19 9/5 16/8
hope [2] 3/16 13/24
Exactly [1] 24/10
horribles [1] 31/2
16/17 17/2 23/4 23/10 25/21 26/10
example [1] 22/10
27/6 29/9 29/25 30/9 32/1 32/10 33/18 horse's [1] 24/9
excluded [2] 8/14 8/22
gets [1] 23/21
housekeeping [2] 4/1 5/18
Exhibit [3] 6/16 30/14 30/17
getting [2] 21/9 32/3
how [3] 11/17 26/12 28/12
expect [2] 3/16 10/20
ginning [1] 19/2
hundred [1] 21/13
expert [6] 15/12 22/22 27/8 27/25 31/3 girls [1] 15/16
I
give [3] 5/1 28/9 32/21
31/4
expert's [1] 31/11
given [1] 4/4
I'll [9] 5/1 5/3 5/9 5/12 5/13 28/9 32/9
explicit [1] 13/21
go [18] 4/19 4/21 4/23 7/23 13/5 15/15 32/10 33/18
explicitly [1] 14/16
15/16 18/22 18/25 19/15 19/25 22/11 I'm [8] 13/12 14/4 16/24 19/23 21/15
extend [1] 7/16
24/12 24/22 26/18 27/9 28/1 29/5
24/11 25/16 33/17
extending [1] 13/12
goes [5] 6/5 10/15 10/22 11/10 15/6
I've [3] 8/13 17/11 25/22
extensive [2] 11/5 22/22
going [22] 4/21 4/21 12/19 19/23 19/25 idea [5] 17/23 18/17 25/24 26/22 31/16
extent [1] 14/15
ignored [1] 28/24
20/1 20/2 20/3 20/5 21/11 22/3 22/7
extreme [2] 5/6 32/3
22/13 22/15 23/19 24/12 24/15 26/10 III [1] 1/20
extremely [1] 8/9
imagine [2] 21/10 21/13
26/12 30/6 33/17 33/19
Good [2] 3/2 4/25
important [4] 7/22 7/22 8/23 14/3
F
GOTSHAL [4] 2/9 2/11 30/16 30/16
importantly [1] 31/13
face [7] 9/23 10/17 11/11 11/16 11/17 grant [3] 19/23 22/4 22/6
impose [1] 27/14
granted [1] 5/5
INC [5] 1/3 1/6 1/8 1/10 2/14
11/19 22/15
fact [11] 5/4 10/14 14/7 14/7 14/10
GROSSMAN [1] 1/23
include [1] 6/10
GROUP [1] 2/1
included [3] 10/7 10/8 30/16
15/7 20/24 22/17 22/20 28/24 30/2
fact-intensive [1] 22/20
including [1] 4/8
Grout [1] 14/19
facts [3] 21/8 30/9 32/4
inconsistent [5] 20/5 20/25 20/25 21/9
guide [4] 11/12 17/22 17/22 18/16
fair [3] 10/20 12/8 14/18
30/1
H
fairly [2] 14/13 25/16
incorrect [1] 30/12
fairness [1] 14/13
had [19] 6/20 7/12 9/12 11/24 13/10
incredibly [1] 22/19
falls [1] 8/8
indicate [1] 10/19
13/21 14/16 18/21 19/4 19/15 19/17
far [2] 8/8 22/7
Infinite [1] 2/14
20/3 22/4 25/23 27/15 30/13 32/14
favor [1] 8/8
information [4] 4/7 6/14 10/4 11/16
32/23 33/1
few [2] 3/15 32/6
Hague [4] 25/19 25/19 25/22 33/3
infringement [1] 29/3
Figueroa [1] 1/21
hand [2] 4/9 7/21
inherent [2] 15/9 15/18
file [12] 11/21 11/22 18/10 18/12 18/12 happen [1] 24/17
initial [2] 13/1 26/23
happened [2] 20/9 29/7
injunction [1] 30/4
18/15 18/19 19/4 27/15 29/14 29/17
happens [1] 15/5
insinuating [1] 32/22
33/12
filed [1] 11/11
hard [3] 4/5 4/9 26/21
intensive [3] 22/20 23/2 31/17
filing [5] 11/18 16/16 23/4 31/22 33/5 harder [1] 26/19
interactive [2] 11/12 11/14
final [1] 13/14
harkening [1] 10/11
interest [1] 21/19
find [6] 18/22 18/25 26/19 26/21 29/6 has [16] 4/3 4/7 4/16 5/19 7/12 7/15
interesting [1] 29/13
interpreted [1] 14/16
29/7
7/24 12/24 15/22 19/11 20/21 21/25
finding [1] 12/2
invalidate [1] 10/1
24/17 25/24 26/22 31/21
Finland [1] 17/17
Haskett [1] 2/6
invalidity [9] 3/24 5/8 5/14 6/9 6/19
firm [1] 30/16
Haslam [1] 2/3
9/14 13/15 29/4 32/7
first [20] 3/11 4/19 4/21 4/23 5/3 9/8
hasn't [1] 22/24
invented [1] 11/24
invention [2] 22/17 23/8
11/24 13/6 13/7 16/1 18/7 18/9 18/18 have [70]
haven't [2] 9/19 17/12
inventions [1] 11/24
19/17 26/15 27/2 28/11 30/11 31/16
having [2] 27/25 29/23
inventor [4] 23/10 23/12 23/13 23/15
32/16
FL [3] 1/24 2/12 2/20
he [10] 22/14 28/22 28/23 28/24 29/1 inventors [8] 11/23 22/11 22/16 23/7
flash [3] 4/3 4/6 4/16
29/13 29/25 30/13 31/15 32/14
23/7 23/19 23/21 31/16
flies [1] 9/22
he's [3] 23/18 29/23 32/22
involved [1] 5/16
Floor [3] 1/19 1/21 1/24
hear [6] 4/18 5/20 21/20 30/9 31/1 31/5 involving [3] 24/25 25/5 25/6
FLORIDA [3] 1/1 1/5 19/25
heard [4] 20/17 24/11 28/11 31/2
irrelevant [1] 16/6
hearing [1] 12/8
flsd.uscourts.gov [1] 2/21
is [121]
hearings [1] 15/11
folks [1] 29/5
isn't [11] 5/7 6/9 15/15 16/23 17/3
held [1] 10/1
foregoing [1] 34/5
19/15 19/19 20/6 22/15 23/22 26/5
Herby [1] 2/13
forth [1] 11/22
issue [17] 3/12 5/3 5/18 6/7 9/7 10/15
here [14] 3/3 4/14 5/16 7/24 9/1 10/12 11/9 11/13 14/23 15/8 15/20 20/24
forward [2] 13/10 28/1
found [3] 11/23 18/17 29/19
20/9 24/20 25/25 26/5 28/13 30/10
21/17 22/12 22/23 30/1 30/11
foundation [1] 18/2
issued [2] 12/16 30/15
31/6 32/3
highly [1] 17/18
four [1] 23/25
issues [21] 5/11 5/21 5/23 6/5 8/3 8/15

E

frame [1] 9/17
Francisco [2] 1/19 2/7
Friday [1] 1/4
front [4] 2/7 9/1 12/9 13/6
full [1] 12/8
fully [1] 3/13

literally [1] 27/8
litigate [1] 29/23
issues... [15] 8/15 8/22 8/23 9/1 9/5 9/6 litigation [9] 8/18 8/19 9/24 11/1 20/1
10/22 11/10 12/4 12/7 12/9 26/4 29/25 24/25 25/4 25/19 29/20
litigations [1] 21/14
30/6 30/10
it [66]
litigator [4] 18/11 18/19 19/18 33/13
it's [22] 4/20 6/23 9/21 9/22 10/12
litigators [1] 18/23
11/14 11/20 14/3 14/8 14/9 15/24 16/6 little [1] 16/1
LLP [7] 1/18 1/21 2/1 2/4 2/6 2/9 2/11
17/13 20/4 22/23 24/5 24/10 24/13
local [1] 15/2
25/21 26/17 27/16 28/4
items [2] 6/3 13/3
locating [1] 12/1
its [9] 5/7 5/14 5/15 5/19 18/4 18/10
logic [2] 15/10 15/18
long [1] 26/12
20/3 22/15 29/14
itself [1] 28/25
look [5] 11/2 11/10 18/13 24/12 30/18
looked [2] 11/17 24/6
J
looking [3] 6/14 10/25 11/16
January [3] 6/15 12/16 30/15
Loop [1] 2/14
Jill [1] 2/8
Los [1] 1/22
JR [1] 1/14
lose [1] 21/11
JUDGE [5] 1/15 13/6 13/10 14/12
lot [3] 9/23 21/22 31/2
14/13
M
judgment [2] 26/8 27/18
judgment's [1] 27/8
M-A-R-E [2] 24/7 24/8
judgments [2] 30/2 30/7
made [7] 3/17 5/24 19/14 21/7 22/17
Judith [2] 2/19 34/10
29/6 32/14
judy [2] 2/21 3/7
make [9] 9/11 12/19 14/21 15/5 21/6
Juels [1] 9/13
25/16 28/3 28/4 31/24
jump [1] 15/7
makes [2] 9/5 23/9
June [3] 9/13 33/7 33/8
making [1] 15/13
jurisdiction [1] 20/24
MANGES [2] 2/9 2/11
jurisdictionally [1] 19/8
manual [2] 10/8 10/9
jurisdictions [1] 20/16
many [2] 22/21 22/21
jury [6] 5/7 8/1 8/5 9/2 12/9 30/8
March [3] 1/4 6/12 34/8
just [19] 3/20 15/15 17/3 19/12 21/18 mare's [3] 24/2 24/4 24/11
22/7 23/1 23/6 23/13 24/2 24/14 24/19 Markman [1] 15/11
Marshall [2] 1/20 4/25
26/18 26/22 27/2 28/3 32/13 32/16
math [1] 27/23
32/21
justify [1] 19/20
matter [6] 4/1 17/5 22/2 32/10 33/17
34/6
K
matters [1] 33/21
keep [1] 19/12
Matthew [1] 2/1
kind [1] 13/10
may [7] 10/1 17/17 23/23 23/25 26/9
knew [11] 9/19 9/20 10/13 10/18 22/24 27/8 32/13
28/14 29/13 29/16 29/16 29/17 29/21 maybe [4] 17/11 21/12 29/12 31/13
know [33] 3/3 5/16 9/23 9/23 10/3
me [8] 4/18 4/21 5/1 13/5 24/24 28/4
10/16 10/19 10/21 11/6 11/19 11/22
28/4 33/19
mean [7] 6/25 9/18 20/6 20/8 21/9
16/2 16/19 16/20 16/22 17/14 18/22
20/6 20/23 21/10 21/11 21/12 21/15
24/18 27/7
Meaningless [1] 16/7
21/17 21/18 25/7 25/13 25/18 26/14
means [1] 19/6
26/15 26/16 30/3 33/19
knowing [1] 11/8
meeting [1] 7/5
knowledge [1] 5/15
mere [1] 14/7
known [2] 9/9 10/13
merit [1] 27/5
knows [2] 18/11 26/18
merits [1] 28/22
mess [2] 24/5 24/10
L
met [2] 3/14 28/7
lack [3] 5/4 5/15 16/3
Miami [5] 1/5 1/24 2/12 2/20 2/20
laid [1] 14/25
midst [1] 27/24
large [1] 26/10
might [5] 8/17 8/20 8/21 31/3 31/4
last [1] 21/23
minutes [1] 3/10
late [1] 17/4
mistake [1] 30/13
later [1] 16/21
MOBILITY [2] 1/3 1/10
law [4] 2/1 12/25 15/22 22/18
moment [1] 17/25
lawyer [2] 14/8 18/16
month [1] 26/18
lawyers [3] 13/14 20/4 21/12
months [5] 27/17 27/18 27/20 27/21
least [2] 19/24 26/18
27/22
LEGAL [1] 1/14
moot [1] 5/25
let [4] 4/18 5/1 13/5 33/19
mooted [1] 5/22
let's [9] 13/4 15/21 15/23 16/1 17/2
more [4] 7/15 17/8 18/25 31/13
morning [3] 3/2 4/25 33/22
18/22 19/25 21/16 22/12
light [2] 5/25 11/5
most [4] 5/10 8/25 12/6 29/13
like [5] 9/12 11/15 16/18 20/8 24/9
motion [15] 3/12 3/17 3/23 4/20 5/5
limits [1] 20/21
5/18 5/22 12/24 13/6 13/9 19/8 19/24
line [1] 19/11
22/4 22/6 33/20
list [1] 30/17
MOTOROLA [20] 1/3 1/10 3/5 5/1 5/6

I

5/7 8/4 8/9 8/9 9/15 10/20 13/1 13/3
13/17 13/20 14/22 15/22 21/13 31/20
32/3
Motorola's [5] 3/23 5/12 5/13 10/16
32/7
move [3] 15/21 21/16 25/25
moved [1] 13/10
Mr. [9] 4/12 4/16 6/3 12/22 28/12 28/22
30/12 30/17 31/14
Mr. Powers [7] 4/16 12/22 28/12 28/22
30/12 30/17 31/14
Mr. Verhoeven [2] 4/12 6/3
Mullins [3] 1/23 1/23 3/8
my [6] 5/2 6/23 13/12 21/23 25/1 33/20

N
N1m [1] 10/9
Namely [1] 5/4
necessary [1] 8/21
need [5] 3/7 3/9 4/22 31/1 31/9
needed [1] 22/25
needs [2] 30/7 33/20
negotiations [1] 7/2
neither [1] 33/14
neonode [37]
nest [4] 24/2 24/4 24/9 24/11
Netherlands [3] 21/3 33/3 33/9
Never [1] 24/11
new [4] 5/11 26/10 31/4 32/14
next [7] 3/15 3/22 5/9 26/11 32/11
33/18 33/19
no [27] 1/2 3/9 5/4 9/12 9/15 10/18
12/5 12/12 13/11 14/14 16/19 16/19
16/19 16/24 17/23 19/6 22/24 23/17
23/17 25/20 25/23 26/21 27/10 29/1
30/21 32/2 33/24
nobody [1] 9/19
none [2] 28/1 32/25
Northern [2] 15/2 30/5
not [43]
noted [1] 21/23
now [23] 3/20 5/22 5/24 6/1 6/7 7/15
8/11 9/6 9/7 12/2 16/8 16/23 17/7
17/11 19/5 20/5 22/13 24/17 27/25
29/11 29/22 30/3 33/3
number [1] 26/25
numerous [1] 4/4

O
obscure [1] 19/16
obviously [13] 3/16 4/5 4/9 12/23 17/13
19/1 26/19 27/13 27/16 28/4 28/6
29/15 29/21
occurred [1] 19/14
October [1] 26/9
off [1] 3/20
office [1] 33/11
Official [1] 2/19
oh [1] 18/21
okay [29] 3/11 3/20 3/22 4/18 4/24 7/4
7/7 7/11 7/12 12/17 13/19 14/1 14/6
16/25 20/1 20/2 21/4 21/18 22/9 25/7
26/2 27/24 27/24 28/2 28/8 30/24
32/15 32/19 33/25
once [1] 29/19
one [24] 2/7 3/22 3/25 6/2 10/22 10/22
12/11 12/12 12/15 15/1 15/24 18/13
20/13 21/10 22/24 23/15 23/23 24/7
24/7 24/14 24/15 29/12 32/14 33/10
One's [1] 17/4
ones [1] 31/20
only [5] 11/20 12/10 17/8 24/22 26/3
opening [1] 26/10
operated [1] 14/17
operating [1] 14/4

O
opportunity [9] 4/11 6/12 6/20 7/13
7/14 7/18 30/8 31/7 31/10
opposition [2] 9/8 9/11
oral [1] 5/2
order [4] 3/1 14/16 32/10 33/18
original [1] 33/1
other [16] 6/4 7/21 12/12 12/12 12/15
13/22 14/20 14/20 20/2 20/16 23/12
24/25 29/25 31/3 33/19 33/21
otherwise [2] 7/19 23/13
our [15] 3/14 3/16 4/16 5/5 6/9 6/18
11/7 18/16 21/7 21/9 30/14 31/19 33/2
33/2 33/8
out [12] 14/25 18/3 18/22 18/25 27/9
29/6 29/7 29/9 29/19 30/6 32/10 33/18
own [2] 5/14 10/16
owned [1] 6/6

P
P.A [1] 1/23
Pace [1] 2/11
page [4] 9/11 9/11 9/15 30/17
pages [2] 1/7 19/2
paper [1] 25/21
parade [1] 31/2
Parkway [2] 2/2 2/9
part [4] 11/13 30/13 32/22 33/12
particular [2] 20/23 20/24
parties [11] 3/13 7/16 13/9 13/21 14/16
15/5 23/16 23/20 26/17 26/17 26/19
party [4] 23/18 23/21 23/23 30/5
patent [41]
patents [13] 5/19 5/20 5/25 7/23 8/6
8/18 8/23 11/1 11/12 11/17 11/25 12/4
31/22
path [1] 27/10
people [2] 15/1 15/12
perhaps [1] 20/20
period [1] 32/1
Perlson [1] 1/18
person [2] 23/23 24/16
persons [1] 23/24
phone [7] 6/3 7/25 17/7 17/7 28/23
29/1 29/7
physical [6] 16/9 17/6 17/6 17/7 17/13
24/19
piece [1] 17/21
pieces [1] 7/23
place [6] 8/25 12/23 15/3 15/11 29/10
31/7
Plaintiff [3] 1/4 1/9 1/17
play [1] 5/23
plug [1] 5/23
point [16] 10/11 19/11 19/11 20/7
20/12 21/15 21/20 21/23 21/24 27/4
27/17 28/22 29/12 32/14 33/2 33/8
points [2] 9/15 10/22
position [1] 11/7
positions [1] 15/13
possession [1] 9/13
possible [1] 20/18
potential [2] 18/24 31/3
Powers [8] 2/1 4/16 12/22 28/12 28/22
30/12 30/17 31/14
pragmatic [1] 21/22
pragmatism [3] 19/9 21/21 21/24
prejudice [25] 5/3 5/4 5/5 5/6 6/7 7/20
8/4 8/4 8/8 10/11 10/12 10/16 12/5
15/7 15/8 15/9 15/15 15/17 15/18
15/20 18/3 19/21 29/24 32/2 32/3
prejudiced [3] 6/9 8/9 29/22
preliminary [10] 13/8 13/11 13/14
13/22 13/24 14/9 14/10 14/13 20/18

30/3
preparation [1] 12/20
present [1] 7/15
presented [2] 4/6 4/7
previously [1] 15/5
prime [1] 15/24
prior [46]
priority [1] 11/25
probably [2] 22/22 25/13
problem [1] 31/19
procedural [6] 3/23 5/10 5/22 21/17
23/3 32/5
proceedings [1] 34/6
process [10] 3/15 3/18 5/6 21/25 22/2
26/22 27/5 27/11 27/25 29/10
processes [2] 14/21 19/14
produce [2] 10/12 33/11
produced [3] 9/20 33/6 33/13
produces [1] 26/16
product [1] 20/23
production [1] 10/14
productive [2] 3/16 3/19
programming [2] 11/12 11/15
prompt [1] 26/20
proof [9] 12/24 12/25 14/19 14/22 15/9
15/21 15/22 22/18 28/17
prove [2] 18/4 22/16
proved [1] 26/6
provide [5] 28/13 28/15 28/16 28/20
28/20
provided [2] 11/3 11/4
PTO [1] 11/22
publication [2] 6/2 28/25
pursuant [1] 7/9
put [5] 13/23 23/21 23/22 23/23 32/24
puts [1] 14/8

Q
question [8] 14/14 15/7 15/8 16/20
22/23 24/15 27/3 27/12
questions [4] 6/13 26/10 29/5 31/8
quick [1] 4/1
QUINN [2] 1/18 1/21
quite [3] 14/22 24/1 25/20

R
R.J [1] 2/11
raise [3] 8/15 8/18 20/4
raised [7] 5/11 5/21 7/24 10/23 25/4
29/25 30/1
raises [1] 8/15
rather [1] 27/18
read [8] 18/10 18/12 18/12 18/19 18/21
19/4 27/15 33/12
reading [3] 18/10 33/12 33/13
really [6] 15/20 20/9 21/17 25/21 26/3
29/22
REALTIME [1] 34/10
reason [5] 8/12 9/22 14/24 21/8 21/24
reasons [1] 18/13
recently [2] 10/3 19/16
recess [1] 33/25
recessed [1] 34/2
recommendation [1] 20/18
record [2] 25/22 34/6
records [1] 4/16
Redwood [5] 2/2 2/2 2/5 2/9 2/10
reference [17] 6/2 6/13 9/25 10/1 10/7
11/6 15/24 17/21 20/17 25/2 28/21
28/23 28/24 29/8 29/14 29/18 29/22
referenced [1] 12/15
references [18] 5/8 5/11 5/16 6/2 6/8
6/10 7/14 7/19 7/22 8/12 8/13 8/15
8/21 9/9 9/16 10/25 32/6 32/21
referring [1] 21/21

regard [2] 7/13 30/25
relate [1] 8/23
related [2] 4/1 5/23
relates [1] 5/18
relating [1] 3/12
relevant [1] 9/17
reliance [1] 28/19
relief [1] 8/21
rely [3] 15/12 15/19 28/12
relying [2] 28/13 28/14
reply [3] 6/16 30/15 33/1
Reported [1] 2/19
Reporter [3] 2/19 34/10 34/10
reports [3] 15/12 27/8 27/25
representations [1] 5/24
request [2] 4/15 17/23
requested [1] 10/14
requester [1] 27/13
require [2] 23/5 31/11
required [2] 22/12 28/6
requirement [6] 19/6 19/7 19/7 27/14
28/6 32/25
requires [1] 23/12
resolvable [1] 24/15
resolve [2] 9/6 21/17
resolved [2] 3/12 26/11
respect [1] 13/3
respond [1] 32/14
response [1] 28/9
resulting [1] 20/25
results [1] 20/25
reviewed [1] 31/18
reviews [1] 22/22
rid [1] 9/5
right [24] 3/5 3/10 3/22 4/14 4/18 12/19
12/22 13/24 14/9 18/22 21/15 21/18
22/1 25/3 27/25 28/8 29/11 30/3 30/23
32/9 32/9 32/17 33/16 34/1
roadmap [1] 5/1
ROBERT [3] 1/14 2/3 10/6
Room [1] 2/20
round [1] 24/14
Rovi [13] 6/6 6/15 6/17 7/3 7/6 7/9 11/9
11/11 11/24 26/23 30/13 31/15 32/17
rule [3] 14/12 23/9 23/9
rules [15] 14/11 14/21 15/2 17/7 17/15
17/19 20/13 20/15 20/23 21/1 21/3
23/3 24/20 25/14 25/20

S
said [13] 13/11 13/17 13/18 13/20
15/13 15/19 18/21 28/12 28/15 28/19
29/1 31/15 32/20
sales [1] 25/15
same [4] 4/11 8/18 9/10 25/10
Samsung [2] 9/24 30/5
San [2] 1/19 2/7
satisfied [1] 32/25
satisfies [1] 19/6
satisfy [1] 17/19
satisfying [1] 27/14
save [1] 3/9
saw [2] 7/21 11/17
say [13] 4/22 7/19 9/8 9/10 9/15 13/11
16/8 19/5 19/25 23/10 23/13 24/19
25/11
saying [5] 9/18 9/19 11/5 13/23 13/24
says [2] 9/8 24/20
scattered [1] 26/17
schedule [12] 3/23 5/10 5/22 7/16 8/10
19/20 19/22 27/7 27/11 31/3 31/12
32/5
scheduled [4] 6/12 12/11 13/7 31/6
SCOLA [2] 1/2 1/14
search [5] 10/24 10/25 19/15 20/9

S
search... [1] 20/10
Searcy [2] 1/20 5/1
seated [1] 3/3
second [5] 8/17 8/19 17/6 28/21 29/25
seconds [2] 32/13 32/16
Section [2] 17/15 24/20
see [4] 8/2 18/24 26/16 27/17
seek [2] 6/14 18/1
seeking [5] 6/18 7/9 30/3 30/10 33/3
seeks [1] 13/3
seem [1] 13/9
seems [1] 13/9
seen [1] 17/11
sell [2] 17/17 29/6
sends [1] 18/3
sense [5] 9/5 21/22 23/9 28/3 28/4
separate [3] 8/20 15/8 22/23
sequence [5] 14/25 15/3 15/6 15/10
15/10
serve [1] 3/23
served [1] 32/17
serves [1] 21/19
service [1] 30/17
set [4] 6/5 11/10 11/14 15/18
set-top [3] 6/5 11/10 11/14
sets [2] 6/1 6/8
Seven [1] 27/22
shared [1] 13/21
Shores [5] 2/2 2/2 2/5 2/9 2/10
short [1] 26/14
should [13] 4/23 8/1 8/2 8/18 9/9 10/13
11/25 12/4 29/17 31/22 32/6 32/6 33/6
shouldn't [1] 8/14
show [10] 7/20 10/10 15/23 15/24 16/4
20/3 25/15 31/16 31/20 31/21
showed [7] 6/3 8/1 15/25 16/4 16/7
16/21 17/12
showing [2] 18/4 31/24
shown [1] 23/11
sides [1] 13/23
Signature [1] 34/10
silentio [1] 14/16
similar [2] 14/21 14/21
single [3] 23/1 24/2 26/11
situation [1] 28/5
six [4] 27/17 27/17 27/20 27/21
SJ [1] 27/25
slide [4] 10/2 10/6 29/15 30/4
slide-to-unlock [4] 10/2 10/6 29/15
30/4
slightly [1] 13/17
smaller [1] 21/9
sold [6] 16/10 17/8 24/18 24/18 28/23
29/1
some [7] 4/5 19/11 19/11 21/15 21/17
24/25 29/25
somebody [1] 23/1
somehow [2] 8/22 10/21
someone [2] 11/16 23/12
something [10] 8/1 8/2 10/12 17/17
18/24 19/14 19/15 24/18 27/18 30/12
sometime [1] 26/11
sometimes [1] 26/21
sort [3] 10/10 14/5 18/3
sorts [3] 19/13 19/14 24/17
South [1] 1/21
SOUTHERN [3] 1/1 14/19 19/24
space [1] 5/20
speak [1] 27/9
specific [5] 17/3 17/15 17/19 24/20
24/22
specifically [4] 5/13 6/17 13/2 17/2
specifics [2] 31/2 31/5

there [31] 3/10 4/3 5/4 5/5 5/17 8/4
9/12 13/8 13/13 14/14 15/7 16/20
17/15 18/1 19/6 20/23 21/22 21/24
25/7 25/8 25/9 25/19 26/4 26/5 27/19
29/9 30/6 30/6 31/4 31/17 33/21
there's [23] 10/10 10/11 10/18 12/5
12/12 14/15 15/2 17/1 17/3 17/10
17/18 20/1 20/12 22/11 22/18 23/13
24/20 26/23 27/4 27/10 29/1 32/2 32/3
these [30] 5/11 6/8 7/13 7/19 7/22 8/12
8/15 8/18 8/21 8/22 8/22 8/23 9/1 9/5
9/6 9/9 11/25 12/4 12/7 12/8 13/14
19/2 29/3 29/3 29/9 30/6 31/7 31/22
32/6 32/21
they [82]
they'd [1] 31/15
they'll [4] 7/18 9/3 31/7 31/10
they're [12] 4/21 9/18 9/19 11/3 11/5
17/1 20/2 20/3 22/13 22/15 26/21 33/3
they've [3] 6/20 6/23 17/25
thick [1] 11/22
thing [10] 4/11 14/24 17/3 18/8 18/9
18/18 19/17 24/21 24/21 33/10
things [13] 9/8 9/23 17/1 17/4 18/1
19/2 19/12 20/20 25/11 26/6 28/14
29/9 31/3
think [10] 3/18 13/17 13/20 14/2 14/12
14/17 17/11 26/12 27/20 30/13
third [10] 5/12 17/21 17/21 23/20 23/21
23/23 26/17 26/17 26/19 29/12
this [50]
those [11] 4/5 5/19 5/23 5/24 6/3 6/10
9/16 13/8 15/13 22/11 22/16
though [2] 5/17 23/16
thought [1] 14/14
thousands [1] 19/2
three [6] 11/12 17/1 17/3 17/25 23/24
31/22
throwing [1] 19/12
thrown [1] 27/9
Thursday [1] 34/8
T
thus [1] 11/25
take [14] 7/9 7/13 7/14 15/3 15/10
time [3] 9/10 9/17 26/20
today [2] 5/2 19/10
15/15 15/17 26/13 31/6 31/9 32/1
told [2] 30/12 30/13
32/10 33/17 33/21
taken [1] 10/3
took [1] 6/25
takes [1] 29/24
top [3] 6/5 11/10 11/14
taking [2] 10/17 29/10
transcript [2] 1/14 34/5
talk [8] 8/11 16/1 16/2 17/2 24/15
transom [1] 19/12
trial [7] 20/8 20/10 26/9 27/17 27/20
28/17 28/18 28/18
talking [11] 6/8 10/23 10/24 16/2 22/21 27/21 27/22
trials [1] 25/22
22/21 23/20 26/8 26/9 31/5 31/14
team [1] 23/25
tried [3] 8/16 9/2 12/3
TECHNOLOGY [1] 1/14
true [3] 26/1 26/24 32/22
TECHNOLOGY/LEGAL [1] 1/14
truth [2] 20/9 20/11
tell [2] 4/21 24/24
try [1] 22/15
TENSEGRITY [1] 2/1
trying [4] 5/13 10/18 17/1 23/10
tension [1] 27/4
turn [3] 9/10 9/11 27/12
tentatively [1] 6/11
turning [2] 6/7 9/7
terms [2] 15/11 22/7
tutorial [5] 5/20 5/24 6/4 7/22 11/18
territorial [1] 20/21
TUTORIALS [1] 1/14
testimony [1] 23/25
twice [1] 32/20
than [5] 17/8 18/6 23/11 23/12 27/23
Twin [1] 2/4
Thank [8] 12/18 28/8 28/10 32/8 32/9 two [16] 6/1 6/8 6/10 9/8 16/5 16/21
33/15 33/16 33/25
17/4 20/12 22/8 23/24 25/22 26/10
that [268]
26/25 31/6 32/24 33/1
that's [45]
type [1] 22/19
their [18] 3/7 4/20 9/7 9/11 10/17 13/6 typically [2] 25/19 25/22
13/23 16/17 17/22 18/17 18/17 19/23
U
22/4 22/6 23/25 29/24 32/25 33/6
them [15] 3/9 5/21 5/25 6/22 6/23 12/7 U.S [3] 28/24 29/2 29/7
13/25 14/8 19/5 23/2 26/19 32/21 33/7 ultimately [1] 20/8
undated [2] 17/14 17/23
33/11 33/14
under [10] 12/25 14/4 14/17 15/22 17/7
then [8] 15/11 16/2 27/3 27/12 28/1
28/25 29/17 34/1
17/15 24/22 27/11 32/10 33/17
spoke [2] 6/21 32/25
start [2] 15/23 28/18
started [1] 26/22
starting [1] 12/23
statement [4] 5/15 10/5 14/8 15/1
statements [3] 9/10 9/12 10/17
STATES [11] 1/1 1/15 2/19 16/10 17/8
17/18 19/24 20/14 20/15 20/21 25/15
step [1] 27/2
strand [1] 20/13
strands [1] 20/12
Street [3] 1/19 1/21 2/7
stuff [1] 24/2
sub [1] 14/16
submitted [7] 10/4 10/5 17/22 17/25
29/14 29/18 33/10
subpoena [6] 6/17 6/21 7/10 12/15
12/15 30/15
subpoenaed [3] 6/15 6/23 30/14
subsequent [2] 15/4 15/14
substance [1] 27/5
substantial [1] 26/7
sufficiently [1] 22/17
suggest [1] 13/6
suggestion [1] 3/14
suing [1] 16/23
suit [1] 18/15
Suite [2] 2/4 2/12
SULLIVAN [2] 1/18 1/21
sum [1] 12/5
summary [3] 26/8 27/8 27/18
supplement [3] 5/7 5/14 6/18
supplemental [2] 3/24 7/14
supplemented [1] 32/7
supplementing [1] 6/9
supposed [2] 28/16 28/20
sure [3] 4/10 21/6 21/15
swearing [1] 23/3
Sweden [1] 21/3
system [1] 15/18

U
underlies [1] 19/10
understand [4] 19/9 20/7 27/1 33/4
understanding [5] 6/24 13/8 13/21
14/17 25/1
Understood [1] 21/5
Ungaro [3] 13/6 13/11 14/14
Ungaro's [1] 14/12
UNITED [11] 1/1 1/15 2/19 16/10 17/8
17/18 19/24 20/14 20/15 20/20 25/15
Unless [1] 4/21
unlock [4] 10/2 10/6 29/15 30/4
until [6] 13/10 18/3 19/16 29/19 33/4
33/9
up [15] 4/9 11/1 15/19 19/2 23/21
23/22 23/23 24/6 24/12 24/25 25/25
26/10 27/7 31/16 33/21
upon [1] 21/7
upset [1] 15/6
upsetting [1] 19/20
upside [1] 27/13
URQUHART [2] 1/18 1/21
us [13] 3/10 6/9 11/8 14/3 14/8 17/12
28/13 28/15 28/15 29/18 31/25 32/2
33/23
use [1] 15/4
useful [1] 4/5
user [1] 18/16
user's [2] 17/22 17/22

V
validity [3] 7/23 13/7 20/19
value [1] 10/17
variety [1] 18/13
verdicts [1] 20/5
Verhoeven [3] 1/17 4/12 6/3
version [1] 13/17
versus [1] 3/5
very [17] 7/22 7/22 9/10 9/21 15/3
17/15 17/17 18/9 18/20 19/4 19/13
23/2 23/5 23/6 24/22 26/20 27/7
video [7] 7/25 16/4 16/5 16/7 16/21
17/4 18/5
video's [1] 16/6
videos [2] 4/6 4/8
vocabulary [1] 27/22

W
walk [1] 24/19
want [8] 4/11 8/11 15/7 16/2 16/8
21/11 21/13 21/15
wanted [1] 15/24
wants [1] 21/10
was [55]
wasn't [5] 16/18 19/16 24/24 28/23
33/9
wave [1] 26/15
way [6] 3/19 5/10 12/6 14/17 15/18
27/10
we [71]
we'd [2] 4/15 31/24
we'll [4] 22/11 29/25 32/1 33/25
we're [17] 3/3 3/11 6/1 6/18 15/16 16/2
22/21 22/21 23/20 26/7 26/9 27/7
28/13 28/14 30/10 31/5 31/19
we've [3] 9/3 12/2 12/6
website [1] 10/9
WEIL [4] 2/9 2/11 30/16 30/16
Welcome [1] 3/2
well [11] 3/11 4/13 4/16 4/20 16/19
17/10 17/17 25/13 29/1 29/3 31/19
Wendy [1] 2/13
went [1] 11/21
were [17] 4/4 4/6 4/6 9/24 11/3 12/1

13/7 13/8 13/11 13/13 13/14 13/22
14/3 23/25 27/17 28/16 28/20
weren't [1] 11/7
what [43]
what's [7] 10/4 15/13 15/19 24/4 26/5
28/12 28/19
whatever [3] 4/15 19/1 21/7
when [11] 10/23 11/20 13/7 16/17 18/8
23/3 23/15 23/18 27/13 28/17 28/18
where [11] 9/1 9/2 9/3 9/25 9/25 19/15
26/18 27/18 28/5 28/18 31/7
whether [6] 13/14 14/8 17/20 17/23
24/18 24/21
which [16] 13/21 15/19 18/1 18/1 18/2
18/13 18/19 20/21 21/24 28/25 31/21
32/24 33/3 33/7 33/10 33/13
who [8] 4/19 10/7 12/24 15/1 23/24
26/18 31/20 31/21
who's [4] 12/19 21/15 21/16 21/18
whole [1] 22/18
why [8] 8/12 9/22 20/9 21/11 27/12
29/4 29/8 29/8
will [15] 3/9 3/17 5/5 6/12 6/20 7/12
7/15 8/4 8/16 8/16 9/1 9/3 12/21 23/24
31/4
win [3] 20/1 20/2 21/10
window [1] 18/3
wish [1] 4/19
wishes [1] 30/18
withdraw [1] 3/17
within [3] 21/8 21/24 32/1
witnesses [1] 3/17
wolff [3] 2/19 2/21 34/10
word [2] 13/23 24/6
worded [5] 5/15 9/10 9/21 9/22 32/23
working [1] 23/25
works [2] 12/12 12/16
world [2] 21/9 21/12
worldwide [1] 10/25
worse [1] 18/6
would [13] 8/9 10/20 12/10 12/13
18/21 19/21 27/9 27/12 27/17 28/1
31/17 31/17 31/21
wouldn't [5] 10/20 11/19 22/4 25/10
25/11
wrap [1] 25/25
wrong [3] 21/16 21/18 32/17
wrote [1] 15/1

Y
Yeah [1] 21/2
year [1] 17/8
years [3] 16/5 16/21 17/4
yes [4] 4/2 4/18 27/21 32/12
yesterday [11] 4/1 4/4 4/8 5/21 6/4 7/21
8/1 11/18 15/25 19/10 20/17
yet [4] 9/9 9/20 15/8 19/7
you [77]
you're [10] 4/21 10/23 10/24 18/8
19/25 20/1 20/5 23/3 24/7 25/7
your [42]

Z
zero [3] 17/10 18/2 27/11