Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 62

Defendant's MOTION to Change Venue Defendant's Motion to Transfer This Action to the Western District of Washington and Accompanying Memorandum of Law by Microsoft Corporation. Responses due by 6/6/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A David Kaefer's Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to David Kaefer's Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to David Kaefer's Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to David Kaefer's Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit B Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 9 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 10 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 12 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 14 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 15 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 16 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 22 Exhibit Group Exhibit C to Motion, # 23 Exhibit Group Exhibit D to Motion)(Miner, Curtis)

Download PDF
Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 1 of 32 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 10-23580-Civ-UNGARO MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Plaintiff, -vAPPLE, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Miami, Florida ) January 14, 2011 ) 11:18 a.m. TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING & SCHEDULING CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE URSULA UNGARO U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP BY: EDWARD J. DeFRANCO, ESQ., and HAL M. LUCAS, ESQ. 701 Brickell Avenue - 16th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 For the Defendant WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP BY: MATTHEW D. POWERS, ESQ. 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, California 94065-1134 -andBY: CHRISTOPHER R. J. PACE, ESQ. 1395 Brickell Avenue - Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131 -andDAVID E. MELAUGH, ESQ. Apple Senior Corporate Counsel Reported by: (305) 523-5558 WILLIAM G. ROMANISHIN, RMR, CRR Official Court Reporter 400 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPT Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 2 of 32 2 1 (Call to order of the Court) 2 THE COURT: 3 So the case before the Court is Motorola Mobility, Inc., versus Apple, 10-23580. 4 Who's here for Motorola? 5 MR. LUCAS: 6 Hal Lucas from Astigarraga Davis. 7 8 Good morning, Your Honor. MR. DeFRANCO: And Edward DeFranco from Quinn Emmanuel, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. DeFRANCO: 11 THE COURT: 12 And who's here for Apple? 13 MR. PACE: Good morning. You can have a seat. Good morning, Your Honor. 14 Matt Powers from Weil, Gotshal & Manges. 15 Chris Pace and Melaugh here from Apple. We also have David 16 THE COURT: 17 Well, you know, I don't usually bring people in for Okay. Fine. You can have a seat. 18 these planning and scheduling conferences unless there's some 19 motion that's really troublesome before the Court. 20 the only motion that's pending in this case is Apple's motion 21 to transfer venue. 22 briefed. 23 I think And, of course, it hasn't been fully But it did catch my eye when I went over the planning 24 and scheduling report that there were all these other cases 25 pending in all these other jurisdictions, and I became Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 3 of 32 3 1 perplexed as to what Motorola and Apple were doing here. 2 After all, I don't think the Southern District of 3 Florida, not to take anything away from myself or my 4 colleagues, is known as a court with a great deal of 5 specialized expertise in the area of patent litigation. 6 So, what are we doing here? 7 MR. DeFRANCO: 8 Honor. 9 I'll tell you that. THE COURT: Is that what you do regularly? 10 MR. DeFRANCO: 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. DeFRANCO: 13 That's what I do, yes. Okay. This is an area of specialty where, you know, the cases often are complicated and time consuming. 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. DeFRANCO: 16 Well, they are a lot of fun, Your Yes. So usually lawyers focus and specialize in patent cases. 17 Also, I should say this area of technology in 18 general, there are lots of lawsuits and it's very common. 19 There are many companies in this business right now, U.S., 20 foreign, Nokia, Apple, Motorola, HTC, you go down the list and 21 when you look at litigations involving these companies, it's 22 very common that there is a mosaic of cases in different 23 areas. 24 25 This is not an unusual circumstance. There are different reasons for that. There are some courts, as Your Honor pointed out, that specialize or have Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 4 of 32 4 1 many patent cases, have lot of experience, they have local 2 patent rules, that sort of thing. 3 4 5 6 7 THE COURT: Well, why not the Western District of Texas? MR. DeFRANCO: Eastern. I just had a trial there last year. THE COURT: Or why not the District of Delaware, or 8 why not the District of Wyoming? 9 MR. DeFRANCO: Well, there are a number of reasons. 10 When you look where to file these cases, Your Honor -- and, 11 obviously, we just got their papers, we'll just be 12 responding -- one of the things they say is: 13 Motorola is not here. Why here; Well, Motorola is here. 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. DeFRANCO: Isn't Motorola everywhere? Well, not really. I mean, their 16 products are all over, as Apple's products are. 17 they have about a half dozen major facilities worldwide. 18 is right here in Plantation and some of the technology at 19 issue in this case relates to work that has been done in 20 Plantation. 21 But Motorola, One There are, obviously, a number of inventors on 22 Motorola's patents. 23 the Miami area and they're no longer with Motorola. 24 need some of those witnesses at trial. 25 on all these issues as we continue to work through their Some of those inventors are located in So we'll We'll go into detail Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 5 of 32 5 1 papers. 2 Another consideration is, you know, speed of time to 3 trial. 4 obviously, right. 5 jurisdictions have a tendency to drag out, and, you know, 6 there are jurisdictions where the docket is such that, you 7 know, you have the opportunity to get a case to trial more 8 quickly. I mean, patent technology moves faster and faster 9 Patent cases, historically, in some Now, you know, a broad overview, they say, well, 10 let's get everything in one jurisdiction. 11 explain in our papers, there are very good reasons why the 12 cases have split out and are where they are right now. 13 And again, as we'll Just for one example, in Delaware we filed a 14 declaratory judgment action on 12 of their patents saying we 15 don't infringe those patents. 16 Delaware. 17 those same patents are in front of the same judge in other 18 cases that, you know, after we filed our case, our case got 19 assigned to Judge Sleet, who's hearing other cases on those 20 very same patents. 21 deal with the same group of patents, right. 22 judicial economy. 23 That's what's at issue in We did that for a very specific reason, because It makes perfect sense for one judge to That's perfect They say, well, let's put everything in one 24 jurisdiction. 25 call came to Florida. I'm not sure if they would have a problem if it They say Wisconsin. But that would be Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 6 of 32 6 1 in both directions over 30 patents. 2 I've been doing this for over 20 years. 3 remember ever seeing a case that came close to having that 4 number of patents. 5 6 THE COURT: I don't There are a lot of patents in this case. There are 12 patents? 7 MR. DeFRANCO: There are 12 patents in this case and 8 that is a large case, and, you know, it's manageable in one 9 jurisdiction. I don't mean to belittle the amount of work 10 it's going to be on Your Honor, but it is manageable. 11 say, well, we're going to take three cases, and we have a 12 different view -- 13 THE COURT: But to Well, how many patents are in the 14 Wisconsin litigation, before we even get to the issue of how 15 related the patents are? 16 MR. DeFRANCO: How many patents are in Wisconsin? There are 12 patents in Wisconsin as 17 well, if I have that right. 18 patents in Wisconsin. 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: No, I'm sorry. There are nine There are 12 in Delaware, 12 here. And the declaratory judgment -- you've moved -MR. DeFRANCO: So we now have, putting aside another forum, the International Trade Commission -- 23 THE COURT: Yes, right. 24 MR. DeFRANCO: 25 THE COURT: -- we have competing cases. Right. How many patents are there? Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 7 of 32 7 1 2 MR. DeFRANCO: This is the Lawyers Full Employment Act. 3 THE COURT: 4 How many patents are in front of the International 5 Yes, it seems to be. Trade Commission? 6 MR. DeFRANCO: 7 counterclaim. 8 In there, you know, you can't file a action. 9 10 So we have our action. THE COURT: those? They have their Are those infringement claims? What are 11 I have no idea what this body is or what it does. MR. DeFRANCO: The International Trade Commission is, 12 just in two minutes, it was established decades ago. 13 meant to protect basically -- and I'm not an expert in this 14 area, so don't hold me to this -- but very generally, it's 15 meant to protect domestic industry. 16 to see what's coming across the border and whether that 17 infringes U.S. patents, and, if so, it prevents importation. 18 It's In other words, it looks The difference between the ITC and the District Court 19 is an injunction there is automatic relief. 20 is found, if a violation is found, you cannot bring in the 21 goods that violate the patents. 22 damages. 23 than a District Court. 24 an analysis, a four-factor test about whether an injunction is 25 appropriate and all that sort of thing and you can get That's it. If infringement You don't get monetary damages. It's done. No So it's different Obviously, in District Court, there's Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 8 of 32 8 1 monetary damages. 2 THE COURT: So the way it works is, so, here we have 3 two U.S. companies, but they manufacture their products 4 abroad, or at least some of their products abroad. 5 it works then is that the International Trade Commission has 6 the power to stop those goods that are manufactured abroad 7 from crossing the border. 8 MR. DeFRANCO: 9 THE COURT: So the way Exactly, Your Honor. So it doesn't do anything, though, about 10 patent infringement in this country or that's irrelevant 11 because the goes are only being produced abroad? 12 13 MR. DeFRANCO: Well, if it's purely U.S. activity, if something is made in Plantation and -- 14 THE COURT: Sometimes things are made in Plantation 15 and they're also made in China. 16 MR. DeFRANCO: 17 Honor. 18 entirety. 19 Well, that's exactly the point, Your imported. You can have a case that goes over a cell phone in its 20 You can have a case that goes after a chip that's THE COURT: So what's the relationship between the 21 patents in front of the International Trade Commission and the 22 patents that are being litigated in Wisconsin, here and in 23 Delaware? 24 25 MR. DeFRANCO: I would say, you know, they're generally different areas of technology. Again, there are Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 9 of 32 9 1 different reasons why parties would file cases in that forum 2 versus in a District Court. 3 So, to get back to your original question, Apple has 4 filed three patents in that case in their ITC action and we 5 have filed six patents in our own action. 6 7 THE COURT: And none of those patents are the same as the patents in the Wisconsin litigation or here. 8 MR. DeFRANCO: 9 THE COURT: 10 All different. Or Delaware. MR. DeFRANCO: Just one more footnote. Because you 11 don't get damages in the ITC, what you do is you file a 12 companion District Court case, but that gets stayed. 13 placeholder for damages, in essence, and there's a statutory 14 right for a defendant to seek a stay. 15 16 17 THE COURT: It's a So those companion District Court cases are where? MR. DeFRANCO: There's one in Wisconsin. That's been 18 stayed by agreement of the parties. 19 case dealing with all of those patents, I believe, and that's 20 been stayed by agreement of the parties. 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: It's actually a combined And that's in front of a different judge in Wisconsin. MR. DeFRANCO: That is in front of the same judge as the case here, I believe. THE COURT: Okay. So he's got how many patents did Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 10 of 32 10 1 you say in litigation apart from the ITC? 2 3 MR. DeFRANCO: Wisconsin, and she has nine patents. 4 5 It's Judge Crabb, Your Honor, in THE COURT: And then she has the ITC cases, the placeholder cases. 6 MR. DeFRANCO: I believe she also has, yes, but it 7 has been stayed. 8 are other cases between different parties there. 9 believe she has the stayed action. 10 But I But in any case, that action is stayed. 11 12 There are two judges in Wisconsin and there THE COURT: I thought you just mentioned another case, Judge Steel? 13 MR. DeFRANCO: 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. DeFRANCO: 16 THE COURT: 17 MR. DeFRANCO: Judge Sleet. Sleet. He's in Delaware. Oh, in Delaware. Sorry. My point with respect to Judge Sleet 18 is we filed this action saying we don't infringe 12 patents in 19 Delaware because Judge Sleet already had cases involving those 20 same patents. So that makes perfect sense. 21 same patents. He's going to rule on, you know -- 22 THE COURT: The same judge, So, what I'm trying to understand -- I 23 mean, I haven't looked at the patents themselves because, you 24 know, I don't have the time to read patents, you know, at 25 will. But in any event, I get the impression that these Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 11 of 32 11 1 patents represent -- this is probably not patent 2 terminology -- different strains of technology that go into 3 single operating systems. 4 technological mechanisms that go into the iPad, or different 5 technologically strains that go into the iPhone. 6 idea? 7 MR. DeFRANCO: 8 THE COURT: 9 what else? 10 Right? So, we have different Is that the Yes, Your Honor. And we're dealing with iPad, iPhone and iPad and iPhone? MR. DeFRANCO: Those are some of the products. 11 Apple's side there's the iPod Touch. 12 that sort of thing. 13 On side, such as the DROID X. 14 15 THE COURT: not? They are music players, There's several phones on Motorola's Right. So does this relate to Android or Android is an operating system, right? 16 MR. DeFRANCO: Exactly. Just like your computer has 17 an operating system, phones have operating systems. 18 are very similar to miniature computers today obviously. 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. DeFRANCO: 21 22 23 24 25 Phones Right. You'll see in our papers, Your Honor -THE COURT: So does all of this relate to the Android operating system? MR. DeFRANCO: No, for different reasons. First, they've asserted patents in an entirely different area that Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 12 of 32 12 1 aren't at issue in the case in Wisconsin, for example. 2 3 THE COURT: Wisconsin is only concerned with the Android operating system? 4 MR. DeFRANCO: Wisconsin is a cell phone case. One 5 of the differences between -- let me just not lose my first 6 train of thought. 7 So, they've sued on six patents. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. DeFRANCO: Six patents where? 10 THE COURT: 11 Here. MR. DeFRANCO: 12 phones. 13 Three of them -- Okay. Three of them don't relate to cell boxes. They relate to set top boxes, software and set top 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. DeFRANCO: 16 box. 17 That's a set top box. 18 technology. What's a set top box? 19 Set top box is a cable television If you have cable TV at home, it's got a box on the TV. Completely different area of They sued us on three of those patents. THE COURT: You're the plaintiff, right? So, in a 20 nutshell tell me what the patents are that you've sued on here 21 and then tell me what the patents are that they have 22 counterclaimed on. 23 24 25 MR. DeFRANCO: You know, the patents that we've sued here, Your Honor, again, they relate to different aspects -THE COURT: Of? Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 13 of 32 13 1 MR. DeFRANCO: Of cell phone technology, pure cell 2 phone technology. 3 the antenna configuration on a phone. 4 to the handling of messages, for example, how to file messages 5 automatically. 6 e-mail filters on a cell phone. 7 synching data between your cell phone and a computer. 8 9 For example, one of the patents relates to Another patent relates A couple of the patents relate to dealing with Another patent relates to Now, the good news is the patents here that have asserted, I'd say at least some of them don't get down to the 10 nitty operating system level of detail. 11 to, you know, applications and software above the operating 12 system level. 13 Motorola has asserted here. 14 Some of them relate That's a brief overview of the patents that In terms of the counterclaim patents that Apple has 15 asserted, as I mentioned, three of them relate to set top 16 boxes, and, you know, they're fairly basic. 17 program guide, when you use cable TV, you'll scroll to the 18 program guide. 19 think, very generally, is the overview. 20 very hard core detail. They relate to program guide features, I 21 THE COURT: 22 MR. DeFRANCO: 23 24 25 You know, the They don't get into This is Apple's patents. These are Apple's patents now I'm talking about. THE COURT: counterclaims? So would you say these are permissive Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 14 of 32 14 1 2 MR. DeFRANCO: Oh, yes, they're absolutely permissive counterclaims. 3 And that's one of the points, Your Honor. I don't 4 have the phrase they use in mine. 5 to, you know, our trying to figure -- using these foreigns, to 6 further our litigation strategy. 7 at the dates in the filings, you know, we filed in Florida, in 8 early October; then they filed in Wisconsin at the end of 9 October; and then they filed counterclaims here on these 10 But, you know, they allude But, you know, if you look patents we're discussing in late November. 11 So, there's been a change in position or strategy on 12 their side, because they could have filed these counterclaim 13 patents just as easily in Wisconsin. 14 jurisdiction in Wisconsin. 15 you know, they filed there. 16 action. 17 We're not fighting As they point out in their papers, We added our patents to that So they could have filed these patents in Wisconsin. I don't know what's led to their change of heart 18 since, you know, they filed the Wisconsin action. 19 you know, if you compare -- 20 THE COURT: 21 22 23 24 25 I'm sorry. But, again, And it's just very confusing to me. So, in Wisconsin are the patents that you're litigating there also cell phone technology? MR. DeFRANCO: technology. Yes, Your Honor, they're cell phone Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 15 of 32 15 1 THE COURT: 2 MR. DeFRANCO: 3 So, why split it up? THE COURT: 5 MR. DeFRANCO: 6 THE COURT: 10 That's Apple's counterclaim. Completely different. Okay. Yes. But why did you split up the cell phone technology patents? 8 9 Set top boxes are here. 4 7 No set top boxes. MR. DeFRANCO: There's a number of reasons. First, again, to have this many patents that they're saying happened in one jurisdiction, I've never seen a case of that size. 11 THE COURT: Okay. But you could have filed two 12 cases. 13 So you could have filed two cases in Wisconsin. They could 14 have fallen before two different district judge. Then the 15 judges themselves could have gotten together and decided do we 16 want to do this together, do we want to do this separately. 17 But everybody would have been like in the same forum. 18 I assume they have blind filing in Wisconsin, right. MR. DeFRANCO: Well, you know, we could have and they 19 could have, and, you know, as I said, there are reasons to do 20 that and not to do that but -- 21 22 23 THE COURT: Where are the inventors in the Wisconsin action? MR. DeFRANCO: Well, you know, that's a good question 24 and an interesting point. 25 inventors locally here. It's different than here. We have There are, you know, fewer ties Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 16 of 32 16 1 directly to Wisconsin than there are Florida. 2 inventors in Wisconsin. 3 4 THE COURT: MR. DeFRANCO: No, no manufacturing facilities, fewer employees. 7 8 Does Motorola have manufacturing facilities in Wisconsin? 5 6 There's no THE COURT: How did everybody find their way to Wisconsin? 9 MR. DeFRANCO: You know, just straight to the point, 10 Your Honor, it's how you started out this hearing. 11 some jurisdictions that do handle patent cases more 12 frequently. There are 13 I think the time to trial in Wisconsin, very 14 generally, may have slowed down because they have an awful lot 15 of cases there. 16 17 They had a judge who retired recently. So, you know, all these things are taken into account in terms of, you know, the magnitude of the case. 18 THE COURT: Well, we have a little problem here, but 19 that's all right. 20 here. 21 by the end of the month. Do you know that? We have a little problem We have three vacancies -- we will have three vacancies 22 MR. DeFRANCO: 23 THE COURT: 24 of a beside-the-point issue. 25 I understand, Your Honor. Okay. MR. DeFRANCO: Go ahead. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's sort I mean, we'll lay it out in the Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 17 of 32 17 1 papers. There are contacts with Motorola facilities here. 2 3 THE COURT: has patent expertise. 4 5 So you chose Wisconsin because Wisconsin MR. DeFRANCO: consideration. 6 Well, you know, that was one Time to trial was another consideration. You know, as they point out, we originally filed in 7 Illinois. 8 we're fine to have a reasonable side case there. 9 our patents there. 10 They chose Madison, Wisconsin, and we said, well, So we added Again, I don't know why they choose to counterclaim -- 11 THE COURT: Well, why did you start out in Illinois? 12 MR. DeFRANCO: You know, a number of reasons. There 13 were more Motorola witnesses there. 14 transfer issues, obviously, courts don't look to where party 15 witnesses are located. 16 But when it comes to But I do want to answer your question before I miss 17 it, Your Honor, about the difference in technology. 18 a line of difference between the Motorola patents that are 19 being asserted in Wisconsin versus the patents here. 20 21 22 THE COURT: There is But they are both cell phone technology, in very broad terms. MR. DeFRANCO: In very broad terms, you know, cell 23 phones are a common area of product against which these 24 patents are asserted, yes. 25 technology. But there is a difference in the Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 18 of 32 18 1 The Wisconsin patents are all what is known as 2 essential patents. 3 in the field, like a Wi-Fi standard. 4 printer or a wireless device, there are standards that set 5 forth whether patents are essential to practice that 6 standard. 7 There are technical standards, you know, If you have a wireless I can't say that's the case with respect to every 8 patent there. But generally, that's the group of patents, at 9 least the number of which relate to standards. So that's a 10 difference between the patents here and the patents in this 11 case. 12 So those group into, you know, patents that relate 13 to -- a couple of those relate to the 802.11. 14 to the communication protocol 2G or 3G that are used to 15 communicate between phones. 16 detail in our papers. 17 Others relate So we'll lay this out in more But we think there is a definite difference between 18 the groups of Motorola patents technologywise that are 19 involved in the two cases. 20 reasonable one. 21 So we think our split is a Now, when they came back and they filed their 22 counterclaims here, as I said, three are entirely unrelated. 23 The set top boxes are completely different. 24 patent that's an interface. It's a slide-to-unlock feature 25 that you use on your phone. I'd say that there is some There is one Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 19 of 32 19 1 overlap. 2 asserted in Wisconsin. 3 overlap with respect to their patents. 4 There are some interface type patents that they've So I'm not going to say there's no But overall, we don't think that that trumps the 5 usual transfer analysis and the other considerations about 6 where the witnesses are located and those sorts of things, 7 which we'll obviously put in our papers. 8 9 THE COURT: time. Okay. Look, I don't have unlimited I just sort of wanted to preview this. 10 I have to say that, in terms of scheduling, I'm 11 inclined to go with Apple's proposed schedule. 12 talked for a long time and I didn't set aside a long time for 13 this hearing. 14 they want to tell me this morning since you've sort of had the 15 floor. So, let me just let Apple tell me what it is 16 MR. POWERS: 17 THE COURT: 18 Okay. 19 MR. POWERS: 20 Thank you, Your Honor. Excuse me one second. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. Matt Powers for Apple. 21 22 But you've Unless you want an argument on the motion to transfer, my understanding is you do not -- 23 THE COURT: 24 it. 25 assigned this case. Well, I wanted to kind of get oriented to You know, you can imagine my enthusiasm at having been Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 20 of 32 20 1 MR. POWERS: 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. POWERS: I can, Your Honor. Okay. I think responding at the level, as I 4 understand your question, what we are seeking is to transfer 5 this action to the venue where both parties have decided to 6 consolidate most of their disputes. 7 THE COURT: Well, I can't, you know, govern what 8 the -- is it the Western District of Wisconsin does if the 9 case were transferred. 10 Right. It would land with some judge, maybe with Judge -- what's his name -- Sleet? 11 MR. DeFRANCO: 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. DeFRANCO: 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. POWERS: Yes, Your Honor. Judge Sleet or Judge -Crabb, Your Honor. Right, or some other judge. All of that is certainly possible. 16 You're right. 17 decide how you to deal with that case, and those 18 considerations, as you alluded, different judges in different 19 courts deal with a case of different size and however they 20 want to do it, and that's really their decision how to do it. 21 That would be up to the Wisconsin Court to Just a high-level point is both sides voluntarily put 22 the bulk of their patents into Wisconsin. 23 view -- 24 25 THE COURT: And, so, in our Which seems a little odd, right. Apparently Motorola has no greater association with Wisconsin Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 21 of 32 21 1 than they do here. 2 have more connection here than they do to Wisconsin. 3 So, what was wrong with Illinois? 4 MR. POWERS: And in fact they're saying actually they That was their decision. They 5 originally filed two cases in Illinois -- one was the 6 companion placeholder case and one was another case -- and 7 they moved both of those voluntarily to Wisconsin. 8 THE COURT: 9 filed in Wisconsin. 10 MR. POWERS: In response to the fact that Apple had Exactly. And Illinois is their home 11 turf. 12 lawsuits in their hometown and then agreed to move them into 13 Wisconsin to consolidate them. 14 do that with these as well. 15 THE COURT: That's where they're based. 16 be the outlier. 17 And, so, they gave up two And our point is why don't we Well, I have to say this Court seems to forum shopping. 18 19 It seems to have been the victim of some MR. POWERS: Your Honor, is that -- you asked about what the overlap is -- 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. POWERS: 22 The only other point that I would make, Right. -- between all these various cases, and that's obviously a critical issue on any transfer motion. 23 THE COURT: 24 And what do you say also as you're addressing that to 25 Right. what he said about your throwing in these unrelated patents? Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 22 of 32 22 1 MR. POWERS: It is certainly true that set top boxes 2 are not an accused product in the Wisconsin case. 3 phones -- they have to look at it both ways, right -- the 4 phone technology that we're talking about, much of which is 5 focused on the interface -- most of these are touchscreen 6 phones and a lot of the technology that's at issue both here 7 and there is the touchscreen aspects of the iPhone phone and 8 the Android type phones. 9 Wisconsin and certainly present here. 10 But That issue is certainly present in In terms of accused products, iPhone, iPad, other 11 similar products from Apple, are at issue here and they are at 12 issue in Wisconsin as well. 13 products, their accused phones are at issue here, their 14 accused phones are at issue in Wisconsin, and, in addition, 15 the set top boxes are also at issue here. 16 17 THE COURT: MR. POWERS: I think we've covered what I understood, Your Honor, we were interested in this morning. 20 21 Do you want to say anything else? Because he's about to start talking again. 18 19 Okay. In terms of their accused THE COURT: Okay. another ten minutes or so. 22 MR. DeFRANCO: So, as it turns out, I have So, what do you want to say? Well, just two points. No dispute 23 that Libertyville in Illinois is another major Motorola 24 location. 25 belittle the Motorola tie to Florida and Plantation and that No question about that. But again, I don't want to Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 23 of 32 23 1 2 3 facility. Your Honor said forum shopping, which makes me a little nervous. But, you know -- 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. DeFRANCO: 6 THE COURT: 7 that's what you did, right? 8 don't understand why you came -- the fact that the inventors 9 are here is not very persuasive to me, and you haven't told 10 me -- you told me Motorola has a presence in Plantation, but 11 you haven't told me what they do in Plantation. 12 don't really know why you came here, but that's okay. 13 But that's what you did. Well, we filed -- In fact, you even told me, in essence, MR. DeFRANCO: You looked at -- actually I still So I still Well, you know, I want to make sure -- 14 you know, we just got their papers, Your Honor. 15 phone technology development going on in Plantation that uses 16 the Android system. 17 much because I want to make sure that I have the facts 110 18 percent correct. 19 20 21 THE COURT: There is some But I don't want to speak to that too Well, I'm sure Motorola must have development working going on a lot of places. MR. DeFRANCO: Well, yeah. As I mentioned, my 22 understanding is six major facilities. 23 impression of forum shopping, there's no difference what the 24 parties did here in terms of what plaintiffs do in every case, 25 which is, you know, Apple -- But if I gave you the Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 24 of 32 24 1 THE COURT: Well, maybe that's common in patent 2 cases, forum shopping. 3 MR. DeFRANCO: Sure. Where's is Apple's hometown? 4 They didn't file in California, right? 5 file in Silicon Valley. 6 first. I mean, they didn't They decided to go to Wisconsin That was their first move. 7 What we're faced with now, Your Honor, what I should 8 make clear is -- and we have to take into account the history 9 here, why Apple filed permissive counterclaims here and not in 10 Wisconsin, what was the strategy there -- but looking at the 11 traditional transfer analysis, convenience of parties and 12 witnesses, all of that sort of thing, and figure out should 13 the cases stay or should the cases go. 14 Wisconsin Judge, Judge Crabb, is doing now, because she has 15 motion papers. 16 17 18 THE COURT: Well, I don't know. And that's what the Maybe they should go to California or Illinois. MR. DeFRANCO: Well, don't be intimidated. I don't 19 want to give you the wrong impression about this particular 20 patent case, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: If I were to grant the motion to 22 transfer, I don't have to say Wisconsin, right? 23 California. 24 25 I could say I could say Illinois. MR. DeFRANCO: Well, you know, it's interesting because, you know, they want to go back to Wisconsin now and, Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 25 of 32 25 1 you know, we'll be here -- 2 THE COURT: Well, that's true, and their papers are 3 addressed to Wisconsin. 4 Illinois or to California. 5 in evaluating whether there is some other forum that might be 6 appropriate other than Wisconsin. 7 address that as an alternative in the event that I were 8 disposed to get rid of the case, meaning you in your 9 response. 10 MR. DeFRANCO: 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. DeFRANCO: 13 Their papers are not addressed to So that, of course, handicaps me But maybe you want to Yes, Your Honor. I understand. Right. And is there anything that -- I don't want to give you a bad feeling about patent cases in general. 14 THE COURT: No, no, I don't have a bad feeling about 15 patent cases. 16 years on the bench. 17 mother of all patent cases. 18 background. 19 know nothing about information technology. 20 21 I just have been able to avoid them in my 24 And this one seems to be kind of the I know nothing about electrical engineering. MR. DeFRANCO: I Well, it's interesting, Your Honor. You know, as you know, we have a Markman proceeding -- 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. DeFRANCO: 24 THE COURT: 25 And I have no engineering itself. Yes, I know. You know all of that. Which is, to me, baffling in and of I can't understand why it even exists. I have gone Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 26 of 32 26 1 through Markman hearings before and it's puzzling to me. 2 not just let the jury figure out what the parties -- I mean, 3 in every other case the parties state the claims. 4 necessary for the court to restate the claims is baffling to 5 me. 6 7 MR. DeFRANCO: Why Why it's Well, I can speak to that, if you want, in a minute. 8 THE COURT: Go ahead. 9 MR. DeFRANCO: Well, you know, 20, 30 years ago, I 10 guess, now the Federal Circuit decided what terms mean is a 11 matter of law. 12 decide. 13 Everything went to the jury to decide in one proceeding. It's not an issue of fact for a jury to 14 It used to happen exactly the way Your Honor said. THE COURT: To me it seems like it should be up to 15 the parties to describe the claims. 16 adequacy. 17 way for the jury to evaluate the claims, too bad. 18 not the way it is. 19 claims, and I probably cannot do a better job than you. 20 would I be in a better position to describe the claims than 21 you? 22 It's a matter of If you can't describe the claims to the jury in a But that's The way it is is I have to describe the MR. DeFRANCO: Well, it's our job, Your Honor, and, 23 you know, it's our job to make it simple, right, and 24 understandable, right, because we live this technology. 25 THE COURT: Why Right. Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 27 of 32 27 1 MR. DeFRANCO: We have a number of patents here, but, 2 you know, we're supposed to cooperate and reduce the number of 3 claims at issue and the number of terms at issue, keep it 4 simple and present it; because if we can't present a simple 5 case to the jury once Your Honor decides on what the terms 6 mean, then we're not doing our job, neither of us. 7 litigated a lot of cases, right. 8 present it to the jury, whoever presents it simply and clearly 9 wins, right. 10 We've all When it comes time to That's the point. So, at the end of the day, regardless of what we say 11 here about overlap and complexity and all that, we both are 12 experienced enough to have the same goal, no question, which 13 is focus this case down, present it to Your Honor simply and 14 clearly at Markman, and do the same when it comes time for 15 trial. 16 the Markman hearing it's in both of our interests to not 17 present monster briefs and overwhelming issues. 18 19 20 That's what the case is all about. THE COURT: though. So, you know, at So let's talk about a scheduling issue, I'm inclined to go with Apple's schedule. So, how much time do you think we need to set aside 21 for the Markman hearing? 22 take in this case? How much court time is that going to 23 MR. POWERS: 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. POWERS: What does Apple say? I think one day should cover it. One day, really? Yes. Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 28 of 32 28 1 THE COURT: 2 MR. DeFRANCO: You know, Your Honor, it's certainly 3 manageable in the day. The question is, you know, sometimes 4 judges ask for tutorials, like on a disk, a video beforehand. 5 Sometimes they like to get that before the Markman hearing and 6 then go into the disputes. 7 Okay. What do you think? So it could run, you know, longer than a day if you'd 8 like to hear -- we'll give you as much background as you'd 9 like to make you feel comfortable with the technology. 10 could run longer than a day. 11 There are outlier cases. I don't think it's common 12 to have witnesses at Markman hearings. 13 testify. 14 So it Sometimes experts But I think that's less common. So I would say one day is fine, but leave open the 15 possibility, if Your Honor decides you want more in the way of 16 tutorials, we could do it in a day and a half or two days to 17 take you through each patent with nice PowerPoints and little 18 videos and make you a lover of technology. 19 THE COURT: Yes. I can imagine that PowerPoint is an 20 important tool in these cases. 21 MR. DeFRANCO: 22 THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Okay. All right. Well, we're going to 23 go ahead and issue the scheduling order. 24 going to be interested to see the briefing on the motion to 25 transfer venue and we'll be taking a close look at that But, of course, I'm Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 29 of 32 29 1 motion. 2 MR. DeFRANCO: 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. PACE: 5 MR. POWERS: 6 (Recessed at 11:51 a.m.) 7 * * * 8 Yes, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. * * * * * * C E R T I F I C A T E 9 10 11 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 January 19, 2011 /s/ William G. Romanishin Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 30 of 32 30 A able 25:15 above-entitled 29:11 abroad 8:4,4,6,11 absolutely 14:1 account 16:16 24:8 accused 22:2,10,12,13,14 Act 7:2 action 5:14 7:7,8 9:4,5 10:9,10,18 14:16 14:18 15:22 20:5 activity 8:12 added 14:15 17:8 addition 22:14 address 25:7 addressed 25:3,3 addressing 21:24 adequacy 26:16 ago 7:12 26:9 agreed 21:12 agreement 9:18,20 ahead 16:23 19:18 26:8 28:23 allude 14:4 alluded 20:18 alternative 25:7 amount 6:9 analysis 7:24 19:5 24:11 Android 11:14,15,22 12:3 22:8 23:16 answer 17:16 antenna 13:3 apart 10:1 Apparently 20:25 APPEARANCES 1:13 Apple 1:6,22 2:3,12,15 3:1,20 9:3 13:14 19:13,20 21:8 22:11 23:25 24:9 27:22 Apple's 2:20 4:16 11:11 13:21,22 15:4 19:11 24:3 27:19 applications 13:11 appropriate 7:25 25:6 area 3:5,12,17 4:23 7:14 11:25 12:17 17:23 areas 3:23 8:25 argument 19:21 aside 6:21 19:12 27:20 asked 21:19 aspects 12:24 22:7 asserted 11:25 13:9,13,15 17:19,24 19:2 assigned 5:19 19:25 association 20:25 assume 15:12 Astigarraga 2:6 automatic 7:19 automatically 13:5 Avenue 1:16,20,24 avoid 25:15 awful 16:14 a.m 1:7 29:6 B back 9:3 18:21 24:25 background 25:18 28:8 bad 25:13,14 26:17 baffling 25:24 26:4 based 21:11 basic 13:16 basically 7:13 believe 9:19,24 10:6,9 belittle 6:9 22:25 bench 25:16 beside-the-point 16:24 better 26:19,20 blind 15:12 body 7:10 border 7:16 8:7 box 12:14,15,16,16,17 boxes 12:12,13 13:16 15:2,2 18:23 22:1 22:15 Brickell 1:16,20 brief 13:12 briefed 2:22 briefing 28:24 briefs 27:17 bring 2:17 7:20 broad 5:9 17:21,22 bulk 20:22 business 3:19 C C 29:8,8 cable 12:15,16 13:17 California 1:19 24:4,17,23 25:4 call 2:1 5:25 case 1:2 2:2,20 4:19 5:7,18,18 6:3,5,7,8 8:17,18 9:4,12,19,24 10:9,12 12:1,4 15:10 16:17 17:8 18:7,11 19:25 20:9 20:17,19 21:6,6 22:2 23:24 24:20 25:8 26:3 27:5,13,15,22 cases 2:24 3:13,16,22 4:1,10 5:4,12,18 5:19 6:11,24 9:1,15 10:4,5,8,19 15:12 15:13 16:11,15 18:19 21:5,21 24:2,13 24:13 25:13,15,17 27:7 28:11,20 catch 2:23 cell 8:17 12:4,11 13:1,1,6,7 14:23,24 15:6 17:20,22 certainly 20:15 22:1,8,9 28:2 certify 29:10 change 14:11,17 China 8:15 chip 8:18 choose 17:9 chose 17:2,7 Chris 2:13 CHRISTOPHER 1:20 Circuit 26:10 circumstance 3:23 claims 7:9 26:3,4,15,16,17,19,20 27:3 clear 24:8 clearly 27:8,14 close 6:3 28:25 colleagues 3:4 combined 9:18 comes 17:13 27:7,14 comfortable 28:9 coming 7:16 Commission 6:22 7:5,11 8:5,21 common 3:18,22 17:23 24:1 28:11,13 communicate 18:15 communication 18:14 companies 3:19,21 8:3 companion 9:12,15 21:6 compare 14:19 competing 6:24 completely 12:17 15:5 18:23 complexity 27:11 complicated 3:13 computer 11:16 13:7 computers 11:18 concerned 12:2 CONFERENCE 1:10 conferences 2:18 configuration 13:3 confusing 14:20 connection 21:2 consideration 5:2 17:5,5 considerations 19:5 20:18 consolidate 20:6 21:13 consuming 3:13 contacts 17:1 continue 4:25 convenience 24:11 cooperate 27:2 core 13:20 Corporate 1:22 correct 23:18 29:10 Counsel 1:22 counterclaim 7:7 13:14 14:12 15:4 17:10 counterclaimed 12:22 counterclaims 13:25 14:2,9 18:22 24:9 country 8:10 couple 13:5 18:13 course 2:21 25:4 28:23 court 1:1,24 2:1,2,2,9,11,16,19 3:4,9,11 3:14 4:3,7,14 6:5,13,19,23,25 7:3,9 7:18,23,23 8:2,9,14,20 9:2,6,9,12,15 9:15,21,25 10:4,11,14,16,22 11:8,14 11:19,22 12:2,8,10,14,19,25 13:21,24 14:20 15:1,4,6,11,21 16:3,7,18,23 17:2,11,20 19:8,17,23 20:2,7,12,14,16 20:24 21:8,15,15,20,23 22:16,20 23:4 23:6,19 24:1,16,21 25:2,11,14,22,24 26:4,8,14,25 27:18,21,24 28:1,19,22 29:3 courts 3:25 17:14 20:19 cover 27:23 covered 22:18 Crabb 10:2 20:13 24:14 critical 21:22 crossing 8:7 CRR 1:23 D D 1:18 damages 7:22,22 8:1 9:11,13 data 13:7 dates 14:7 David 1:22 2:14 Davis 2:6 day 27:10,23,24 28:3,7,10,14,16 days 28:16 deal 3:4 5:21 20:17,19 dealing 9:19 11:8 13:5 decades 7:12 decide 20:17 26:12,13 decided 15:15 20:5 24:5 26:10 decides 27:5 28:15 decision 20:20 21:4 declaratory 5:14 6:19 defendant 1:7,17 9:14 definite 18:17 DeFRANCO 1:15 2:7,7,10 3:7,10,12,15 4:5,9,15 6:7,16,21,24 7:1,6,11 8:8,12 8:16,24 9:8,10,17,23 10:2,6,13,15,17 11:7,10,16,20,24 12:4,9,11,15,23 13:1 13:22 14:1,24 15:2,5,8,18,23 16:5,9 16:22,25 17:4,12,22 20:11,13 22:22 23:5,13,21 24:3,18,24 25:10,12,20,23 26:6,9,22 27:1 28:2,21 29:2 Delaware 4:7 5:13,16 6:18 8:23 9:9 10:15,16,19 describe 26:15,16,18,20 detail 4:24 13:10,20 18:16 development 23:15,20 device 18:4 difference 7:18 17:17,18,24 18:10,17 23:23 differences 12:5 different 3:22,24 6:12 7:22 8:25 9:1,8 9:21 10:8 11:2,3,4,24,25 12:17,24 15:5,14,24 18:23 20:18,18,19 directions 6:1 directly 16:1 discussing 14:10 disk 28:4 disposed 25:8 dispute 22:22 disputes 20:6 28:6 district 1:1,1,12 3:2 4:3,7,8 7:18,23,23 9:2,12,15 15:14 20:8 docket 5:6 doing 3:1,6 6:2 24:14 27:6 domestic 7:15 dozen 4:17 drag 5:5 DROID 11:13 E E 1:22 29:8,8 early 14:8 easily 14:13 Eastern 4:5 economy 5:22 Edward 1:15 2:7 electrical 25:18 EMANUEL 1:14 Emmanuel 2:8 employees 16:6 Employment 7:1 engineering 25:17,18 enthusiasm 19:24 entirely 11:25 18:22 entirety 8:18 ESQ 1:15,15,18,20,22 essence 9:13 23:6 essential 18:2,5 established 7:12 evaluate 26:17 evaluating 25:5 event 10:25 25:7 everybody 15:17 16:7 exactly 8:8,16 11:16 21:10 26:12 example 5:13 12:1 13:2,4 Excuse 19:17 exists 25:25 experience 4:1 experienced 27:12 expert 7:13 expertise 3:5 17:3 experts 28:12 explain 5:11 eye 2:23 e-mail 13:6 F F 29:8 faced 24:7 facilities 4:17 16:4,5 17:1 23:22 facility 23:1 fact 21:1,8 23:6,8 26:11 facts 23:17 fairly 13:16 fallen 15:14 faster 5:3,3 feature 18:24 features 13:18 Federal 26:10 feel 28:9 feeling 25:13,14 fewer 15:25 16:5 field 18:3 fighting 14:13 figure 14:5 24:12 26:2 file 4:10 7:6 9:1,11 13:4 24:4,5 filed 5:13,18 9:4,5 10:18 14:7,8,9,12,15 14:16,18 15:11,13 17:6 18:21 21:5,9 23:5 24:9 filing 15:12 filings 14:7 filters 13:6 find 16:7 fine 2:16 17:8 28:14 first 11:24 12:5 15:8 24:6,6 floor 1:16 19:15 Florida 1:1,6,16,21,25 3:3 5:25 14:7 16:1 22:25 focus 3:15 27:13 focused 22:5 footnote 9:10 foregoing 29:10 foreign 3:20 foreigns 14:5 forth 18:5 forum 6:22 9:1 15:17 21:17 23:2,23 24:2 25:5 found 7:20,20 four-factor 7:24 frequently 16:12 front 5:17 7:4 8:21 9:21,23 Full 7:1 fully 2:21 fun 3:7 further 14:6 G G 1:23 29:13 general 3:18 25:13 generally 7:14 8:25 13:19 16:14 18:8 give 24:19 25:13 28:8 go 3:20 4:24 11:2,4,5 16:23 19:11,18 24:5,13,16,25 26:8 27:19 28:6,23 goal 27:12 goes 8:11,17,18 going 6:10,11 10:21 19:2 23:15,20 27:21 28:22,24 good 2:5,9,10,13 5:11 13:8 15:23 goods 7:21 8:6 Gotshal 1:17 2:14 gotten 15:15 govern 20:7 grant 24:21 great 3:4 greater 20:25 group 5:21 18:8,12 groups 18:18 guess 26:10 Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 31 of 32 31 guide 13:17,18,18 H Hal 1:15 2:5 half 4:17 28:16 handicaps 25:4 handle 16:11 handling 13:4 happen 26:12 happened 15:9 hard 13:20 hear 28:8 hearing 5:19 16:10 19:13 27:16,21 28:5 hearings 26:1 28:12 heart 14:17 high-level 20:21 historically 5:4 history 24:8 hold 7:14 home 12:16 21:10 hometown 21:12 24:3 Honor 2:5,8,13 3:8,25 4:10 6:10 8:8,17 10:2 11:7,21 12:24 14:3,24 16:10,22 17:17 19:16,19 20:1,11,13 21:19 22:19 23:2,14 24:7,20 25:10,20 26:12 26:22 27:5,13 28:2,15,21 29:2,4,5 HONORABLE 1:11 HTC 3:20 I idea 7:10 11:6 Illinois 17:7,11 21:3,5,10 22:23 24:17,23 25:4 imagine 19:24 28:19 important 28:20 importation 7:17 imported 8:19 impression 10:25 23:23 24:19 inclined 19:11 27:19 industry 7:15 information 25:19 infringe 5:15 10:18 infringement 7:9,19 8:10 infringes 7:17 injunction 7:19,24 interested 22:19 28:24 interesting 15:24 24:24 25:20 interests 27:16 interface 18:24 19:1 22:5 International 6:22 7:4,11 8:5,21 intimidated 24:18 inventors 4:21,22 15:21,25 16:2 23:8 involved 18:19 involving 3:21 10:19 iPad 11:4,8,9 22:10 iPhone 11:5,8,9 22:7,10 iPod 11:11 irrelevant 8:10 issue 4:19 5:15 6:14 12:1 16:24 21:22 22:6,8,11,12,13,14,15 26:11 27:3,3,18 28:23 issues 4:25 17:14 27:17 ITC 7:18 9:4,11 10:1,4 J J 1:15,20 January 1:7 29:13 job 26:19,22,23 27:6 judge 1:12 5:17,19,20 9:21,23 10:2,12 10:13,17,19,20 15:14 16:15 20:9,10 20:12,12,14 24:14,14 judges 10:7 15:15 20:18 28:4 judgment 5:14 6:19 judicial 5:22 jurisdiction 5:10,24 6:9 14:14 15:10 jurisdictions 2:25 5:5,6 16:11 jury 26:2,11,13,16,17 27:5,8 K keep 27:3 kind 19:23 25:16 know 2:17 3:13 5:2,5,7,9,18 6:8 7:6 8:24 10:21,24,24 12:23 13:11,16,16 14:4,5 14:6,7,15,17,18,19 15:18,19,23,25 16:9,16,17,19 17:4,6,9,12,22 18:2,12 19:24 20:7 23:3,12,13,14,25 24:16,24 24:25 25:1,18,19,21,21,22,23 26:9,23 27:2,15 28:2,3,7 known 3:4 18:1 L land 20:9 large 6:8 late 14:10 law 26:11 lawsuits 3:18 21:12 lawyers 3:15 7:1 lay 16:25 18:15 leave 28:14 led 14:17 let's 5:10,23 27:18 level 13:10,12 20:3 Libertyville 22:23 line 17:18 list 3:20 litigated 8:22 27:7 litigating 14:23 litigation 3:5 6:14 9:7 10:1 14:6 litigations 3:21 little 16:18,19 20:24 23:3 28:17 live 26:24 LLP 1:14,17 local 4:1 locally 15:25 located 4:22 17:15 19:6 location 22:24 long 19:12,12 longer 4:23 28:7,10 look 3:21 4:10 14:6 17:14 19:8 22:3 28:25 looked 10:23 23:7 looking 24:10 looks 7:15 lose 12:5 lot 3:7 4:1 6:5 16:14 22:6 23:20 27:7 lots 3:18 lover 28:18 Lucas 1:15 2:5,5 M M 1:15 Madison 17:7 magnitude 16:17 major 4:17 22:23 23:22 manageable 6:8,10 28:3 Manges 1:17 2:14 manufacture 8:3 manufactured 8:6 manufacturing 16:3,5 Markman 25:21 26:1 27:14,16,21 28:5 28:12 Matt 2:14 19:19 matter 26:11,15 29:11 MATTHEW 1:18 mean 4:15 5:3 6:9 10:23 16:25 24:4 26:2 26:10 27:6 meaning 25:8 meant 7:13,15 mechanisms 11:4 Melaugh 1:22 2:15 mentioned 10:11 13:15 23:21 messages 13:4,4 Miami 1:6,16,21,24,25 4:23 mine 14:4 miniature 11:18 minute 26:7 minutes 7:12 22:21 Mobility 1:3 2:3 monetary 7:22 8:1 monster 27:17 month 16:21 morning 2:5,9,10,13 19:14 22:19 mosaic 3:22 mother 25:17 motion 2:19,20,20 19:21 21:22 24:15,21 28:24 29:1 Motorola 1:3 2:2,4 3:1,20 4:13,13,14,16 4:23 13:13 16:3 17:1,13,18 18:18 20:25 22:23,25 23:10,19 Motorola's 4:22 11:12 move 21:12 24:6 moved 6:20 21:7 moves 5:3 music 11:11 N name 20:10 necessary 26:4 need 4:24 27:20 neither 27:6 nervous 23:3 never 15:10 news 13:8 nice 28:17 nine 6:17 10:3 nitty 13:10 Nokia 3:20 North 1:24 November 14:10 number 4:9,21 6:4 15:8 17:12 18:9 27:1 27:2,3 nutshell 12:20 O obviously 4:11,21 5:4 7:23 11:18 17:14 19:7 21:22 October 14:8,9 odd 20:24 Official 1:24 Oh 10:16 14:1 okay 2:16 3:11 9:25 12:10 15:6,11 16:23 19:8,18 20:2 22:16,20 23:12 28:1,22 29:3 once 27:5 open 28:14 operating 11:3,15,17,17,23 12:3 13:10 13:11 opportunity 5:7 order 2:1 28:23 oriented 19:23 original 9:3 originally 17:6 21:5 outlier 21:16 28:11 overall 19:4 overlap 19:1,3 21:19 27:11 overview 5:9 13:12,19 overwhelming 27:17 P Pace 1:20 2:13,13 29:4 papers 4:11 5:1,11 11:20 14:14 17:1 18:16 19:7 23:14 24:15 25:2,3 Parkway 1:18 particular 24:19 parties 9:1,18,20 10:8 20:5 23:24 24:11 26:2,3,15 party 17:14 patent 3:5,16 4:1,2 5:3,4 8:10 11:1 13:3 13:6 16:11 17:3 18:8,24 24:1,20 25:13,15,17 28:17 patents 4:22 5:14,15,17,20,21 6:1,4,5,6 6:7,13,15,15,16,18,25 7:4,17,21 8:21 8:22 9:4,5,6,7,19,25 10:3,18,20,21,23 10:24 11:1,25 12:7,8,18,20,21,23 13:2,5,8,12,14,21,22 14:10,13,15,16 14:22 15:7,9 17:9,18,19,24 18:1,2,5,8 18:10,10,12,18 19:1,3 20:22 21:25 27:1 pending 2:20,25 people 2:17 percent 23:18 perfect 5:20,21 10:20 permissive 13:24 14:1 24:9 perplexed 3:1 persuasive 23:9 phone 8:17 12:4 13:1,2,3,6,7 14:23,24 15:7 17:20 18:25 22:4,7 23:15 phones 11:12,17,17 12:12 17:23 18:15 22:3,6,8,13,14 phrase 14:4 placeholder 9:13 10:5 21:6 places 23:20 plaintiff 1:4,14 12:19 plaintiffs 23:24 planning 1:10 2:18,23 Plantation 4:18,20 8:13,14 22:25 23:10 23:11,15 players 11:11 point 8:16 10:17 14:14 15:24 16:9 17:6 20:21 21:13,18 27:9 pointed 3:25 points 14:3 22:22 position 14:11 26:20 possibility 28:15 possible 20:15 power 8:6 PowerPoint 28:19 PowerPoints 28:17 Powers 1:18 2:14 19:16,19,19 20:1,3,15 21:4,10,18,21 22:1,18 27:23,25 29:5 practice 18:5 presence 23:10 present 22:8,9 27:4,4,8,13,17 presents 27:8 prevents 7:17 preview 19:9 printer 18:4 probably 11:1 26:19 problem 5:24 16:18,19 proceeding 25:21 26:13 proceedings 29:11 produced 8:11 product 17:23 22:2 products 4:16,16 8:3,4 11:10 22:10,11 22:13 program 13:17,18,18 proposed 19:11 protect 7:13,15 protocol 18:14 pure 13:1 purely 8:12 put 5:23 19:7 20:21 putting 6:21 puzzling 26:1 Q question 9:3 15:23 17:16 20:4 22:24 27:12 28:3 quickly 5:8 Quinn 1:14 2:7 R R 1:20 29:8 read 10:24 really 2:19 4:15 20:20 23:12 27:24 reason 5:16 reasonable 17:8 18:20 reasons 3:24 4:9 5:11 9:1 11:24 15:8,19 17:12 Recessed 29:6 record 29:11 reduce 27:2 Redwood 1:18,19 regardless 27:10 regularly 3:9 relate 11:14,22 12:11,12,24 13:5,10,15 13:18 18:9,12,13,13 related 6:15 relates 4:19 13:2,3,6 relationship 8:20 relief 7:19 remember 6:3 report 2:24 Reported 1:23 Reporter 1:24 represent 11:1 respect 10:17 18:7 19:3 responding 4:12 20:3 response 21:8 25:9 restate 26:4 retired 16:15 rid 25:8 right 3:19 4:18 5:4,12,21 6:17,23,25 9:14 11:3,14,15,19 12:19 15:12 16:19 20:9,14,16,24 21:20,23 22:3 23:7 24:4,22 25:11 26:23,24,25 27:7,9 28:22 RMR 1:23 Romanishin 1:23 29:13 rule 10:21 rules 4:2 run 28:7,10 Case 1:10-cv-23580-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2011 Page 32 of 32 32 S s 29:13 saying 5:14 10:18 15:9 21:1 schedule 19:11 27:19 scheduling 1:10 2:18,24 19:10 27:18 28:23 scroll 13:17 seat 2:11,16 second 19:17 see 7:16 11:20 28:24 seeing 6:3 seek 9:14 seeking 20:4 seen 15:10 Senior 1:22 sense 5:20 10:20 separately 15:16 set 12:12,12,14,15,17 13:15 15:2,2 18:4 18:23 19:12 22:1,15 27:20 shopping 21:17 23:2,23 24:2 Shores 1:18,19 side 11:11,13 14:12 17:8 sides 20:21 Silicon 24:5 similar 11:18 22:11 simple 26:23 27:4,4 simply 27:8,13 single 11:3 six 9:5 12:7,8 23:22 size 15:10 20:19 Sleet 5:19 10:13,14,17,19 20:10,12 slide-to-unlock 18:24 slowed 16:14 software 12:12 13:11 sorry 6:17 10:16 14:20 16:23 sort 4:2 7:25 11:12 16:23 19:9,14 24:12 sorts 19:6 Southern 1:1 3:2 speak 23:16 26:6 specialize 3:16,25 specialized 3:5 specialty 3:12 specific 5:16 speed 5:2 split 5:12 15:1,6 18:19 standard 18:3,6 standards 18:2,4,9 start 17:11 22:17 started 16:10 state 26:3 STATES 1:1 statutory 9:13 stay 9:14 24:13 stayed 9:12,18,20 10:7,9,10 Steel 10:12 stop 8:6 straight 16:9 strains 11:2,5 strategy 14:6,11 24:10 sued 12:7,18,20,23 Suite 1:20 SULLIVAN 1:14 supposed 27:2 sure 5:24 23:13,17,19 24:3 synching 13:7 system 11:15,17,23 12:3 13:10,12 23:16 systems 11:3,17 T T 29:8,8 take 3:3 6:11 24:8 27:22 28:17 taken 16:16 talk 27:18 talked 19:12 talking 13:23 22:4,17 technical 18:2 technological 11:4 technologically 11:5 technology 3:17 4:18 5:3 8:25 11:2 12:18 13:1,2 14:23,25 15:7 17:17,20 17:25 22:4,6 23:15 25:19 26:24 28:9 28:18 technologywise 18:18 television 12:15 tell 3:8 12:20,21 19:13,14 ten 22:21 tendency 5:5 terminology 11:2 terms 13:14 16:17 17:21,22 19:10 22:10 22:12 23:24 26:10 27:3,5 test 7:24 testify 28:13 Texas 4:4 Thank 19:16,19 29:2,3,4,5 thing 4:2 7:25 11:12 24:12 things 4:12 8:14 16:16 19:6 think 2:19 3:2 13:19 16:13 18:17,19 19:4 20:3 22:18 27:20,23 28:1,11,13 thought 10:11 12:6 three 6:11 9:4 12:7,11,18 13:15 16:20 16:20 18:22 throwing 21:25 tie 22:25 ties 15:25 time 3:13 5:2 10:24 16:13 17:5 19:9,12 19:12 27:7,14,20,21 today 11:18 told 23:6,9,10,11 tool 28:20 top 12:12,12,14,15,17 13:15 15:2,2 18:23 22:1,15 Touch 11:11 touchscreen 22:5,7 Trade 6:22 7:5,11 8:5,21 traditional 24:11 train 12:6 transcript 1:10 29:10 transfer 2:21 17:14 19:5,22 20:4 21:22 24:11,22 28:25 transferred 20:9 trial 4:5,24 5:3,7 16:13 17:5 27:15 troublesome 2:19 true 22:1 25:2 trumps 19:4 trying 10:22 14:5 turf 21:11 turns 22:20 tutorials 28:4,16 TV 12:16,16 13:17 two 7:12 8:3 10:7 15:11,13,14 18:19 21:5,11 22:22 28:16 type 19:1 22:8 U understand 10:22 16:22 20:4 23:8 25:10 25:25 understandable 26:24 understanding 19:22 23:22 understood 22:18 UNGARO 1:11 UNITED 1:1 unlimited 19:8 unrelated 18:22 21:25 unusual 3:23 URQUHART 1:14 URSULA 1:11 use 13:17 14:4 18:25 uses 23:15 usual 19:5 usually 2:17 3:15 U.S 1:12 3:19 7:17 8:3,12 V v 1:5 vacancies 16:20,20 Valley 24:5 various 21:21 venue 2:21 20:5 28:25 versus 2:3 9:2 17:19 victim 21:16 video 28:4 videos 28:18 view 6:12 20:23 violate 7:21 violation 7:20 voluntarily 20:21 21:7 W want 15:16,16 17:16 19:14,21 20:20 22:16,21,24 23:13,16,17 24:19,25 25:6,13 26:7 28:15 wanted 19:9,23 way 8:2,4 16:7 26:12,17,18,18 28:15 ways 22:3 Weil 1:17 2:14 went 2:23 26:13 Western 4:3 20:8 we'll 4:11,23,24 5:10 16:25 18:15 19:7 25:1 28:8,25 we're 6:11 11:8 14:10,13 17:8 22:4 24:7 27:2,6 28:22 we've 12:23 22:18 27:6 William 1:23 29:13 wins 27:9 wireless 18:3,4 Wisconsin 5:25 6:14,15,16,18 8:22 9:7 9:17,22 10:3,7 12:1,2,4 14:8,13,14,16 14:18,22 15:12,13,21 16:1,2,4,8,13 17:2,2,7,19 18:1 19:2 20:8,16,22,25 21:2,7,9,13 22:2,9,12,14 24:5,10,14 24:22,25 25:3,6 witnesses 4:24 17:13,15 19:6 24:12 28:12 Wi-Fi 18:3 words 7:15 work 4:19,25 6:9 working 23:20 works 8:2,5 worldwide 4:17 wrong 21:3 24:19 Wyoming 4:8 X X 11:13 Y yeah 16:25 23:21 year 4:6 years 6:2 25:16 26:9 1 10-23580 2:3 10-23580-Civ-UNGARO 1:2 11:18 1:7 11:51 29:6 110 23:17 12 5:14 6:6,7,16,18,18 10:18 1200 1:20 1395 1:20 14 1:7 16th 1:16 19 29:13 2 2G 18:14 20 6:2 26:9 201 1:18 2011 1:7 29:13 24 25:15 3 3G 18:14 30 6:1 26:9 305 1:24 33128 1:25 33131 1:16,21 4 400 1:24 5 523-5558 1:24 7 701 1:16 8 802.11 18:13 9 94065-1134 1:19

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?