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)

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:
[phone]

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