Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 842

Opposed MOTION for Attorney Fees Yahoo!'s Motion to Declare this an Exceptional Case and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to 35 USC Sec. 285 by Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit B. James Decl., #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit 10, #12 Exhibit 11, #13 Exhibit 12, #14 Exhibit 13, #15 Exhibit 14, #16 Exhibit 15, #17 Exhibit 16, #18 Exhibit 17, #19 Exhibit 18, #20 Exhibit 19, #21 Exhibit 20, #22 Exhibit 21, #23 Exhibit 22, #24 Exhibit 23, #25 Exhibit 24, #26 Exhibit 25)(Chaikovsky, Yar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/7/2011: #27 Text of Proposed Order) (mll, ).

EXHIBIT 17

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

2
3
4

BEDROCK COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGIES LLC

)
DOCKET NO. 6:09cv269

5

-vs-

)

6
YAHOO!, INC.
7
8
9

)

Tyler, Texas
9:00 a.m.
April 28, 2011

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
MORNING SESSION
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12

A P P E A R A N C E S
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

MR. DOUGLAS A. CAWLEY
MR. THEODORE STEVENSON, III
MR. SCOTT W. HEJNY
MR. JASON D. CASSADY
McKOOL SMITH
300 Crescent Court, Ste. 500
Dallas, TX 75201
MR. ROBERT M. PARKER
MR. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER BUNT
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH
100 E. Ferguson, Ste. 1114
Tyler, TX 75702
COURT REPORTERS:

22
23
24
25

MS. JUDY WERLINGER
MS. SHEA SLOAN
Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
produced by a Computer.

e785229a-1929-498a-9ff1-39d67cd25ac8

Page 83

1

deletion used by Yahoo!?

2

A.

Yes, sir.

3

Q.

Does Yahoo! identify and remove some of the

4
5

expired ones of the records?
A.

Yes, they do.

These are these records that

6

are changing where the generation has changed and no

7

longer matches.

8
9
10

Q.

Does Yahoo! do that by adjusting the pointer

in the linked list to bypass the previously identified
expired records?

11

A.

Yes, sir.

12

Q.

Is that what you showed when you moved the

13

pointer over?

14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

And I circled in my definitions -- I forgot

16

why the words, same access -- I think it was something

17

that Yahoo!'s attorney argued.

18

Do you remember that?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

The Court has said both identification and

21

removal of the expired records occurs during the same

22

access of the linked list.

23

Does that happen here?

24

A.

Yes, it does.

25

Q.

Is it the same access?

e785229a-1929-498a-9ff1-39d67cd25ac8

Page 84

1

A.

Yes.

2

Q.

How do you know it's the same access?

3

A.

I can look, for example, the locks indicate

4

that it's the same access.

The list is locked at the

5

beginning of the access and unlocked at the end of the

6

access.

7

Q.

And I think as the computer went down the

8

linked list, as it was finding expired generation

9

records, was it removing it right then and there?

10

A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

So do you find this function to be identically

12

met by Yahoo!

13

A.

Yes, I do.

14

Q.

Let's talk now about the structure.

15
16

Has the Court given us a definition for the
structure of this element?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

Will you read the definition or -- why don't

19

we first turn to the definition, which is on Page 2 of

20

the Court's claim constructions.

21
22
23
24
25

Again, at a higher level, how has the Court
defined the structure?
A.

Again, this is essentially hardware and

software.
Q.

And how has the Court defined hardware?

e785229a-1929-498a-9ff1-39d67cd25ac8