WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 194

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leonard Davis: Markman Hearing held on 4/26/2012. (Court Reporter Shea Sloan.) (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Sign-in Sheets) (rlf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DATE: April 26, 2012

Court Reporter: Shea Sloan

LEONARD DAVIS
Judge Presiding
Law Clerk(s): Allan Bullwinkel

Court Administrator: Rosa L Ferguson

WI-LAN, Inc.
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:10-CV-521

V
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., ET AL
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

MARKMAN HEARING
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

SEE SIGN-IN SHEETS
On this day, came the parties by their attorneys and the following proceedings were had:
OPEN: 9:30 AM

ADJOURN: 12:00 PM

TIME:

MINUTES:

9:30 am

Case called. PARTIES ANNOUNCED READY. (SEE SIGN-IN SHEETS)
Court addressed the parties and asked for a brief opening statement.
Mr. Weaver presented a brief opening statement to the Court. (4 patents at issue.)
Mr. Wynne did not have anything further to add.
Mr. Weaver presented term “Subscriber Terminal.”
Mr. Bader responded. Mr. Weaver continued with his presentation.
Mr. Bader responded and proposed the Defendant’s definition for “subscriber
terminal.”
Mr. Weaver responded.
Mr. Wynne addressed the Court on the agreement on the orthogonal code. Mr.
Mr. Valek presented term “time division multiplexing (TDM) techniques.”
Mr. Appleby responded and proposed the Defendant’s definition of term. Mr. Valek
responded.

10:40 am

Court in recess.

10:55 am

Hearing resumed. Court will move on to time slot.

TIME:

MINUTES:
Mr. Valek presented term “time slot.”
Mr. Appleby responded.
Mr. Valek addressed the Court on terms “TDM encoder and decoder” and will
submit on the papers. Mr. Appleby responded and agrees on Wi-Lan’s revised
construction on encoder. Mr. Appleby presented defendant’s proposed construction
on decoder. Court proposed definition to the parties. Defendants in agreement.
Plaintiff asked to confer. Court’s proposed definition and parties in agreement.
Mr. Appleby addressed the Court on TDM techniques. Mr. Valek responded. Mr.
Appleby responded. Court addressed the parties. Mr. Appleby responded. Mr.
Valek responded.
Court clarified definition of TDM decoder. Court and parties discussed.
Mr. Valek presented term “overlay code.”
Mr. Bader responded and proposed Defendant’s definition of term. Mr. Weaver
asked to confer. Mr. Valek responded. Mr. Bader responded. Mr. Valek responded.
Court and parties discussed the “tree” diagram. Mr. Wynne responded. Mr. Valek
responded.
Mr. Weaver presented term “Parameters Pertaining to...”
Mr. Appleby responded and proposed Defendant’s definition to term. Mr. Weaver
responded to the dependent claim.
Mr. Weaver presented term “Channel Pool.”
Mr. Sostek responded and presented Defendant’s proposed definition to term. Mr.
Weaver responded. Court and parties continued to discuss.
Court and parties discussed the MSJs and will be submitted on the briefs.

12:00 pm

There being nothing further, Court adjourned.