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

Filing 481

MOTION for New Trial CONCERNING THE NON-INFRINGEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,088,326; 6,222,819; 6,195,327 AND 6,381,211 by WI-LAN Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Trial Transcript (July 9, 2013 Morning Session), # 2 Exhibit B - Trial Transcript (July 11, 2013 Morning Session), # 3 Exhibit C - Trial Transcript (July 11, 2013 Afternoon Session), # 4 Exhibit D - Trial Transcript (July 10, 2013 Afternoon Session), # 5 Exhibit E - PX-1 - U.S. Patent No. 6,088,326, # 6 Exhibit F - PX-2 - U.S. Patent No. 6,195,327, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Weaver, David)

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

Doc. 481 Att. 1

Exhibit A

Dockets.Justia.com

1
1

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

2
3

WI-LAN, INC.

)

4

DOCKET NO. 6:10cv521
-vs-

)

5

Tyler, Texas
8:47 a.m.
July 9, 2013

6

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.,
ET AL

7

******************************************************

8

WI-LAN, INC.

)

)
DOCKET NO. 6:13cv252

9
10

-vsHTC CORPORATION,
ET AL

)
)

11
12
13
14
15

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
MORNING SESSION
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

COURT REPORTERS:

MS. SHEA SLOAN
MS. JUDY WERLINGER
211 W. Ferguson
Tyler, Texas 75702
[e-mail]

23
24
25

Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
produced by a Computer.

99
1

same structure, right?

We have a separate overlay code

2

generator, a separate orthogonal code generator, and two

3

separate encoders, right?

4

A.

In this example, yes.

5

Q.

Okay.

And if we look at -- I didn't

6

color-code these -- on the receiver side, we see

7

orthogonal code generator, overlay code generator, and

8

two de-spreaders, right?

9

A.

That's right.

10

Q.

Okay.

Yes, we do.

If we look at the next figure, we see

11

the same thing, same structure:

12

generator, overlay code generator, two de-spreaders on

13

the receive side, right?

14

A.

That's right.

15

Q.

Okay.

Orthogonal code

In this example, we do.

If we go to Figure 12, we see another

16

example.

We see overlay code -- it's a little different

17

format.

18

orthogonal code, separate place, and two separate

19

encoders, right?

Overlay code over here, RW code, which is the

20

A.

Yes, we do.

21

Q.

Okay.

In fact, we could go through every

22

example in the patent, and that's the structure we're

23

going to see, right?

24

A.

In those embodiments, yes.

25

Q.

In every one of the embodiments in the patent,

100
1

that's what we're going to see, right?

2

A.

Yes.

3

Q.

Okay.

4

And, in fact, the patent even lists

examples of how the code works.

5

So if we look at Column 10, right -- and

6

that's how patents are organized, in columns and line

7

numbers, right?

8

It says Column 10 of the '326 patent?

9

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

If we look down below, we see it's got a

11

table, and this is the RW codes or the orthogonal codes,

12

right?

13

A.

Yes, that's right.

14

Q.

All right.

And then you have a separate table

15

with additional codes for the overlay, which we find in

16

Column 15, Table 2, the overlay codes, a separate table

17

of codes for the overlay, right?

18

A.

That's right.

19

Q.

All right.

In this example, we do.

And the way that would work, just

20

like the structure we saw in the claims, is that you

21

would first use -- or you would use the orthogonal

22

codes, and then you would use the overlay codes in

23

whatever order you want, right?

24
25

MR. BORGMAN:
we approach?

Objection, Your Honor.

May

101
1

THE COURT:

Yes, you may.

2

(Bench conference.)

3

MR. BORGMAN:

This is a limine issue,

4

Your Honor.

5

suggesting that the claims require something different

6

than the claim construction or saying things that are

7

contrary to the claim construction order.

8
9

We've got a limine motion and order about

Mr. Arovas's question just went to the
order in which the overlay codes and the orthogonal

10

codes have to be applied.

11

that they can be applied simultaneously; they do not

12

have to be applied in seriatim.

13

MR. AROVAS:

And in your order, it says

I say in any order, but I'm

14

happy to reask the question and say simultaneously.

15

That wasn't the intent.

16
17

THE COURT:

Reask the

question.

18
19

All right.

(Bench conference concluded.)
Q.

(By Mr. Arovas) Okay.

So going back to what

20

we were talking about, so when we look at the examples

21

in the specification, you see there's a set of

22

orthogonal codes, a different set of overlay codes; and

23

you can apply them in any order or simultaneously, but

24

there's two sets, right?

25

A.

In -- in this embodiment, yes.

102
1

Q.

Okay.

And, in fact, if we were to go through

2

the entire specification, we wouldn't find any example

3

that uses one code to both contain the orthogonal and

4

the overlay code, right?

5
6
7

A.

Well, there's examples in there about how

codes can be mixed together.
Q.

Okay.

Here's my question, okay?

It's a fact

8

that there isn't any example or embodiment in any of the

9

patents-in-suit that disclose the orthogonal code and

10
11
12
13

the overlay code to be a single code, correct?
A.

The answer to that is no -- I beg your pardon.

The -- you are correct.
Q.

I'm correct.

There isn't a single example

14

that uses the orthogonal code and the overlay code to be

15

a single code, right?

16
17
18

A.

That's right.

There's examples of how you can

mix codes together, but you are correct.
Q.

Okay.

So now let's turn to some of your

19

allegations where you compare the claims to -- and I'll

20

just leave this up here in case we need to refer to

21

it -- when you compare the claims to the accused

22

products, okay?

23

So first let's talk about Alcatel-Lucent.

24

And so I think you explained on direct, as you did in

25

your deposition, that you were relying on the same

114
1

It's a fact that when this single OVSF code goes into

2

this single structure that it performs a single

3

spreading operation, right?

4
5
6

A.

No, no.

You're -- you're mischaracterizing

Q.

Well, let me ask it again.

it.

7

Is it the case that in the Ericsson products,

8

that there is a single spreading operation performed

9

with the OVSF code?

10

A.

No, there's not.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

MR. AROVAS:

Let's play Clip 34.

13

(Video playing.)

14

QUESTIONS:

Now, the Ericsson accused

15

products spread a data item to be transmitted in a

16

single spreading operation, correct?

17

ANSWER:

There is a single spreading

18

operation that includes the functions of the first

19

encoder and second encoder, as outlined in the claims.

20
21

QUESTIONS:

operation; is that fair to say?

22
23

ANSWER:

Whilst it includes both of those

separate functions, it is a single spreading operation.

24
25

But it's a single spreading

(End of video clip.)
Q.

(By Mr. Arovas) Okay.

So isn't it the case,

115
1

under oath, in your deposition, you said that it's a

2

single spreading operation?

3
4
5

A.

Right?

I did, but I tried to put that in context on

my -Q.

I understand your position that one can be

6

two, okay; and that you say that there's two functions.

7

But let's just talk about the spreading operation.

8

It is a fact that this single structure performs a

9

single spreading operation with a single OVSF code;

10
11
12
13

isn't that right?
A.

I feel uncomfortable answering this as a yes

or no, but yes.
Q.

Okay.

And, in fact, if we go to the

14

Alcatel-Lucent product, you would see the same thing:

15

Single structure, single OVSF code, single spreading

16

operation, correct?

17

A.

Performing the --

18

Q.

I understand your position, that two-in-one,

19

but let's just -- but let's just talk about how the

20

products work.

21

Single structure, single OVSF code, single

22

spreading operation in the Alcatel-Lucent products,

23

correct?

24
25

MR. BORGMAN:
approach?

Your Honor, may we

116
1

THE COURT:

2

(Bench conference.)

3

MR. BORGMAN:

4

Yes, you may.

We are getting back to the

motion in limine involving the simultaneous operation.

5

In the Court's claim construction, the

6

Court held that the claims do allow simultaneous

7

operations.

8

Mr. Arovas' question says I understand

9

that's your position, but he's suggesting that that's

10

not allowed by the Court.

11

MR. AROVAS:

That's not our position at

12

all.

Our position is there are two encoders.

13

two sets of codes.

14

time or not, is not the point.

15
16

Whether you apply them at the same

The point is, it's one code, one encoder
applied once.

17
18

There are

I think it's fair cross-examination.
THE COURT:

Okay.

You can clean it up on

cross-examination.

19

MR. BORGMAN:

20

(Bench conference concluded.)

21

Q.

All right.

(By Mr. Arovas) Okay.

Let's pick up where we

22

left off, and I want to be crystal-clear:

23

I'm not

talking about order here.

24

You can use one code first, another code --

25

you can use the orthogonal code first and the overlay

117
1

codes second; the overlay code -- I'm sorry -- the

2

orthogonal first -- you can use the orthogonal first,

3

the overlay second; the overlay first, the orthogonal

4

second.

5

You can do them simultaneously.
I'm not suggesting anything about order, okay?

6

A.

Okay.

7

Q.

Okay.

But what we know is for both the

8

Ericsson and the Alcatel-Lucent products, as well as the

9

handset products, the structure that's the

10

encoder/decoder, single structure, uses single OVSF

11

code, and a single spreading operation, correct?

12

A.

Well, yes.

13

Q.

Thank you.

14

So now let's talk very briefly about where

15

those codes are or where they sort of physically reside

16

in the products.

17

Defendants' products basically have an on-the-fly system

18

where they generate the codes as they need them, right?

And it's correct, isn't it, that the

19

A.

Yes, they do.

20

Q.

Okay.

So whether you're talking about the

21

Alcatel-Lucent products, the Ericsson products, or the

22

HTC or Sony Mobile products, it's a fact that none of

23

those products store at any one point in time the entire

24

set of orthogonal codes, correct?

25

A.

I mean, that's not required by the claims,