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

Filing 491

RESPONSE to Motion re 482 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law [RENEWED] OF NO INVALIDITY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON INVALIDITY filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Ericsson Inc., Exedea INC., HTC America, Inc., HTC Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Trial Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B: Trial Transcript, # 3 Exhibit C: Trial Transcript, # 4 Exhibit D: Trial Transcript, # 5 Exhibit E: Trial Transcript, # 6 Exhibit F: Trial Transcript, # 7 Exhibit G: Trial Transcript, # 8 Exhibit H: DDX 13-19, # 9 Exhibit I: DDX 13-31, # 10 Exhibit J: DX 124, # 11 Exhibit K: DX 148, # 12 Exhibit L: PX 1, # 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Heinlen, James)

EXHIBIT F

Page 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

6
7
8

9
10

)

Tyler, Texas
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.,
12:09 p.m.
ET AL
)
July 12, 2013
******************************************************
WI-LAN, INC.
)
DOCKET NO. 6:13cv252
-vs)
HTC CORPORATION,
ET AL
)

11
12
13
14

15

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
AFTERNOON 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.

Page 14
1

regards to the MIN.

2

MIN.

3

Q.

Yes, Mr. Lanning pointed to the

So you and Mr. Lanning disagree about whether

4

the MIN is a characteristic of the data item or a

5

characteristic associated with the user?

6

A.

It would appear that way.

In my opinion, this

7

MIN is not a characteristic associated with the data

8

item as is required by the Court's construction of TDM

9

techniques.

10

Q.

And if it's not a characteristic associated

11

with a data item, what does that tell us about validity

12

or invalidity?

13

A.

Well, this says the patent cannot be invalid

14

on this.

15

anticipation of this claim element.

The patent is valid, because there is no

16

Q.

The claim element being?

17

A.

The TDM techniques, the TDM encoder, and also

18
19
20

the TDM decoder.
Q.

elements, let's put up the claim chart.

21
22

And now that you mentioned those claim

MR. BORGMAN:

Your Honor, may I put up a

claim chart, please?

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. BORGMAN:

25

Q.

Yes, you may.
Thank you.

(By Mr. Borgman) Can you see it?

Page 42
1

that will be for User 1, User 2, User 3, User 4.

2
3

Q.

Right.

And that's how time division

multiplexing works, right?

4

A.

Some forms of time division multiplexing.

5

Q.

That's how traditional time division

6

multiplexing works when taking turns.

7

then the next user, then the next user, and then next

8

user.

9

right?

One user goes,

That's how time division multiplexing works,

10

A.

Generally, yes.

11

Q.

And you talked about that in your direct

12

examination just a few days ago?

13

A.

That's right, I did.

14

Q.

Okay.

So your -- your -- what your beef is,

15

you're suggesting that, although the slots are allocated

16

based on the user's identity, the user's identity is not

17

a characteristic associated with the data item; that's

18

what your position is, right?

19

A.

That's correct, yes.

20

Q.

Now, you agree, though, a user is associated

21

with the data that a base station is transmitting to

22

that user.

You agree with that, right?

23

A.

Say it again, please.

24

Q.

A user is associated with its data, the data

25

that's being transmitted to that user.

You'll agree

Page 43
1

with that?

2
3
4
5

A.

Generally, yes, it would be associated with

Q.

Right.

it.
The user is associated with its data,

correct?

6

A.

Yes.

7

Q.

And the encoder in that paging channel is

8

inserting data from mobiles -- that encoder that's

9

inserting the data for those mobiles into the paging

10

channel has to know the identity of that user to do

11

that, right?

12

A.

13
14
15
16
17
18

It has to know it, but it doesn't -- it

doesn't look at the characteristics of that data item.
Q.

It's looking at the user identity, though,

right?
A.

It knows -- it has to know which end-user to

send the data to.
Q.

Okay.

And using that mobile identity, this

19

paging channel allocates those slots in a pre-defined

20

repeated sequence.

You'll agree with that, right?

21

A.

That's right, yes.

22

Q.

So your view is that allocation based on the

23

user in a pre-defined repeated sequence, is excluded by

24

the Court's construction.

25

A.

That's right.

That's your view?

Page 53
1

Do you see that?

2

A.

I do.

3

Q.

And then if we go down in the same paragraph,

4

it talks about a system in which the individual time

5

slots can transmit a given number of bits for voice, 'n'

6

bits, or video, 'm' bits, transmissions using different

7

amounts of medium bandwidth.

8

Do you see that?

9

A.

Yes, I do.

10

Q.

Voice is a type of data, right?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And video is a type of data, right?

13

A.

It can be, yes.

14

Q.

And here we see 'n' bits are given to voice,

15

'm' bits are given to video, different amounts of bits

16

given to different types of data, right?

17

A.

I see that written down here.

18

Q.

Now, let me turn to, actually, just briefly to

19

the Gilhousen patent.

20
21

Now, we've seen this figure from the Gilhousen
patent application a number of times, right?

22

A.

From the Gilhousen application, yes.

23

Q.

That's what I'm looking at, right?

24

A.

Let's see.

25

Q.

Okay.

Yes.

And we've seen this figure a number of

Page 56
1

rates increase on the forward traffic channel, then

2

fewer codes are available.

3

Then look at the next sentence, sir.

4

For example, there can be 32 forward traffic

5

channels assigned at 38.4 kilobits per second.

6

those -- of these 32 channels can also be split.

7

Some of

Do you see that word?

8

A.

Yes, I do.

9

Q.

For example, there can be 16 channels assigned

10

at 38.4 kilobits per second and 64 channels assigned at

11

9600 bits per second.

12

Do you see that?

13

A.

Yes, I see that.

14

Q.

So right here, the document itself uses the

15

word "split" for channels, right?

16

A.

It does.

17

Q.

Okay.

18
19

And then if we look at Figure 4-3 --

you didn't show us this figure on direct, did you?
A.

No, I didn't, because this -- the -- Tiedemann

20

here talks about this overlay code generator as merging

21

codes together.

22

the context of this patent -- of this paper.

23
24
25

Q.

This -- this figure makes no sense in

It says:

Overlay Encoding, is the title of

this figure, right?
A.

Yes.

And as I said, just because it says

Page 57
1

overlay encoding, doesn't mean it's an overlay encoder.

2

Q.

3

this figure.

4

A.

It says:

Overlay encoding at the bottom of

You'll agree with that, right?

I agree they're the words that are written on

5

this page; but, as I said, that is not what is disclosed

6

within this paper.

7

Q.

Okay.

And just as we read in the documents,

8

there were 32 channels at 3800 and -- 38400 bits per

9

second, right?

10
11
12

A.

That's what's written here, but this isn't

overlay encoding as construed by the Court.
Q.

And most channels are split to 64 orthogonal

13

channels at 1900 and 200 bits per second; isn't that

14

right?

15
16

A.

Again, this is what's written here, but this

isn't overlay encoding as construed by the Court.

17

Q.

38400 is twice 1900 -- 19200, right?

18

A.

I would agree to that.

19

Q.

Okay.

And then those channels can be split

20

again 128 at 9600 bits per second, right?

21

the figure shows us, right?

22

A.

That's what

That's what the figure shows us, but once

23

again, this is not overlay encoding as disclosed in the

24

patent.

25

Q.

So when we're talking about the infringement

Page 63
1

64 channels assigned at 9600 bits per second, right?

2

A.

That's what it said, but --

3

Q.

And if we turn, we see that the figure that's

4

being referred to is the figure I showed you before,

5

Figure 4-3, a tree, right?

6

A.

I don't know.

I mean, it's not a spreading

7

tree, because it -- the Tiedemann reference talks about

8

merging these channels together.

9
10
11
12

Q.

This makes no sense.

It's not a spreading tree?

It says spreading

right at the top of the tree.
A.

It doesn't say spreading tree; it says

spreading.

13

Q.

14

tree, right?

15

A.

I see that it says spreading, yes.

16

Q.

About 75 percent of your time is spent

17

consulting with lawyers; is that right?

18
19

MR. BORGMAN:

Your Honor, outside the

scope of redirect.

20
21

It says spreading right at the top of the

THE COURT:
Q.

Sustained.

(By Mr. Appleby) Going back to Tiedemann, we

22

also see, do we not, a separate overlay encoder and a

23

separate orthogonal code generator, correct?

24
25

A.

I see a box that's labeled as an overlay

encoder, and I see a box that's labeled as a Walsh code

Page 94
1

So we'll be adjourned.

2

COURT SECURITY OFFICER:

3

(Court adjourned.)

All rise.

4
5

CERTIFICATION

6
7

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a

8

true and correct transcript from the stenographic notes

9

of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the

10

best of our abilities.

11
12
13

/s/ Shea Sloan
SHEA SLOAN, CSR

14

Official Court Reporter
State of Texas No.:

15

Expiration Date:

3081

12/31/14

16
17

/s/ Judith Werlinger
18

JUDITH WERLINGER, CSR
Deputy Official Court Reporter

19

State of Texas No.:
Expiration Date

20
21
22
23
24
25

731

12/31/14