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 G

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.,
8:58 a.m.
ET AL
)
July 15, 2013
******************************************************
WI-LAN, INC.
)
DOCKET NO. 6:13cv252
-vs)
HTC CORPORATION,
ET AL
)

11
12
13
14

15

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

16
17
18
19

COURT REPORTERS:
20

21

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

22
23

24
25

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

Page 35
1

known requirements according to their established

2

functions to produce a predictable result, it can be

3

important to identify a reason that would have prompted

4

a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to

5

combine those requirements in the way the claimed new

6

invention does.

7

This is so because inventions for the

8

most part, if not always, are instances -- instances

9

rely upon building blocks that have long since been

10

uncovered and claimed discoveries almost of necessity

11

will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already

12

known.

13

Let me read that again.

14

This is so because inventions if not

15

all -- in most, if not all instances, rely upon building

16

blocks long since uncovered and claimed -- and claimed

17

discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of

18

what, in some sense, is already known.

19

Accordingly, you may evaluate whether

20

there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to

21

arrive at the claimed invention as a whole, before the

22

time of the claimed invention, although proof of this is

23

not a requirement to prove obviousness.

24
25

Teachings, suggestions, and motivations
may also be found within the knowledge of a person of

Page 36
1

ordinary skill in the art including inferences and

2

creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the

3

art would employ.

4

Additionally, teachings, suggestions, and

5

motivations may be found in the nature of the problem

6

solved by the claimed invention, or any need or problem

7

known in the field of the invention at the time and

8

addressed by the invention.

9

Therefore, in evaluating -- in evaluating

10

whether a claim would have been obvious, you should

11

consider a variety of factors, such as:

12

No. 1, whether Defendants have identified

13

a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary

14

skill in the field of the invention to combine the

15

requirements or concepts from the prior art in the same

16

way as in the claimed invention.

17

There is no single way to define the line

18

between true inventiveness on the one hand, which is

19

patentable, and the application of common sense and

20

ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand,

21

which is not patentable.

22

For example, market forces or other

23

design incentives may be what produced a change, rather

24

than true inventiveness.

25

No. 2, whether the claimed invention

Page 37
1

applies a known technique that has been used to improve

2

a similar device or method in a similar way.

3

No. 3, whether the claimed invention

4

would have been obvious to try, meaning that the claimed

5

innovation was one of a relatively small number of

6

possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable

7

expectation of success by those skilled in the art.

8
9

But you must be careful not to determine
obviousness using hindsight; many true inventions can

10

seem obvious after the fact.

11

put yourself in the position of a person of ordinary

12

skill in the field of the invention at the time the

13

claimed invention was made, and you should not consider

14

what is known today or what is learned from the teaching

15

of the patent.

16

What you need to do is to

The ultimate conclusion of whether a

17

claim is obvious should be based on your determination

18

of several factual issues:

19

First, you must decide the level of

20

ordinary skill in the field of the invention that

21

someone would have had at the time the claimed invention

22

was made.

23

Secondly, you must decide the scope and

24

content of the prior art.

25

content of the prior art, you must decide whether a

In determining this scope and

Page 154
1

MR. HILL:

Nothing from Plaintiff.

2

THE COURT:

From the Defendants?

3

MR. AROVAS:

4

THE COURT:

5

No, Your Honor.
All right.

Court is

adjourned.

6

(Court adjourned.)

7
8

CERTIFICATION

9
10

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a

11

true and correct transcript from the stenographic notes

12

of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the

13

best of our abilities.

14
15
16

/s/ Shea Sloan
SHEA SLOAN, CSR

17

Official Court Reporter
State of Texas No.:

18

Expiration Date:

3081

12/31/14

19
20

/s/ Judith Werlinger
21

JUDITH WERLINGER, CSR
Deputy Official Court Reporter

22

State of Texas No.:
Expiration Date

23
24
25

731

12/31/14