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

Filing 492

RESPONSE to Motion re 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 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: Markman Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B: Trial Transcript, # 3 Exhibit C: Trial Transcript, # 4 Exhibit D: Trial Transcript, # 5 Exhibit E: Trial Transcript, # 6 Exhibit F: PX 1, # 7 Exhibit G: PX 2, # 8 Exhibit H: PX 3, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Heinlen, James)

EXHIBIT A

1

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

2
3

WI-LAN, INC.

4
-vs5
6

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC,
ET AL

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DOCKET NO. 6:10cv521
Tyler, Texas
9:30 a.m.
April 26, 2012

7
8
9

TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11

A P P E A R A N C E S

12
13

(SEE SIGN-IN SHEETS DOCKETED IN THE MINUTES OF THE CASE.)

14
15
16
17

COURT REPORTER:

MS. SHEA SLOAN
211 West Ferguson
Tyler, Texas 75702

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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

59
1

have saved us some time if you would have slipped them that

2

one before we started, so next time maybe we can do that.

3

should be the only one that gets to throw out new

4

definitions in the middle of a hearing.

5
6
7
8
9

I

(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. BADER:

I think we both recognized that we were

fighting over something we shouldn't be fighting about.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. VALEK:

Your Honor, I think we are a little bit

10

closer, but there are some things we do disagree with this new

11

construction.

12

THE COURT:

All right.

13

MR. VALEK:

First, the use of the word "second" sort

14

of implies to a lay jury that there is some sort of temporal

15

limitation that it has to be applied second.

16

propose that it be an additional code, which is what the

17

specification actually says.

So we would

18

The other problem with this construction is this

19

requirement that they have inserted that it be an entirely

20

separate code from the orthogonal code.

21

that is just unsupported by the case law regarding how these

22

types of things are construed, and it is also inconsistent

23

with some of the preferred embodiments in the specification.

24
25

THE COURT:

And that is something

If it is an additional code, then

wouldn't that imply that it was separate?

86
1

(Hearing concluded.)

2
3

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

4
5

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the

6

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

/s/ Shea Sloan
SHEA SLOAN, CSR, RPR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
STATE OF TEXAS NO. 3081