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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?