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 D

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.,
1:06 p.m.
ET AL
)
July 11, 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 12
1

A.

2

A lot.
First, you look at the patent.

3

the file history.

4

generated during -- by the Court.

5

I looked at

construction.

6

You look at the documents that are
I looked at the claim

And then I looked at the products.

I looked

7

at the specifications by HTC and by Qualcomm.

8

at the source code.

9

there's a lot of material, including the depositions and

10
11

so on.
Q.

I looked

I looked at the standard.

So

So there's a lot of stuff to go through.
With respect to the claim construction, you

12

understand the Court has provided us with certain

13

definitions for the terms in the claims of the '211

14

patent?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And did you apply those constructions when

17

conducting your analysis for this case?

18

A.

Of course.

19

Q.

Okay.

Professor Akl, we've heard a lot of

20

pretty technical concepts over the last few days, and

21

I'd like to get right to the main point.

22
23
24
25

As briefly as possible, can you tell the jury
why HTC's phones do not infringe the '211 patent?
A.

Very simple.

One does not equal to two.

In the HTC products, in the Qualcomm chip, there is one

Page 13
1

code, and in the patent, there is the orthogonal code,

2

and then there is the additional overlay code.

3

not equal one.

4

Q.

Two does

It's as simple as that.

Now, did you prepare an animation to explain

5

to the jury the differences between the '211 patent and

6

the HTC phones?

7

A.

I did.

8

Q.

So what are we looking at here?

9

A.

So this is an example from the '211 patent of

10

the invention in the '211 patent.

11

looking at, on the left, we have RW 1, RW 2, 3, and 4.

12

Those are the orthogonal channels.

13

the receiver side.

14

And so what we're

Remember, this is on

So there's a radio channel that's already been

15

encoded by an orthogonal code.

16

shadings in the color, those are the overlay channels.

17

And then the small

And then we have an orthogonal code generator.

18

We see Decoder No. 1.

19

and we have the second decoder, Decoder No. 2.

20

Q.

21

Okay.

There is an overlay generator,

I'd like to start this animation.

And can you explain what's happening as it --

22

as it plays?

23

A.

24
25

Sure.
And so as the signal is applied to the Decoder

No. 1, along with the orthogonal code that is generated

Page 14
1

by the orthogonal code generator, we get the orthogonal

2

channel RW 1 at the output of the first decoder.

3

Q.

Okay.

4

A.

Now, that signal goes to Decoder No. 2, along

And then what happens next?

5

with the overlay code that's now being generated by the

6

overlay code generator, and we can now extract data on a

7

particular channel.

8
9

Q.

In this example, it's Q1.

Now, you've prepared an additional animation,

didn't you?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

And this is an animation describing how the

12

Qualcomm chip functions; is that correct?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And so can you describe to the jury what's

15
16

taking place here?
A.

So on the left-hand side, you see the accused

17

control channels, and there are four channels.

18

one as an example, the P-CPICH.

19

decoder and a single OVSF code generator.

20
21
22
23

Q.

Okay.

I picked

You also see a single

Now, again, I'm going to play this, and

can you describe to the jury what's taking place?
A.

Yes.
So the channel is applied on the decoder,

24

along with the -- the OVSF code that's generated by the

25

OVSF code generator, and then we can extract a single

Page 15
1

control channel, and in my example, it's the CPICH

2

channel.

3

Q.

So, again, just briefly, what are the

4

fundamental differences between the '211 patent and the

5

Qualcomm chip in HTC's phones?

6
7
8
9

A.

versus two codes.
Q.

12

Okay.

I'd like to look here specifically at

Claim 5.

10
11

Again, the fundamental difference is one code

Now, Claim 5 is one of the claims that's been
asserted against HTC; is that right?
A.

Yes.

And I know the jury, by now, probably

13

knows it by heart, but we have to go through it for the

14

record.

15

Q.

Okay.

So explain to me what is shown here in

16

Claim 5, the main elements on the -- on the right side

17

there.

18
19

A.

So we have five limitations, and I'm going to

concentrate on the first two and the last two.

20

The first limitation is an orthogonal code

21

generator that provides orthogonal code.

22

first decoder.

23

that provides an overlay code, and we have a second

24

decoder.

25

Q.

Okay.

We have a

Then we have an overlay code generator

Now, just focusing on the blue

Page 17
1

that lists 16 orthogonal codes, and I highlighted one

2

example.

3

Q.

4

That's the RW 1 that I had animated earlier.
Okay.

Thank you.

Let's go back to the claim now and focus on

5

the red highlighting.

6

construction of overlay code?

7

A.

Yes.

First, did the Court provide a

The Court provided a definition or

8

construction, and it is an additional code that

9

subdivides an orthogonal channel.

10

Q.

And you applied this construction when

11

evaluating the '211 patent with respect to HTC's accused

12

phones?

13

A.

Of course.

14

Q.

And in Claim 5, does the second decoder apply

15
16

to overlay code?
A.

Yes.

So the two limitations -- lots of

17

limitations in Claim 5 -- we have an overlay code

18

generator that provides the overlay code, and we have a

19

second decoder.

20

Q.

Okay.

Now, are there examples of the overlay

21

code generator and the second decoder shown in the

22

figures in the '211 patent?

23

A.

Yes.

So going back to that same Figure 8A,

24

and so previously we said the signal went through the

25

first decoder.

Page 20
1

Q.

Maybe for you.

2

[Laughter]

3

A.

Sorry.

4

Q.

(By Mr. Bader) After examining the claims of

It was for me.

5

the '211 patent and comparing them to the Qualcomm

6

chipsets, did you come to any conclusions on whether

7

HTC's phones infringe the '211 patent?

8
9

A.
evidence.

Yes.

I did my analysis.

I looked at the

And the conclusion that I write to is the HTC

10

phones that include the Qualcomm chipset do not infringe

11

for two reasons:

12

overlay code generator.

13
14

Q.

17

There is no

And there is no second decoder.

So let's step through these one at a

time as quickly as we can, hopefully.

15
16

Okay.

There is no overlay code.

First, what are the two independent codes that
are claimed in the '211 patent?
A.

So the '211 patent, again, has the orthogonal

18

code, and it has the overlay code.

19

is additional code that subdivides an orthogonal

20

channel.

21
22
23

Q.

And the overlay code

Now, you reviewed all these documents that

describe the HSP -- HSDPA standard?
A.

Correct.

So I went through the HSDPA standard

24

document-by-document, and there is no mention of an

25

overlay code.

There is no second code in the HSDPA

Page 21
1

standard.

2

Q.

And in the system described in the '2 -- I'm

3

sorry -- is the system described in the '211 patent,

4

compliant with the HSDPA standard?

5
6

A.

The system described in the '211 patent

is -- is not related to the HSDPA standard.

7
8

No.

Q.

Okay.

So how many codes does the HSDPA

standard require for a single channel?

9

A.

There is a single code.

There is the OVSF

10

code.

11

different sections in the standard, and here's an

12

example.

And the standard is very clear.

13

We look at

This is Section 5.2, talking about

14

channelization codes, and it says the channelization

15

code for the primary CPICH -- that was the example that

16

I showed animated at the beginning -- has a fixed 256 --

17

and there's other examples of other codes -- for

18

different channels.

19
20
21

So on a single channel, there is one code.
Q.

And how many codes does the '211 patent

require per channel?

22

A.

Two.

23

Q.

Is there anything in the claims or the

24

specification or the Court's claim construction that

25

describes using a single code or describes a single code

Page 58
1

a few times in front of the Bar as an invited speaker.

2

I had a textbook chapter published regarding

3

intellectual property right valuation.

4

About two years ago, I just updated that

5

textbook chapter, and it will be published in the fall

6

again.

7

Q.

Now, what we have up on the screen here is

8

your -- a summary of your conclusions regarding what a

9

reasonable royalty would be in this case.

10

Now, if the jury finds that there is no

11

infringement or that the patents are invalid, are there

12

any damages in this case?

13

A.

Then there's no damages.

The damages amount

14

would be the equivalent of zero or really would be a

15

null value, because the damages wouldn't be an issue.

16
17

Q.

this case to arrive at your opinions.

18
19
20

So let's talk about what you considered in

What material did you review in order to
analyze the value of the patents-in-suit.
A.

Sure.

Quite a bit actually.

There are a few

21

boxes around here and binders.

22

office in Houston, I've got probably 15 boxes' worth of

23

documents that have been produced by the parties;

24

deposition transcripts, financial documents, licenses

25

and the like, essentially everything that Mr. Jarosz has

I have -- back in my

Page 212
1

Honor.

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. AROVAS:

Not from the Defendants.

4

THE COURT:

Y'all have a good evening.

5

We'll see you in the morning.

6

COURT SECURITY OFFICER:

7

(Court adjourned.)

Okay.

Defendants?

All rise.

8
9

CERTIFICATION

10
11

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a

12

true and correct transcript from the stenographic notes

13

of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the

14

best of our abilities.

15
16
17

/s/ Shea Sloan
SHEA SLOAN, CSR

18

Official Court Reporter
State of Texas No.:

19

Expiration Date:

3081

12/31/14

20
21

/s/ Judith Werlinger
22

JUDITH WERLINGER, CSR
Deputy Official Court Reporter

23

State of Texas No.:
Expiration Date

24
25

731

12/31/14