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

Filing 497

REPLY to 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 WI-LAN Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Weaver, David)

EXHIBIT B

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

Tyler, Texas
8:47 a.m.
July 9, 2013

6

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.,
ET AL

7

******************************************************

8

WI-LAN, INC.

)

)
DOCKET NO. 6:13cv252

9
10

-vsHTC CORPORATION,
ET AL

)
)

11
12
13
14
15

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
MORNING 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.

21
1

THE COURT:

All right.

I apologize for

2

keeping you waiting.

3

but we had a very important matter we had to take up

4

just with counsel.

5

you've had an extra long morning break there, but I will

6

give you another break later, though, so that doesn't

7

count.

8
9

I really don't like to do that,

So know we've been working, although

All right.
witness.

10

We'll continue with this

You may proceed, Counsel.
MR. BORGMAN:

Thank you, Your Honor.

11

JONATHAN WELLS, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS,

12

PREVIOUSLY SWORN

13

DIRECT EXAMINATION

14

BY MR. BORGMAN:

15

Q.

Good morning, Dr. Wells.

16

A.

Good morning.

17

Q.

When we left off, I think we were about to

18

start on the '211 patent, correct?

19

A.

That's right, I think we were.

20

Q.

All right.

21

And we've got Claim 5 up here.

Can you -- well, actually before I start going

22

to the '211 patent, there were a couple of additional

23

acronyms I had on my list I wanted to ask you about.

24

One of them was UMTS.

25

A.

Yes, I do.

Do you remember that?

22
1

Q.

And what does UMTS mean?

2

A.

UMTS stands for universal mobile

3
4
5
6

telecommunications system.
Q.

How does that fit into about what we heard 1G,

2G, 3G, LTE, et cetera?
A.

UMTS is the name given to -- general name

7

given to what we call the 3G system, everything that's

8

under the 3GPP moniker.

9
10

Q.

All right.

Now, yesterday we also heard

something about fixed access systems.

11

A.

Yeah.

12

Q.

Do you remember that testimony?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

All right.

15

That's right.
Are the patents -- any of the

patents limited to fixed access systems?

16

A.

No, they're not.

17

Q.

All right.

18

patent.

19

Now, let's start off with the '211

Can you tell us generally what the '211 patent

20

relates to?

21

A.

22

Yes, I can.
So we talked yesterday about the first two

23

patents, the '326, the '819.

These -- recall I talked

24

about these being from a cell tower, a base station

25

transmitting data down.

The smart TDM data down to a

23
1

subscriber unit.

2

subscriber unit, the handset that actually receives this

3

data.

4

This '211 patent is about the

So it's -- in many ways, it's very closely

5

related to the other two.

6

Everything that you'd expect to have on the

7

transmission.

8

for transmission, you would expect to have those on

9

reception as well, because it would have to go through

10
11

In fact, it's a mirror.

With all the various steps you go through

those in an opposite order to un-code the signal.
Q.

Now, Dr. Wells, is it possible to quickly walk

12

us through the different elements in this Claim 5 of the

13

'211 patent?

14

A.

15

Yes, I can.
So this is a subscriber terminal.

It has an

16

orthogonal code generator, a first decoder, a TDM

17

decoder.

18

generator, a second decoder as well.

19

elements.

20

saw yesterday.

21
22

Q.

It then goes on to have an overlay code
These are the

And as I said, it kind of mirrors to what we

All right.

Now, we've talked a bit about the

Court's claim construction.

Remember that?

23

A.

(Nods head affirmatively.)

24

Q.

All right.

25

to talk about here?

Are there any claim terms we need

24
1

A.

Yes.

There's one new claim term here, which

2

is specific for the '211, and that's a TDM decoder.

3

talked yesterday about a TDM encoder.

4

decoder.

5

and/or software for extracting a data item from a

6

channel that has been encoded using TDM techniques.

7

We

And then just for reference, I've put the

This is a TDM

And the Court has construed this as hardware

8

definition of TDM techniques, which we used yesterday.

9

So what this is basically saying is it's for decoding a

10

channel that's been encoded with that TDM techniques.

11

Q.

All right.

12

of Claim 5.

13

A.

Let's start with the first element

Can you tell us what this is?

Yes.

So this is the first element.

Again,

14

I've broken this claim up into these -- these different

15

elements.

16

of a wireless telecommunications system, comprising a

17

reception controller.

The first one is 5(a), a subscriber terminal

18

Q.

And do the HTC mobile phones have a reception

19

controller?

20

A.

Yes, they do.

So, again, remember this is in

21

the context of the HSDPA standards.

22

data is transmitted in a system.

23

have a subscriber that's able to receive that system.

24
25

They define how

Of course, you have to

And -- which is what I'm showing here.
looked yesterday about how there has to be a

We

100
1

that's what we're going to see, right?

2

A.

Yes.

3

Q.

Okay.

4

And, in fact, the patent even lists

examples of how the code works.

5

So if we look at Column 10, right -- and

6

that's how patents are organized, in columns and line

7

numbers, right?

8

It says Column 10 of the '326 patent?

9

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

If we look down below, we see it's got a

11

table, and this is the RW codes or the orthogonal codes,

12

right?

13

A.

Yes, that's right.

14

Q.

All right.

And then you have a separate table

15

with additional codes for the overlay, which we find in

16

Column 15, Table 2, the overlay codes, a separate table

17

of codes for the overlay, right?

18

A.

That's right.

19

Q.

All right.

In this example, we do.

And the way that would work, just

20

like the structure we saw in the claims, is that you

21

would first use -- or you would use the orthogonal

22

codes, and then you would use the overlay codes in

23

whatever order you want, right?

24
25

MR. BORGMAN:
we approach?

Objection, Your Honor.

May

101
1

THE COURT:

Yes, you may.

2

(Bench conference.)

3

MR. BORGMAN:

This is a limine issue,

4

Your Honor.

5

suggesting that the claims require something different

6

than the claim construction or saying things that are

7

contrary to the claim construction order.

8
9

We've got a limine motion and order about

Mr. Arovas's question just went to the
order in which the overlay codes and the orthogonal

10

codes have to be applied.

11

that they can be applied simultaneously; they do not

12

have to be applied in seriatim.

13

MR. AROVAS:

And in your order, it says

I say in any order, but I'm

14

happy to reask the question and say simultaneously.

15

That wasn't the intent.

16
17

THE COURT:

Reask the

question.

18
19

All right.

(Bench conference concluded.)
Q.

(By Mr. Arovas) Okay.

So going back to what

20

we were talking about, so when we look at the examples

21

in the specification, you see there's a set of

22

orthogonal codes, a different set of overlay codes; and

23

you can apply them in any order or simultaneously, but

24

there's two sets, right?

25

A.

In -- in this embodiment, yes.

102
1

Q.

Okay.

And, in fact, if we were to go through

2

the entire specification, we wouldn't find any example

3

that uses one code to both contain the orthogonal and

4

the overlay code, right?

5
6
7

A.

Well, there's examples in there about how

codes can be mixed together.
Q.

Okay.

Here's my question, okay?

It's a fact

8

that there isn't any example or embodiment in any of the

9

patents-in-suit that disclose the orthogonal code and

10
11
12
13

the overlay code to be a single code, correct?
A.

The answer to that is no -- I beg your pardon.

The -- you are correct.
Q.

I'm correct.

There isn't a single example

14

that uses the orthogonal code and the overlay code to be

15

a single code, right?

16
17
18

A.

That's right.

There's examples of how you can

mix codes together, but you are correct.
Q.

Okay.

So now let's turn to some of your

19

allegations where you compare the claims to -- and I'll

20

just leave this up here in case we need to refer to

21

it -- when you compare the claims to the accused

22

products, okay?

23

So first let's talk about Alcatel-Lucent.

24

And so I think you explained on direct, as you did in

25

your deposition, that you were relying on the same

115
1

under oath, in your deposition, you said that it's a

2

single spreading operation?

3
4
5

A.

Right?

I did, but I tried to put that in context on

my -Q.

I understand your position that one can be

6

two, okay; and that you say that there's two functions.

7

But let's just talk about the spreading operation.

8

It is a fact that this single structure performs a

9

single spreading operation with a single OVSF code;

10
11
12
13

isn't that right?
A.

I feel uncomfortable answering this as a yes

or no, but yes.
Q.

Okay.

And, in fact, if we go to the

14

Alcatel-Lucent product, you would see the same thing:

15

Single structure, single OVSF code, single spreading

16

operation, correct?

17

A.

Performing the --

18

Q.

I understand your position, that two-in-one,

19

but let's just -- but let's just talk about how the

20

products work.

21

Single structure, single OVSF code, single

22

spreading operation in the Alcatel-Lucent products,

23

correct?

24
25

MR. BORGMAN:
approach?

Your Honor, may we

116
1

THE COURT:

2

(Bench conference.)

3

MR. BORGMAN:

4

Yes, you may.

We are getting back to the

motion in limine involving the simultaneous operation.

5

In the Court's claim construction, the

6

Court held that the claims do allow simultaneous

7

operations.

8

Mr. Arovas' question says I understand

9

that's your position, but he's suggesting that that's

10

not allowed by the Court.

11

MR. AROVAS:

That's not our position at

12

all.

Our position is there are two encoders.

13

two sets of codes.

14

time or not, is not the point.

15
16

Whether you apply them at the same

The point is, it's one code, one encoder
applied once.

17
18

There are

I think it's fair cross-examination.
THE COURT:

Okay.

You can clean it up on

cross-examination.

19

MR. BORGMAN:

20

(Bench conference concluded.)

21

Q.

All right.

(By Mr. Arovas) Okay.

Let's pick up where we

22

left off, and I want to be crystal-clear:

23

I'm not

talking about order here.

24

You can use one code first, another code --

25

you can use the orthogonal code first and the overlay

117
1

codes second; the overlay code -- I'm sorry -- the

2

orthogonal first -- you can use the orthogonal first,

3

the overlay second; the overlay first, the orthogonal

4

second.

5

You can do them simultaneously.
I'm not suggesting anything about order, okay?

6

A.

Okay.

7

Q.

Okay.

But what we know is for both the

8

Ericsson and the Alcatel-Lucent products, as well as the

9

handset products, the structure that's the

10

encoder/decoder, single structure, uses single OVSF

11

code, and a single spreading operation, correct?

12

A.

Well, yes.

13

Q.

Thank you.

14

So now let's talk very briefly about where

15

those codes are or where they sort of physically reside

16

in the products.

17

Defendants' products basically have an on-the-fly system

18

where they generate the codes as they need them, right?

And it's correct, isn't it, that the

19

A.

Yes, they do.

20

Q.

Okay.

So whether you're talking about the

21

Alcatel-Lucent products, the Ericsson products, or the

22

HTC or Sony Mobile products, it's a fact that none of

23

those products store at any one point in time the entire

24

set of orthogonal codes, correct?

25

A.

I mean, that's not required by the claims,