WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al
Filing
498
REPLY to 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 WI-LAN Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Weaver, David)
Exhibit A
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
12:09 p.m.
July 12, 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
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
shea_sloan@txed.uscourts.gov
23
24
25
Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
produced by a Computer.
33
1
single element within the patent is met, is present in
2
the invention.
3
Q.
And what if there's a single element in the
4
claims that's missing from Gitlin?
5
us?
6
7
8
9
10
A.
What does that tell
Well, if there's -- if there's a single
element that's missing, then Gitlin doesn't anticipate.
Q.
Now, let me ask you that question.
Does
Gitlin anticipate any of the asserted claims of the
'326, '211, or '819 patents?
11
A.
No, it doesn't.
12
Q.
Now, let me ask you a couple of questions
13
about obviousness.
14
You heard Mr. Lanning talk about obviousness
15
this morning?
16
A.
Yes, I did.
17
Q.
All right.
18
And that's a different concept
than anticipation?
19
A.
That's right.
20
Q.
All right.
And you understand that for
21
obviousness, there can be something missing from a
22
reference that might be obvious to one of ordinary skill
23
in the art back at the time of the invention.
24
that happens, then what?
25
A.
And if
Then if there's something missing, then -- I
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
apologize.
Q.
Could you repeat the question?
Tell me what you understand needs to be done
to establish obviousness.
A.
Okay.
For obviousness, it has to be obvious
that within -- that the elements are there.
Q.
All right.
Would Mr. Lanning's combination of
7
Tiedemann and the Gitlin reference have been obvious --
8
have rendered the claims at issue obvious?
9
A.
No, it wouldn't.
10
Q.
And why do you say that?
11
A.
Because, first of all, Gitlin is talking about
12
this system with PN codes.
13
non-orthogonal codes.
14
reason.
He chose them because he's building a low-cost
15
system.
PN codes are easy to generate.
16
different system to what's disclosed in Tiedemann.
17
18
It has a system with
And Gitlin chose PN codes for a
It's a very
So I don't think it would have been obvious to
combine the two together.
19
Q.
Any other reasons?
20
A.
There's also, that together, they still don't
21
disclose all the elements in the patent.
22
disclose TDM techniques, for example.
23
Q.
All right.
They don't
What about the claims at least
24
that Mr. Lanning talked about, would those -- would any
25
of those four claims have been obvious in light of the
35
1
Tiedemann reference by itself to one of ordinary skill?
2
A.
No, it wouldn't.
3
Q.
And why do you say that?
4
A.
Well, Tiedemann doesn't disclose these
5
orthogonal codes -- I beg your pardon -- Tiedemann
6
doesn't disclose these overlay codes, for example.
7
Tiedemann doesn't disclose TDM techniques.
8
The system is different.
9
combine them together.
10
It wouldn't be obvious to
And even if you did, there wouldn't be the
11
full -- there wouldn't be meeting every single element
12
of this claim.
13
Q.
All right.
What about the idea of using TDM
14
techniques on a paging channel, would that have been
15
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?
16
A.
No.
No, it wouldn't, because a paging channel
17
is used to send just -- for example, in IS-95, it's just
18
a particular page, a paging message.
19
different types of data.
20
paging channel.
21
on that paging channel.
22
23
24
25
There's not
There's not voice going on a
There's not these other services going
So you wouldn't need to put TDM techniques on
a paging channel.
Q.
And how about the idea of using overlay codes
on a data channel instead of TDM techniques?
36
1
A.
Well, no, I don't think you would want to do
2
that as well, because by doing that, you're trying to
3
get these -- you're trying to put something that's on
4
the data channel.
5
traffic channel.
6
because they have very different characteristics, the
7
two channels.
8
Q.
9
10
You're trying to feed that into a
That really doesn't make sense,
All right.
Dr. Wells, take us home.
Can you
summarize your conclusions on validity?
A.
11
Yes, I can.
So my conclusions on validity are that the
12
patents-in-suit are indeed valid.
13
to disclose the following:
14
codes.
15
The prior art fails
IS-95-A doesn't have overlay
It doesn't have TDM techniques.
Tiedemann doesn't have overlay codes that
16
subdivide an orthogonal channel, and Tiedemann doesn't
17
have TDM techniques.
18
Gitlin doesn't have overlay codes.
19
have TDM techniques, and it doesn't have overlay codes.
20
And then Gilhousen doesn't disclose TDM techniques.
21
22
23
It doesn't
And then, finally, Mr. Lanning's combinations
of the prior art, I don't think they're obvious.
Q.
So let me just ask:
For each of these
24
references, IS-95-A, Tiedemann, Gitlin, the Gilhousen
25
'652 patent application --
37
1
A.
Uh-huh.
2
Q.
-- do those -- do any of those references
3
anticipate any of the claims in the '326, '211, or '819
4
patent?
5
A.
No.
6
Q.
And did Mr. Lanning show that any of those
No, they don't.
7
references anticipate any of those claims by clear and
8
convincing evidence?
9
A.
No, he didn't.
10
Q.
Do any of those four references, either alone
11
or in combination with each other, render obvious to one
12
of ordinary skill in the art the claimed inventions in
13
the '326, '211, and '819 patents?
14
A.
No, they don't.
15
Q.
And do you agree with Ms. Lanning's
16
conclusions as to obviousness?
17
A.
No, I don't.
18
Q.
All right.
19
20
MR. BORGMAN:
Pass the witness, Your
Honor.
21
THE COURT:
22
Cross-examination?
23
24
25
All right.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. APPLEBY:
Q.
Good afternoon, Dr. Wells.
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?