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)

Download PDF
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?