Loving life
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Jim .. Thanks and Dclarke, not that any improvements were needed, but the ones you made are terrific!
PS: Still not formatted to print on one page I don't think, but that may be that I have the latest version of Office for Mac. No big deal .. piece of cake for me to do myself which I have already done on the version I saved for myself.
Thanks,
Danny
Bill .. Very interesting. You may very well be right in that arrogance and a sense of entitlement are typically bound together.
Thanks,
Danny
revlis .. I know and he did do a much worse job in NOK where his arrogance really did him in.
MO,
Danny
revlis .. Thanks .. I came out the same place after reading the testimony of each. I do think that the credibility of Dr. Kakaes's testimony may have been damaged by his arrogance which would be "obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of human interactions."
Have a great weekend.
Danny
m3s .. I was just about to post that I had finished my home work assignment .. the Lanning ("I'm just the technical guy") testimony .. and give you my conclusions and you give me another assignment and bust out the door .. were you ever a teacher LOL. I'll take on the new assignment and combine my conclusions about it with the those from the previous assignment. However, my "honey do list" is longer than one of Lanning's answers and it takes precedence. Don't make me say "the dog ate my homework" if I'm not back to you before next week.
BTW .. The Lanning testimony, and Judge Luckern's reaction to it, sure made me feel warm and fuzzy.
Have a good weekend.
Danny
OD .. Thanks .. eom
lando1 .. This is called front-running. It creates artificial demand for shares, and it's illegal.
WITHOUT QUESTION. Read the latest from Bernie Madoff's interview .. if the SEC couldn't or wouldn't expose something that could be timed with a sun-dial, there is no chance that they can deal with something measured in milliseconds. In every other criminal situation the cops work hard to be one step ahead of the criminals. If the SEC is not funded sufficiently and instructed to do the same, the capital markets will continue to fracture at an alarming rate.
MO,
Danny
OD .. Am I understanding you correctly that this information was disclosed publicly before or concurrently to their presentation to Institutional Investors?
Sure hoping for a yes from you on that one.
Danny
dws .. Desert Dweller became very capable .. even more than Nic and that is saying something .. of mixing his own unique recipe for FUD kool-aid, both on up days and down days, such that he subsequently used it to consistently drink himself into an irrational investing state. The saddest part is that the guy is a truly smart and knowledgeable CPA who believed his skills were fully transferable to investing including risk management. His biggest downfall in that regard is that he did not have the emotional control over his emotions necessary for rational investing and too often let his temper guide his investing actions.
MO,
Danny
gejebr3 .. the end was edited by me
I'm going to use that in the future LOL.
Danny
Jim .. How is it IDCC can inform potential new institutional investors whose licensed but they in turn don't make it public on their web site for existing investors or new investors??
If that is in fact true, I would consider it a FD violation. Why don't you ask Janet why it isn't.
Back to my m3s assigned homework.
MO,
Danny
dclarke .. Haven't had a chance to respond since I've been working feverishly on my DD homework assignment from m3s .. what part of my being lazy did he not understand????? Just kidding .. I'm really enjoying reading the transcripts he provided and I get more confident about IDCC with every page I read.
Anyway, you might want to work in the sensitivity effect of cash per share on the projected PPS.
I always hated homework and I would much rather be "playing" with your spreadsheet to do my own sensitivity analysis, but I have to say that m3s won our IDCC DD challenge today hands down and I must pay up LOL.
Take care,
Danny
m3s .. I forgot to tell you that I am a technology addict .. just have to have the latest and greatest. Was programming mainframes at Kodak some 40 years ago and bought one of the first Macs for my personal use when they came out .. the user-friendly interface .. primitive as it was back then .. blew me away.
Danny
Jim .. I really don't know. I do know he lost his shirt in the market and would have lost his store, too if his wife didn't pick up the slack while he was off trading almost 24/7 for a period. My guess is that he traded out of it because his attitude was "I'm not interested in anything that makes me 10% per year .. I only hold on to things that are going to make me 10o% per year at minimum and, if not, they are outta here."
As the market drifted ever downward so did our friendship (not because I was unhappy about it but he couldn't handle the embarrassment). The we moved and he and I never spoke again. Sad ending.
Danny
m3s .. Sometimes it is belief and insight that is better than all the DD in the world.
Absolutely .. for both institutional and individual investors. Thanks for the additional info. I am totally sold on the future of wireless and am certain that IDCC will be a significant player for a very long time. I just don't get those who think growth is somehow going to drop off once 3G is all licensed. To me that is just the tip of the iceberg of the kind of wireless innovation we are going to see.
I will check out the Lanning document.
Thanks,
Danny
m3s .. That is very impressive and dwarfs the very little DD (outside of this board) that I've done on IDCC. As you can see in my profile, I do none of my own investing and prefer to have investment professionals (professional money managers NOT brokers) do it.
At the height of the bubble I was living on Cape Cod and my friend who owned a successful retail store got the on-line trading bug. In those mo-mo days it was not uncommon to make 25% or more on a trade in one day. Basically it was like standing in a draft and catching a cold when it came to making money in the stock market.
Our wives were also good friends. We all went out to dinner together at least 3 times per week and got together several other times each week. He kept telling me that I was nuts to pay other people to manage my money and I kept insisting that managing money was nowhere as easy as it appeared to be at the time and that I slept better knowing that investment professionals of the type I had worked with for 25 years were managing my money. The debate got more and more frequent and heated and it was making our wives uncomfortable and putting our friendship at risk. I had enough money to risk some so in frustration I told him that I would invest up to $50K based on his recommendations. He had some winners and some losers and by November of 1999 I was down to about $40K when he told me that I HAD to own IDCC so I bought 3,500 shares on his advice alone without doing a stitch of DD beyond what he told me.
Then he pointed me to the old Raging Bull site for IDCC .. the one before the IDCC Club Board on the Bull. I couldn't believe some of the nonsense and pizzing matches (not to mention Onceinalifetime) that I was reading every day. I thought, "Oh man .. he got me into this stock based on this kind of DD .. bye-bye $40K." Then the stock went to 82 or there about in late 1999 and I got hooked. I'm thinking "forget ten bagger .. this is going to be a 100 bagger." Now, you see why I chose to have my money professionally managed and that this was my last foray into investing on my own LOL.
Anyway, in for a penny, in for a pound and as far as I was concerned the $40K was a sunk cost anyway. When the Club board came along on Raging Bull I started posting and "unselfishly imparting my vast knowledge" of the way professional money managers invest since no one else seem to have my kind of background and there were some REAL amateurs back then on the board. (What a guy, huh?).
I did some, not much, of my own DD off the board, but was too lazy to continue doing so particularly since I had not come even close to betting the farm on IDCC as many on the board at the time had. Over time I gained greater and greater respect for the DD of some on the board (I'm now going to add you to the list) which only fed my laziness and increased my confidence in using this board and AB as my sole sources of DD. I will say that my background does help me separate the wheat from the chaff.
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. I now have a much better understanding of where you are coming from.
MO,
Danny
m3s .. Thanks, that is very helpful.
A couple more questions (just to better my understanding of your DD only):
1. What information sources did you us to decide to invest in IMMC?
2. DD is an ongoing requirement and IDCC is a very different company than when you invested in IMMC. So what sources (other than this board) do you use for DD now?
TIA,
Danny
Mickey .. here you go:
I'm sorry that I didn't have the time to clean it up so that it would be easier to read.
Danny
2550
shared control channel. That‘s how the patent
discloses that the scrambling sequence that’s
generated is used.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You want me to
interpret it, this phrase, a code used for
scrambling a high speed shared control channel,
HS, I won’t say that, that’s what the claim
says, and you want me to interpret that term as
a scrambling sequence for a high speed shared
control channel, that’s what you want me to,
how to interpret it?
MR. COYNE: Basically yes, Your Honor.
We can move on, I know we’re taking a lot of
time with this. My concern is not that we
don’t get into the witness characterizing our
construction incorrectly and then putting me in
a position of having to cross-examine him out
of our construction.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I’m troubled, I don’t
want to listen to 10 minutes of testimony,
you’re doing a great job, sir, but if that’s
not how they interpret it, it seems like time
that ‘ s not needed.
Mr. Stephens, how do you want to
proceed on your direct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2551
MR. STEPHENS: This is precisely the
construction that is in page 4 of Attachment A.
It also corresponds to what‘s in the prehearing
statement. They‘re not asking for a
construction for the phrase a high speed shared
control channel, HS-SCCH, that’s why it’s
grayed out in the chart. This was simply a way
of conveying the portions of the language on
the left that the parties were seeking to be
construed, the stuff that’s grayed out is
identical to the original claim language.
There’s no dispute about what the proposed
constructions are and this is an accurate
reproduction in context of what is in IDC’s
submission to the Court that Your Honor
referred to.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Well, I’m
still confused, but it may be only because I’m
not up to you people right now. I thought I
heard -- well, hold on a minute. I heard
Mr. Coyne say we can move on, so let‘s move on
and leave where we’re going to go here. Let’s
move on, so I’ll read this transcript and we’ll
see what happens on this transcript. So
Mr. Coyne said move on, so we will move on, but
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2552
Dr. Gitlin, furthermore, interprets
the scrambling sequence in a, it’s not a
construction, I guess, I guess it’s a
construction of the construction. A scrambling
sequence is a construction that InterDigital
created, Dr. Gitlin takes that construction,
scrambling sequence and construes that to be a
code used for scrambling or descrambling and of
course the term will then continue in the
limitation as a high speed shared control
channel.
So my understanding of InterDigital‘s
position is further clarified by Dr. Gitlin’s
testimony whereby Dr. Gitlin takes
InterDigital’s construction and expands on it
to include language that would cover equipment
which is incap- -- which is not capable of
scrambling the high speed shared control
channel.
Q. And what equipment are you talking
about?
A. I’m sorry, I’m talking about claim 1,
in particular.
Q. I’m sorry, you said to cover equipment
that’s not capable of scrambling, what
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2554
equipment are you talking about?
A. I’m talking about the user equipment.
Q. Okay. Dr. Kakaes, if you could turn
now to RDX-926. Now could you explain, I’m
sorry, let me back up to RDX-925. Could you
explain your understanding of Samsung’s
proposal?
A. Sure. From the phrase that we’re
discussing a minute ago, Samsung construed the
portion of it, the latter portion of it, namely
it construed a code used for scrambling a high
speed shared control channel as being a code
used for applying a scrambling sequence to
unscramble data prior to transmission of the
data on a high speed shared control channel.
Q. And Dr. Kakaes, you heard, I think you
were in the room when Dr. Gitlin testified, is
that right?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And he testified about adding a
process limitation. Do you recall that?
A. I do recall that.
Q. What’s your reaction to Dr. Gitlin‘s
testimony about a process limitation?
A. That neither the Samsung construction
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2555
suggests that nor would it be my understanding
that's the case. The Samsung construction
simply requires that the claimed apparatus be
capable of scrambling the high speed shared
control channel, it does not, quote, as
InterDigital has held, improperly limit this
product claim to a specific process. On the
contrary, as construed by Samsung, the
apparatus of claim 1 need not be operated in
order to infringe -- in order to infringe.
Q. Okay. Now, have you looked to the
claims of the patent to determine how they
relate to Samsung's proposed construction of
claim 1?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. If you could turn to RDX-926, could
you explain your understanding of how the
claims relate to Samsung's proposed
construction?
A. Sure. The key issue is with respect
to the term l1scrarnbling1l
as it appears in claim
1. If we go to independent claim 3 and 5, we
see the word "descrambling" in those two
claims. In conjunction with the word
"descrambling, the preamble is user equipment,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2556
clearly indicating that the scrambling is what
occurs in the user equipment, furthermore, and
consistent with that, independent claims 7 and
9 refer to a base station in the preamble
performing a scrambling operation which is
articulated in the limitations.
So reading the entire set of 10
claims, it is very clear that a person of
ordinary skill in the art, as well as
inventors, would read this to be scrambling
being associated with performing the scrambling
operation of the transmitter which is a base
station and descrambling performing the inverse
operation of descrambling at the receiver which
is the user equipment.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I take it,
Mr. Stephens, the position of Respondents is
this drawing on figure 4 where it says, I take
it Respondent‘s position is this word
d-e-s-c-r-a-b-1-e-d
that’s recited in figure 4
should be d-e-s-c-r-a-m-b-1-e-d,
correct?
MR. STEPHENS: That’s correct, Your
Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: And you go along with
that too, Mr. Coyne, correct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2557
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: And you go along with
that too, Mr. Levi?
MR. LEVI: I do, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead,
Mr. Stephens.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, if we could turn to
RDX-930.
A. I’m sorry, which one?
Q. RDX-930, could you explain your
understanding of the dispute between the
parties with respect to the language of claim
3?
A. Sure. The portion of the limitation
that’s in dispute is highlighted on the left of
this slide is descrambling a high speed shared
control channel. The key dispute basically
boils down to the following question. Does
descrambling a high speed shared control
channel require recovering the high speed
shared control channel data as it was at the
input to the scrambler, and I believe that
Respondent’s construction is consistent with
how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2558
understand this limitation to be, whereby,
InterDigital’s construction is not.
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, at this
point I think we need to go on the confidential
record.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Whose information?
MR. STEPHENS: This is IDC‘s
information.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. We go on
the confidential record and it’s, I guess third
party, correct?
MR. STEPHENS: This is InterDigital.
JUDGE LUCKERN: It’s InterDigital’s
confidential information. Anybody not
associated with the protective order should
leave the hearing room.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2571
OPEN SESSION
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, you were in the room, you
already testified, for Dr. Gitlin's testimony.
Do you recall Dr. Gitlin's testimony with
respect to encoding and scrambling?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what do you recall him saying
about that?
A. May I please have RDX-936, I have a
diagram to assist me.
This is a figure that Dr. Gitlin
talked to, and basically, Dr. Gitlin did say
that encoding is different than
descrambling -- oops, I'm sorry, I just
discovered a typographical error in my slides.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Good work.
THE WITNESS: Encoding is different
than scrambling.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, that's all
right.
THE WITNESS: So not only do I
sometimes not enunciate the words correctly
sometimes I mistype them too.
JUDGE LUCKERN: So according to the
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2572
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
witness who‘s testifying under oath, he says
that this RDX-16 should read Dr. Gitlin admits
that encoding is different than --
THE WITNESS: Scrambling.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Scrambling, all right.
THE WITNESS: My apologies for the
error.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead, go ahead.
It’s good you got it now. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: And --
JUDGE LUCKERN: You got that, didn’t
you, Mr. Coyne?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Dr. Gitlin testified
that encoding is generally referred to as a
process of modifying a sequence of bits. For
example, convolutional encoding that is used in
WCDMA systems produces an output bit sequence
that is longer than the input bit sequence,
which is precisely the point I was making on a
similar cutout to this from a, in the previous
slide whereby the input sequence is 8 bits and
the output sequence is 40 bits, indeed
modifying the length of that sequence.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2573
1 Q. If we could go now to RDX-938, please.
2 A. In RDX-938, in RDX-938 what Dr. Gitlin
3 discusses and what I have highlighted here is a
4 scrambling process on the sort of a lower
5 midportion of the slide. Scrambling, on the
6 other hand, is a process of changing the values
7 of the bits. llTherefore,Il and these are
8 Dr. Gitlin’s words with which I agree, Itunlike
9 the channel encoding, the scrambling process
10 does not modify the length of the input bit
11 sequence being scrambled,Il which is again, this
12 is the analogous portion of the slide we had
13 earlier whereby the input string is 40 bits,
14 the scrambling sequence is 40 bits and the
15 output sequence is also 40 bits, thereby the
16 scrambling process did not change the length of
17 the sequence.
18 Q. And what was Dr. Gitlin’s view about
19 descrambling, as you recall his testimony?
20 JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. We‘ve been
21 on the confidential record. Should we have all
22 been on the confidential record for all of
23 this?
24 MR. STEPHENS: That’s a very good
25 point, Your Honor. I don’t think so. I think
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2574
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
when we started talking about Dr. Gitlin's
testimony --
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let's go off the
record, please.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let me see where we
are now. All right, now, the last question,
Doctor, and 1/11
be glad to paraphrase anything
earlier if you want me to, and what was
Dr. Gitlin's view about descrambling as you
recall his testimony, that's the last question.
THE WITNESS: Descrambling is what I
have, is that correct?
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. I was asking about Dr. Gitlin's
testimony about descrambling.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Descrambling.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. That's correct.
A. If I may please have RDX-940.
Dr. Gitlin claims that descrambling is the same
as decoding and pictorially this is illustrated
in this figure whereby descrambling, according
to what I considered to be the correct
construction, would be the recovery of the bits
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2575
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
right above the box labeled UE specific
masking, whereby Dr. Gitlin’s position is that
descrambling would be recovering the original 8
bits which would include the process commonly
known in the art as being decoding, so all of a
sudden Dr. Gitlin ascribes meaning to the word
lldescramblingll
as including descrambling,
decoding and perhaps a few other steps in
between in the process of recovering the 8
original bits, which is just not consistent
with the positions that he took on the encoding
and scrambling side.
Q. If we could go now to RDX-942, and
this requires us to go back on the confidential
record.
16 JUDGE LUCKERN: Whose ,nformation?
17 MR. STEPHENS: This is InterDigital’s
18 information.
19 JUDGE LUCKERN: We’re on the
20 confidential record and it’s InterDigital’s
21 information. So anybody not associated with
22 InterDigital has to leave the hearing room.
23 Go ahead with your next question.
24 We’re on the confidential record.
25
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2576
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2598
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OPEN SESSION
JUDGE LUCKERN: And the question was
on the public record, Dr. Kakaes, I’d like to
turn now to invalidity. And if we could go to
RDX-974. Please continue, Mr. Stephens.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, could you quickly explain
to us the history of the development in the
3GPP working groups, the problem addressed in
the patent?
A. Sure. There are three meetings that
are pertinent, namely a meeting number 24, 25
and 26. If we may please go through the slides
I will try to do these one at a time.
Q. Okay. RDX-975.
A. At meeting number 24, which took place
in February of 2002, a document which has been
referred to as a Motorola way forward, way
forward document, Motorola proposed a
particular structure calling for a scrambling
sequence generation for the high speed shared
control channel.
Q. GO to RDX- --
A. And at that time it’s very
important --
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2599
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE LUCKERN: Motorola proposed a
particular structure calling for a scrambling
sequence generation with a high speed shared
control channel. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: And at that time, I just
want to add this remark, at that time it was
understood by working group 1 that the user ID
would be 10 bits long.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Could we go now to RDX-976, this is a
callout from Rx-59. Can you explain what this
is, Dr. Kakaes?
A. This is the Motorola way forward
document that basically laid down the structure
of the high speed shared control channel. I
have highlighted certain portions of it here,
the other portions are important as well. They
point to the decisions that are being made in
terms of how this overall high speed shared
control channel will be structured, having part
one, having part two, dropping the HI bit,
things that are irrelevant as far as our
discussions here. But that document laid down
the foundation of how the high speed shared
control channel would be constructed.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2600
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Can you explain how that figure 2 that
we see in RDX-976 relates to what's described
in the patent? And let me ask Nate to pull up
RDX-978, please.
A. Sure, what we have here on top of this
slide is the way forward proposal and on the
bottom of this slide we'll have the structure
disclosed in figure 3 of the '579 patent. And
the analogy is very simple, the way forward
proposal set out that the rate 1 have
convolutional coder and appropriate rate
matcher will be used for the data which will
come out of this box labeled convolutional
coder, I'm sorry, labeled R is equal to
one-half convolutional coder and rate matcher
and would be what we're referring to as the
encoded high speed shared control channel data.
The way forward document also called
for the existence of a UE ID based scrambling
sequence and that, and then what would be
produced of course is the scrambled encoded
data.
The figure 3 has an exact
correspondence and I've tried to show the
correspondence with red arrows.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2601
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Is the way forward proposal a prior
art to the '579 patent?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, it is.
Q. If we could go on to RDX-979, please.
This is another callout from the way forward
document, RX-59.
A. What happens here, if one looks at
that entire document here on the left-hand side
one sees fairly complicated structures that lay
out, as I mentioned earlier, the overall
structure of the high speed shared control
channel.
What the document also specified was
that the mechanism of how, the generation of
the scrambling sequence is left to be
determined.
Q. If we can --
A. And they use the acronym TBD.
Q. If we could go to RX-961, please, I'm
sorry, RDX-961.
JUDGE LUCKERN: So what do you want to
ask him about that, Mr. Stephens?
MR. STEPHENS: Bear with me a second,
Your Honor. I'm sorry, RDX-981. I apologize.
The numbers are very small.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2602
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
JUDGE LUCKERN: That’s the one you
want, Doctor? RDX-981, you got that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I have
that.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Could you continue with your
explanation of the development --
A. Yes. So on February 20th is when the
Motorola way forward document was approved by
the working group, and there was one item left
in the document that was TBD. In other words,
the scrambling sequence generator to be
determined.
On the very next day, Siemens proposed
a mechanism to generate that scrambling
sequence and the proposal that Siemens made was
approved and it made it into the standard.
That process was accomplished
basically the same day or certainly the same
meeting and that’s what we refer to as the
Siemens 0482 proposal, and what Siemens called
for is the usage of an error correcting code
that was already in the standard people had
been using for other purposes namely the 32,lO
block encoder as a generator for a scrambling
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2603
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sequence.
Q. If we could go to RDX-982, this is a
callout from RX-60, is this the document you
were just describing?
A. Yes, it is. And as the Siemens
document is putting this in perspective and
says the way forward document, that's the one
we're talking about a minute ago, it leaves one
function TBD. This is the UE specific
scrambling of the coded data 1 of the high
speed shared control channel transmission.
And Siemens goes on to remind the
reader of something that people of ordinary
skill in the art are very well familiar of and
that is the basic requirement that the
scrambling function increase the distance
between the scrambling sequences which are also
referred to as mask-words. This is the very,
very basic fundamental idea of all error
correcting codes.
So Siemens recognizes or reminds us
that that basic idea of error correcting codes
is what they are going to capitalize on and in
particular use a particular, a specific 32,lO
block code to use as a means of generating the
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2604
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
scrambling sequence.
Q. If we could go to RDX-986, please.
Dr. Kakaes, could you continue with your
explanation of the history of the UE ID
specific scrambling?
A. Sure. That meeting 24 that took place
in February was the last meeting of the working
group prior to publishing the first ever HSDPA
standard, so the first HSDPA standard was
scheduled for and indeed this particular
document that we're referring to as a 25.212
version 5.0.0 is the first relevant standard
that was published for HSDPA and that was
approved on March 8th.
Q. If we could go now to RDX-987. And
that's a callout of RX-38. Is that the
standard you were just referring to?
A. That's the standard I'm referring to,
yes.
Q. And did it include error correcting
encoders?
A. Yes, that standard included six error
correcting encoders which I have listed on this
RDX-967.
Q. If we could go now to RDX-989.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2605
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I’m sorry, 987, I misspoke, I saw the
8 as a 6 as well. So it’s RDX-987, I believe.
Q. Thank you for that correction. If we
could go now to RDX-989.
A. Okay.
Q. Could you continue with your history?
A. The following meeting of work group 1
was meeting number 25 which took place in April
of 2002. At that meeting Motorola presented a
document referred to as a Motorola 610 which
presented evaluation criteria and performed a
performance analysis of the performance of the
3210 block encoder of the performance of the
system that would be using, among other things,
the 32,lO block encoder that had been suggested
by Siemens just about two months prior, and by
that time, i.e., by the April time frame, that
was a part of the then existing standard.
Q. If we could go down now to RDX-991.
If you could continue with your historical
explanation.
A. The same meeting in April in Paris
there was some various discussions of how to
process the 10 bit user ID and it gets very
complicated and actually irrelevant because, as
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2606
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somebody points out at the meeting, there was
discussion of changing the 10 bit user identity
to a 16 bit and, therefore, the issue of what
to use for a scrambling sequence generator is
actually born.
This is the first time the problem, I
even hesitate to call it a problem, it was just
a minor issue that needed to be resolved, was
potentially born, and I say potentially because
it’s a suggestion of the possibility of going
to a 16 bit UE ID and that’s why I emphasized
earlier that as long as the UE ID was 10 bits,
and I‘m referring back to the February meeting,
the solution for a 10 bit UE ID was proposed
the next day by Siemens and readily,
immediately accepted by the standards
committee, by the working group.
The possibility of going to 16 bits
would require addressing this issue of how to
accommodate 16 bit.
Q. If we could go now to RDX-992.
A. Okay. Basically, as is not surprising
at all, the comment was made that in general it
was felt that we should check with a current
RAN working group 2, who, by the way, was
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2607
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
responsible for ID related things, among
others, and check with them. And the chairman
concluded that we should have joint session
with the relevant groups in May, meeting in
Korea. As it turns out, both working group 1
and working group 2 were scheduled to have, as
indeed they did, have their next meeting
collocated in Korea.
And the chairman noted that an LS,
referring to a liaison statement, needed not be
sent at this point because the matter was so
simple, just sort of like we’ll do it off the
record. And all the CRs, the change requests
that were attached to these papers, were not
reviewed. It was decided to basically postpone
any consideration of these issues related to
the 10 versus 16 bit UE ID until it was decided
that the UE ID would be this or that. So the
potential for a problem is shown here but the
problem is not really on the table yet.
Q. If we could go now to RDX-993.
Could you explain what the
implications of the change to 16 bits would be?
A. Sure. What that shows is, everything
except for the red ink there shows the prior
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2608
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
art. The implications would be the following:
If a 10 bit UE ID were to be changed to a 16
bit UE ID, then the question would be how do we
replace the existing error correcting code as
well as its rate matching to be replaced by
something else.
Q. And was that a difficult problem to
solve?
A. Not at all. That was a trivial
problem to solve.
Q. Could we go now --
JUDGE LUCKERN: Why do you say that,
trivial problem?
THE WITNESS: Sure, if I may focus on
this slide. Siemens disclosed an error
correcting code for a generation scrambling
sequence. The reason Siemens disclosed an
error correcting code, they reminded us in
their 482 document, is that that code should
have good hamming distance separation. People
of ordinary skill in the art would know that
the mechanisms to get good hamming distance
separation are provided by any and all error
correcting codes.
To the extent that the Siemens
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2609
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposal uses a specific error correcting code,
namely the 32,lO Reed-Muller code that was one
manifestation of that principle.
To the extent that now a longer
sequence would be input to that coding process,
namely a 16 rather than 10, a bit long
sequence, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would know that the place to look for, for a
mechanism to have large separation in the
hamming space is an encoder, is an encoder.
It was very well known that encoders
are broadly classified into two groups, one
group are called the block encoders, and the
other group is called the convolutional
encoders. So most definitely a person of
ordinary skill in the art would look at both of
those techniques and would definitely look at
the convolutional encoders. Furthermore, the
rate 1/2 convolutional encoder was already
disclosed, not only as part of the UMTS
structure in some large abstract sense, it was
very specifically used in the data path of the
high speed shared control channel, and,
therefore, the halving of convolutional encoder
was known to produce good hamming distance
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2610
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
separation, which is a desired property, B, was
available in the same process that is under
consideration, so for that reason alone it
would have been an obvious choice.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I believe you said
their 482 document. Did you say something like
that?
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Did you say something,
their 482 document?
THE WITNESS: No, no, I believe I
said, therefore, for that reason and perhaps
others that would have been an obvious choice.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Go ahead,
Mr. Stephens.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Did you refer to the 482 Siemens
document, is that maybe what Judge Luckern was
referring to?
A. I’m sorry, yeah, I did refer to the
482 Siemens document.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Is that a CX or RX,
482 or what?
MR. STEPHENS: Bear with me one
moment, Your Honor.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2611
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: Mr. Stephens can help me
with that.
JUDGE LUCKERN: It's all right, you're
doing a great job.
MR. STEPHENS: RX-60, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You're not testifying.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Let us go to RDX-982. RDX-982. Is
this the document you were referring to,
Dr. Kakaes?
A. Yes, that's the document I'm referring
to and it's RX-0060.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Good, good.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Fine, go ahead,
Mr. Stephens.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, have you prepared a slide
that summarizes your views on obviousness?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And which slide is that? Could we go
to RDX-994, is that the slide you're referring
to?
A. Yes, I believe that's the slide, yes.
Q. Could you explain that to us, please?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2612
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
A. As soon as the change from 10 bit UE
ID to 16 bit UE ID was made, the ‘579 patent
would have been obvious. Dr. Dick admits it
was obvious to evaluate the half rate
convolutional encoder, I agree with him, it
would have been obvious, but I go farther than
that, it would have been obvious to evaluate
it, it would have been obvious that it would
work, and it would also be obvious that it
would be one of the best, it would be among the
best, not necessarily the best, but certainly
in a small group of best ways to do this
encoding.
Q. Now, why would it be obvious to
evaluate the half rate convolutional encoder?
A. For a number of very simple reasons,
number one, 3GPP had a long-standing preference
for reusing technology that’s already present,
that‘s obviously desirable.
Number two, the standard only included
six error correcting codes at a time. Of those
six only two could accept the 16 bit input. Of
those two, the one-half rate convolutional
encoder as opposed to the second one of the
two, which would have been the rate one-third
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2613
convolutional encoder, would have been the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
absolutely clear choice. So of those six, the
rate one-half would have been the immediate
candidate to consider.
Q. If we could go to RDX-997, please.
This is a callout of RX-38. Could you explain
that, please?
A. Sure. What I have listed here is the
six encoders that were present in the standard
And I will try to go through this as quickly as
possible.
Q. Before you continue, let me just
clarify what I just said. I said it’s a
callout, it’s actually a series of callouts
stuck into a table.
Go ahead, Dr. Kakaes.
A. Okay. The 20,5 block encoder is a
block encoder that is capable of accepting a 5
bit input, clearly that would not work for a 16
bit input.
And I’m starting at the bottom of this
slide because it’s simply easier. The rate
one-tenth repetition code expects a one bit
input and produces a 10 bit output, 16 bits
just wouldn’t work. The 32/10 Reed-Muller code
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2614
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
24
25
as existed at the time, it clearly would work
with a 10 bit, that's in fact what the solution
was at the time but was not the best way of
dealing with the 16 bit because the Reed-Muller
encoder could not directly deal with the 16 bit
input.
The rate one-third turbo coder which
was also present in the standard can
accommodate an arbitrary length input with a
qualification that those, that input has to be
at least 40 bits. 16 is clearly less than 40,
the turbo coder is out, which leaves us with
rate one-half convolutional encoder, and the
rate one-third convolutional encoder. This
would take about three seconds of arithmetic to
a person of ordinary skill in the art as
follows.
Those encoders, both the rate one-half
convolutional and the rate one-third
convolutional, the way they're implemented one
would know that one needs to append to the
information, append a sequence of 8 zeros.
That would make the number 16 plus the 8 zeros
become 24.
One also knows that the rate one-half
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2615
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coder doubles the length of the input. The
rate one-third convolutional encoder triples
the length of the input. As a result the
arithmetic would be very simple to conclude
that the rate one-half convolutional encoder
would produce 48 bit output. The rate
one-third convolutional encoder would produce a
72 bit output.
Furthermore, it had been decided by
the way forward document that the output must
be 40 bits, not 39, not 41, it must be 40.
So a person of ordinary skill in the
art would know that they need to trim or, as we
technical guys would say, rate match the output
down to 40 bits.
So the arithmetic, once again, is very
simple. With the observation that as you rate
match or puncture or get rid of certain bits,
the effectiveness of the scheme is weakened.
So one generally wants to do rate matching to
puncturing but don't do too much of it. The
less you do the better. So clearly with that
knowledge at hand one would look at the 48 bit
output and say what do I need to do to get to
40, the answer, puncture 8 bits. If you look
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2616
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
25
at the 72 bit output what do I need to get to
40, well puncture 32 bits or I may have said
puncture a lot, 32 is a big fraction of 72,
that’s what I mean by a lot. So that simple
arithmetic would very quickly lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to disqualify the
rate one-third convolutional encoder from any
further consideration and continue considering
the rate one-half convolutional encoder.
That was a long answer, Mr. Stephens,
but it’s very simple.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You’re doing all
right. You don’t have to apologize for
anything you say.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Were there any other ways to evaluate
the rate one-half convolutional encoder from
the standard that were known to people of skill
in the art at the relevant time before the
patent application was filed?
A. Yes. I mentioned earlier the Siemens
482 document, Motorola had also set forth
evaluation criteria for further, for how to
evaluate the particular proposal.
Q. Could we go to RDX-1000, please. Is
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2617
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this what you’re referring to?
A. Yes, that’s what I was referring, what
I had in mind.
Q. This is a callout of RX-1214. Could
you tell us what that is first and then
proceed.
A. It’s a document that Motorola
presented at the April meeting, which of course
predates the priority date of the application
of the ‘579 patent in which Motorola took as a
given the mechanism of generating the
scrambling sequence that Siemens had identified
and Motorola identified the schemes to analyze
the probability of detection, and the
probability of false alarm and the performance
under DTX, which is somewhat technical. I will
get into that if you ask me to.
But the short of it is that Motorola
presented mechanisms, tools of how one would go
about to evaluate a particular scrambling
sequence generation mechanism.
Q. If we could go to RDX-1004,
Dr. Kakaes, I think you’ve earlier today, even
before lunch or maybe shortly after lunch,
testified about your views on invalidity of
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2618
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
claim 1. Could you explain your views on
invalidity of claim 3?
A. Sure. As one can see in claim 3, the
fundamental aspects of it is the existence of a
16 bit user identification, that was imported
by working group 1 prior to the date of
conception, then appending 8 zero bits it was
also known the 48, the generational 48 bit was
also known, the puncturing referred to in claim
4 was also known, so in short the only thing
that's new in claim 3 is the usage of a half
rate convolutional encoder. So as a half rate
convolutional encoder is brought into the
picture, everything else is well known and that
has been, Dr. Gitlin testified to that as well.
Q. And when you say the 8 appended zero
bits is already known, what do you mean by
that?
A. Once one decides to use the
convolutional encoder that was at the time the
standards, one would need to append 8 zero bits
to the end of the message. In this case the
message is a 16 bit user ID and one would
append 8 zero bits, making the message be the
entire input to the half rate convolutional
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2619
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
encoder being 16 plus 8 making 24 bits.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Now in your previous
answer you kept saying also well known, also
known, also known, also known. Just briefly,
when you say itls also known, what were you
referring to? How was it known?
THE WITNESS: I believe I was
referring to the production of the 48 bit
sequence. It was known that the rate one-half
convolutional encoder doubles the length of the
input.
JUDGE LUCKERN: But how was it known?
I mean, what do you make in reference to it?
How do they know it?
THE WITNESS: For example, any book on
coding theory, for example Dr. Gitlin's book on
coding theory discloses that a standard
textbook that -- Lynn and Costello discloses
that, it's disclosed, anybody who has studied
coding theory knows that the half rate
convolutional encoder will double the length of
the input.
And that's, again, disclosed in a
number of documents that we have cited but
specifically for example in Dr. Gitlin's book
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2620
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
who has testified here before, in Lynn and
Costello, in any textbook on coding theory.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Stephens, next
quest ion.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, what does the one-half
rate mean before convolutional encoder?
A. It means that for every one bit coming
into the convolutional encoder, two bits come
out. And that is another way of phrasing that
the output is going to be twice as long as the
input.
So for every one that‘s coming in, I
produce two coming out, then obviously if I
have an input of 10, the output will be 20. If
I have an input of whatever, the output will be
twice as long. That’s what I was trying to
explain.
Q. And how would one of ordinary skill
know that you would need to append 8 zero bits
if you’re going to use a half rate
convolutional encoder?
A. The half rate convolutional encoder
that was used in the standards is in the, the
convolutional encoder has memory 8 and one of
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2621
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ordinary skill in the art knows that
convolutional encoder under normal use get a
number of zero bits appended. The number of
zero bits to append is equal to the memory,
and, and that's what is well known in the art.
In fact, Dr. Gitlin testified that, and I have
that here. In response to a question, he said
"That's what's recommended in the standard."
I don't fully agree with Dr. Gitlin,
it's not recommended, it's actually required in
the standard but perhaps he just misspoke. We
all make mistakes from time to time.
Q. And with respect to claim 4, how would
one of ordinary skill in the art know that
you'd need to puncture 8 bits?
A. There is, it's a two-part answer. On
the one hand, one would know that the end
product must be 40 bits. On the other hand,
one would know that the convolutional encoder's
output is 48 bits. So that would generate a
question, how do I get from a 48 bit sequence
to a 40 bit sequence. And the schemes to do
that I referred to as puncturing had been used
in the UMTS standard were present there, were
very well known in the UMTS standards and
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2622
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
puncturing was used for many other purposes as
well, so one of ordinary skill in the art would
immediately know that the way to get from 48 to
40 is to puncture 8 bits.
Q. So what is your opinion with respect
to the validity of claim 4?
A. I think claim 4 is just simply
invalid.
Q. And claim 3?
A. Same thing.
Q. Meaning that it’s invalid as well?
A. Absolutely.
Q. If we could go to RDX-1005, please.
Now, referring to the timeline here that you’ve
been testifying about, under the working group
1, number 25 meeting, under the date April 10th
we see the Motorola 610 document. Do you see
that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you’ve testified, I believe, with
respect to all the documents to the left of
that so far, right?
A. Yes, I did. I believe so.
Q. In your opinion, are all those
documents material to patentability?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2623
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Very much so. They're absolutely
material.
Q. Were any of those disclosed to the
Patent Office in prosecution of the '579
patent?
A. I have seen no evidence of it. In
fact, I have seen evidence to the contrary that
they have not.
Q. Have you seen any evidence apart from
your views with respect to invalidity that the
Motorola 610 document is material to
patentability?
A. I'm sorry' could you repeat the
quest ion.
JUDGE LUCKERN: The question is as
follows: Have you seen any evidence apart from
your views with respect to invalidity that the
Motorola 610 document is material to
patentability?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. And what is that?
A. I have --
Q. Let's go to RDX-1019.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Boy, you're getting
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2624
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
close to the end. Boy, Mr. Stephens, that’s
fantastic. Move on, you’ve got 1019. What are
you going to say about that, Mr. Stephens, as
far as a question?
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, is this what you had in
mind?
A. That’s exactly what I had in mind.
Q. And what is it?
A. This reaffirms my conclusion that the
Motorola 610 document was material. That
reaffirmation comes in the form of the European
Patent Office rejections of InterDigital’s
claims that were very similar to the claim
we‘re discussing. In particular, the European
examiner cited the Motorola document as being
prior art and, therefore, it would invalidate
the patent application in Europe.
I understand that what’s patentable
and what’s not there’s different laws in Europe
than here, but this clearly demonstrates that
the Motorola document was certainly material to
the claimed invention.
Q. And do you have any reason to believe
that the inventors were aware of these working
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2625
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
group 1 documents that you've testified about?
A. Absolutely. They had to have been
aware of it, otherwise they wouldn't even know
of the existence of the problem. But actually
I would have more convincing evidence of that.
And if you can please, I have a couple of
slides on that, if you could please pull that
UP -
Q. RDX-1013.
A. Yeah, that's the one. This is, from
working group 24 and it shows in this list of
participants that the coinventors Dr. Bolourchi
as well as Dr. Dick, who did testify here a few
days ago, were present at that meeting number
24.
Q. And that's a callout of RX-58.
If we could go now to RDX-1016. Could
you explain what that is, Dr. Kakaes?
A. Yes. That's a similar indication of
who was present at meeting number 25. And
that's of course where the Motorola 610
contribution was submitted and discussed, and
Dr. Bolourchi, as well as Dr. Dick, were also
present at that meeting so they clearly had to
have been aware of the Motorola 610.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2626
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Now, if we could go briefly to
RDX-915. Dr. Kakaes, could you explain this
slide, which is a callout of RX-21, RX-22, and
cx-3?
A. Yeah, this is a very, it shows the
date of the application was filed, which is
July 1, but more importantly shows a date of
the first provision which was filed on May 7th.
And if you would be kind enough to put on the
timeline slides.
Q. Let’s use RDX-961, I’m sorry 981.
RDX-981, please. There we go.
A. For example, that’s fine, this is
highlighted. May 7th is when the first
provision application was filed, and it just,
one looks at this, of skill in the art, and
sees that this was clearly filed a few days
before the meeting in an urgent manner to get
the priority date, so that the solution that
was going to be proposed and indeed was
proposed by InterDigital a few days later at
the meeting, it could have a priority date of
May 7th.
Q. And that filing date is after the
dates at which the meetings were held for
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2627
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
working group 25 and 24 where the documents you
testified were presented, is that right?
A. Yes. And that's in part why I
prepared this timeline, because it makes it
visually very clear that May 7 is after all of
these meetings, all of these documents had been
presented and discussed in the respective
meetings.
MR. STEPHENS: Thank you, I have no
more questions at this time.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let's take a 10-minute
break.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: On the confidential
record.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2636
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
OPEN SESSION
JUDGE LUCKERN: I learned just before
we broke, I was told the guards leave at
9:00 p.m., and the doors are locked after that.
We're on the public record, aren't we? And
therefore, if the doors are held open, there's
going to be an alarm. Thus, it appears the
latest that we could go -- I mean I've been
here over 24 years, before we had all 9/11, et
cetera, I used to go late.
But in any event, the latest we can
go, without special arrangements from the
guards, would be around 8:30, assuming the
parties would need 30 minutes to clean up.
Now, I've also learned, five minutes ago,
generally, the guards need at least a day to
work out the logistics of having a guard stay
late. However, my secretary informs me that
she could try to arrange it.
However, once we ask the guard to stay
late, the guards must be paid for that time,
even if we don't go until 9:30. Also, there
may be no guard who can stay late on such a
short notice. I just heard all this within the
last half-hour. Private parties, do you think,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2637
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where we’re going now, we’re going to go until
8:30 or maybe earlier than 8:30? We‘ve got one
more witness, and you’ve got Complainant’s
rebuttal case. Mr. Coyne, do you want to say
any comment about what I do now?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor, I think
it’s going to be quite possible. We’re tight
on time, and we would request if we could see
arrangements could be made, and we’d be happy
to share the costs on that.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I don’t think that can
be done. I don’t think that private parties --
I‘ve never heard of private parties sharing any
money about cost, so, boy, you can open a whole
who knows what. Anybody want to say anything,
on Respondents’ side about this point,
Mr. Stephens or anybody else?
MR. STEPHENS: We will do whatever the
Court prefers, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, and you heard
Mr. Coyne say we’re tight on time, and we would
request if we could see if arrangements would
be made, we‘ll be happy to share the cost on
that. Is that Respondents‘ feeling too?
MR. STEPHENS: We certainly would be
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2638
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
willing to share the cost, if necessary.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, I don‘t know if
that ever even can be done. Mr. Hall, you hear
what was said. Can you go upstairs? They’d
like to see if arrangements -- I have no idea.
I mean, when we get into costs, you open up a
whole -- I’ve been with the government for 42
years, I don’t know if that even can be done,
but go up and tell them what you heard.
I guess, if we go after 9:30 or 9:00,
somebody’s got to pay for it, and you heard
them, but I don’t even know if that even can be
done, and maybe we’ll finish before then. They
like to have you try, and that‘s the way we
stand. You understand the whole situation,
Mr. Hall?
Let’s go back to the confidential
record, Cynthia.
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, it appears
we‘re very close to the 8:30 cutoff anyway, in
terms of the available time with both parties
together, so we may not be pushing it, we may
run out of time before then.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Off the
record.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2639
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: You said you may run
out of time before that?
MR. COYNE: Both parties have a
limited amount of time left, and it may not
take us much past 8:30.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Should I go up
there -- you heard me. I can't say anymore. I
don't want to waste time -- I'm not wasting
time. I don't want to use up time saying
anything more.
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Shall I send Rob up,
or leave it a the way it is?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor, if you
could just make inquiry whether it could be
done.
JUDGE LUCKERN: But if it could be
done, we should start an order. Do you want
that done?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Now, we're back on the
confidential record.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2646
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OPEN SESSION
JUDGE LUCKERN: So what do you want to
have him do with that?
BY MR. COY&:
Q. So if you look at column 1, sir, lines
65 to 67, you see the portion of column 1 at
the bottom of the page?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Begins with, 'la code is produced.Il
"A code is produced for use in
scrambling or descrambling data associated with
a high-speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)
for a particular user equipment.Il
Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, I believe you did.
Q. Would you look at column 1, lines 39
to 41, sir? And do you see the sentence that
begins, !Ithe UE descrambles,Il in line 39?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. "The UE descrambles the data carried
on part 1 of its HS-SCCH using its scrambling
sequence.Il Did I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And would you look at column 2, lines
63 to 65, and do you see that portion of the
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2647
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
23
25
document, sir, the sentence beginning, the
scrambling sequence - - Ilscrambling codell?
A. Column 2, okay. I believe you said
column 2, right?
Q. Yes, Your Honor -- I'm sorry, yes,
sir.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You were just
elevated. Do you want to come up here? 1/11
give you my robe.
MR. COYNE: Certainly didn't mean to
give him a promotion.
THE WITNESS: Sorry, column 2,
lines --
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Yes. "The UE ID scrambling code is
mixed, such as by Exclusive Or gate 18, with
the received HS-SCCH for use in recovering the
encoded HS-SCCH data." Did I read that
correctly?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. So in each of those instances, the
code is referred to as a scrambling code
whether it is used for scrambling or
descrambling, correct?
A. In each of those instances, it
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2648
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
describes, for example, the one you just read,
the UE scrambling code is mixed, such as by
Exclusive Or gate, with the received high-speed
shared control channel for use in recovering
the encoded high-speed shared control channel
data. So I don't see any difference between
what that general description is and what the
claim language is, which specifically uses
scrambling as part of the transmitting end and
descrambling as part of the receiving end.
Q. Read the prior sentence. Do you see
the prior sentence in that portion beginning in
line 61? It reads, "Figure 4 is a simplified
diagram of a user equipment descrambling a
HS-SCCH using a UE ID specific scrambling
code.'! Did I read that correctly?
A. Well, you did, and I have no argument
with you. It's a simplified diagram of the
user equipment. The user equipment is far more
complicated than is shown in Figure 4, so it's
a simplified diagram of the user equipment
disclosing the descrambling of the high-speed
shared control channel, and indeed, as Claim 3
clarifies, the invention has to do with the
descrambling high-speed shared control channel
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2649
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
using the UE ID specific scrambling code.
So we’re reading the same thing, and
what I’m reading is the, essentially, something
that‘s very consistent with the claim language,
and the figure shows just a very small portion
of the user equipment, and therefore, it’s a
simplified diagram, but it shows precisely what
is meant by descrambling.
Q. And in each instance, whether or not
that code is being -- that sequence is being
used to scramble or descramble, it’s still
called a scrambling code, correct?
A. Yeah, it‘s called a scrambling
sequence, but it‘s used, when produced at the
base station, it’s used in order to scramble
the high-speed shared control channel, where
that sequence is using the mobile, according to
the claimed invention, is used to descramble
the high-speed shared control channel, but,
yes, it‘s still called the scrambling sequence.
Q. And there’s no disclosure anywhere in
the ‘ 579 patent of anything called a
descrambling code, is there?
A. There is disclosure of the scrambling,
and the fact that the scrambling sequence is
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2650
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same set of bits that are produced, the
value of the bits at the transmitting end is
the same as the value of the bits at the
receiving end allows one to just abbreviate and
call it a scrambling sequence. The important
thing here, the point of the whole dispute is a
scrambling sequence used for scrambling or is a
scrambling sequence used for descrambling, and
the answer to this question is provided in the
respective claims.
Q. Sir, would you look --
MR. COYNE: Let’s pull up, John,
figure CX -- I‘m sorry, document CX-466. It’s
the Qualcomm design document. I’m sorry, we
need to go back on the confidential record,
Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. And let’s
stay on the public record right now. I hate to
read this note I got from my secretary, but
I’ll read it into the record with respect to
the parties paying for staying more, that’s
out, we won’t accept any money. So that -- the
parties can’t pay, but unfortunately, I have a
note here from my secretary, my secretary says
there is a guard already staying until
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2651
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
4:OO a.m. for reasons unrelated to our hearing,
thus the parties may have until 3:30 a.m.,
assuming 30 minutes to clean up, Rob.
Well, we have a reporter here, and
she’s a great reporter, and she’s staying until
9:30. I sort of put a little pressure on her,
but she‘ll do whatever it is, so please keep
that in mind. We don‘t have any relief
reporter here, and so we’re not going to be
staying until 3:30 a.m. in the morning.
If this reporter gets tired, that’s
it, so just keep that in mind. All right.
Now, let’s go on the confidential record.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2681
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OPEN SESSION
JUDGE LUCKERN: Anything earlier?
MR. COYNE: No, this is where we’ve
gone back.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Public record now.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Okay. Doctor, several of the
references that you show at the end of your
list are not prior art to the ‘579 patent,
correct?
A. With a small correction that it is a
few of them towards the end.
Q. Yes.
A. Not necessarily just at the end.
Q. In fact, one of the things you list as
prior art to the ’579 patent is InterDigital’s
proposal R102715 at item number 42 on the
right-hand page, correct?
A. I’m aware of that error on my part,
and those 47 items, I had considered them, I
had evaluated them, I had performed the
analysis on them, and I inadvertently included
a handful of them under the heading prior art,
and as we discussed at the deposition, I made a
mistake, and that particular item should not be
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2682
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in that list.
In my invalidity arguments relative to
prior art, I certainly did not use that as
being prior art. That individual document is
not prior art.
Q. Okay. And one of the combinations
that you identify in your report is any one or
more of 42 of these references combined with
any one or more of five of these references,
correct?
A. I don’t believe that I said any one or
more, I said one or more.
Q. Okay. So, sir, would you look at --
MR. COYNE: Could we have the next
slide, John, CDX-loll?
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Sir, we talked at your deposition
about this being the formula from a number of
combinations, from a group taken a certain
number at a time, correct?
A. That’s the formula that you wanted to
discuss, if you take r items out of a set of n,
how many possible ways are there to do that,
and I agreed that that is the combinatorics
formula that indicates the numerical value of
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2683
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how many ways there are to pick r objects out
of a set of n objects.
Q. Sir, if we do that with the summary
section of your report --
MR. COYNE: John, can you bring up the
next slide, CDX-1012?
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. That results in the combination, the
second combination of what you called the
working group prior art in combination with one
or more of the encoder prior art of a total of
136 trillion combinations, correct?
MR. STEPHENS: Objection, Your Honor.
These calculations were put together on a
spreadsheet that was introduced as an exhibit
at Dr. Kakaes’ deposition. They told us that
they were going to provide us the native files
for those spreadsheets, so we could assess how
we calculated this. I don’t think this is a
big deal because it’s not a particularly
impressive argument, but we never got those
spreadsheets, so we really don’t know how these
numbers were calculated.
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, I offered it.
I was never contacted by them to request it
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2684
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
24
25
again. The formula is what it is. The witness
can answer the question, that's either right or
wrong.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Mr. Levi,
what's your position with respect to objection
raised by Mr. Stephens in that question?
MR. LEVI: Your Honor, I'd like to
raise a different point. It seems to me this
is beyond the scope of Mr. Stephens'
examination.
MR. STEPHENS: I would agree with
that, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: How do you respond to
that, Mr. Coyne?
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, these are the
combination of references that this witness
analyzed, and we are entitled to try to show
the Court how he conducted his analysis and
whether or not it's a proper obviousness
analysis.
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, obviously,
the witness did not analyze 136 trillion
combination of references, and there is no
testimony anywhere that he did.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Is it your position --
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2685
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
you’re not testifying, Mr. Coyne -- your
position is that this witness has evaluated 136
million --
MR. COYNE: No, Your Honor, it’s our
position that he identified this group, and
there was no way he possibly could have
evaluated them, which is part of the point that
we‘re trying to make. I’ll be happy to move
on, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Would you bring up the next slide,
1013 -- I’m sorry 1014, CDX-1014. You
summarized in your report what you said were
the specific combinations that popped up,
right?
MR. STEPHENS: Objection, Your Honor,
again, this exceeds the scope of direct. He
didn’t testify about all these combinations.
He testified about a handful of references.
This is a fishing expedition far afield, Your
Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Coyne, how do you
respond?
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, it‘s not a
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2686
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fishing expedition, I‘m trying to show how this
witness conducted his analysis to arrive at the
opinions he’s given into court today, and I
think we’re entitled to it, it goes at a
minimum to the witness’ bias.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Is it your position
that Respondents today are relying on all of
this to invalidate this patent?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor, it’s our
position that this is how this man arrived at
his opinions.
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead,
Mr. Stephens.
MR. STEPHENS: That’s just not true.
You saw he testified about a relatively small
number of working group one documents. This is
a much larger list. This is clearly outside
the scope of direct.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Levi, what is your
position with respect to the objection to the
quest ion?
MR. LEVI: Well, Your Honor, I do
believe it is beyond the scope. However, we’ve
all discussed that time is tight, and if
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2687
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Coyne wishes to proceed with this, if
Mr. Coyne wishes to use his time pursuing this
line, then I guess it’s up to him. However,
again, it is the Staff’s position that it is
beyond the scope.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, if it’s beyond
the scope, let him go on. I’m going to sustain
the objection. Move on.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Sir, at your deposition, you
identified 54 combinations of references,
correct?
A. At which deposition are you referring
to?
MR. STEPHENS: Objection, Your Honor,
he did not testify to 54 combinations of
references.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Mr. Coyne?
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, again, it goes
to the witness’ bias and the methodology he
undertook in arriving at his opinions.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Levi, what’s your
position with respect to the -- well, let me
ask you Respondents, I don’t want to take the
time to look at your prehearing statement, but
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2688
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
is it the position of the Respondents that, as
far as invalidating any claim of the ‘579
patent, you’re only relying on how you examined
this witness live today, Mr. Stephens?
MR. STEPHENS: That is correct, Your
Honor, in combination, of course, with the
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
art.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, yeah, you heard
that, Mr. Coyne. How do you respond?
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, I’m prepared
to move on.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Would you pull up CDX-1022? Sir, I
asked you at your deposition to identify -- you
testified this morning -- or this afternoon
about the alternatives, the alternative
encoders, correct?
A. I testified this morning about the set
of encoders that were available in the UMTS
standard in February of 2002.
Q. And at your deposition, you identified
many more encoders, the ones shown on the
left-hand side of CDX-1022, correct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2689
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
25
A. I believe the question that you posed
to me in deposition is could it conceivably --
could one conceivably use the following
encoding scheme? And you started listing
encoding schemes, and I forget the exact
wording of the question in your deposition, but
the way I remember it and the way I was
answering it is, could one create the system
whereby a hamming code is used, and the answer
was, yes, GOLAY code, and the answer was yes.
So in response to your hypothetical of
could one create a system using any number of
codes, my answers were what they were. That’s
not the same as this morning‘s testimony, which
was to the specific point of which encoding
schemes were present in the standard at that
time.
Q. Sir, and I asked you on July lst, I
didn’t ask you to hypothecate, I asked you what
are the alternatives to the encoding schemes,
and these were the ones you identified,
correct?
A. I forget the exact wording of your
question, sir.
MR. STEPHENS: Objection, Your Honor.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2690
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COYNE: John, would you please
bring up the July 1 deposition at page 337?
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. At line 1, I asked you:
"What are the alternatives?Il
Do you see that portion of your
testimony, sir?
A. Yeah, but I would like to see at least
the page before to get the context.
Q. Go to 336.
A. I'm sorry, what page, 336?
MR. STEPHENS: Want to make sure the
witness has a copy.
JUDGE LUCKERN: 336 and 337 is what
Mr. Coyne has referred to there. And Mr. Coyne
zeroed in on what are the alternatives. So why
don't you scan page 337 and 336?
MR. COYNE: The page before his
objections, Your Honor.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Do you remember that I asked you
whether you had told Dr. Ugone what the
alternatives to the patent technology were?
A. I'm sorry. I'm confused. You asked
me to start reading the context for page 337?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2691
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. I asked you a different question.
A. I missed that.
Q. Do you remember me asking you what you
told Dr. Ugone the alternatives to the patented
technology were?
A. I remember you asking me the question.
Q. And do you remember I asked you, when
you could not remember what you told him, I
asked what the alternatives were, and that is
what is listed on Exhibit CDX-1022, correct?
A. I remember you asking me what I told
Dr. Ugone, and I didn’t remember what I told
Dr. Ugone, so I don’t know what -- the question
is what was my answer at the deposition?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I didn’t remember what all of the
alternatives that I discussed with Dr. Ugone
were.
Q. But then I asked you what are the
alternatives, and you identified these
alternatives at the deposition, correct?
A. You weren’t asking me -- or at least
my understanding of your question, once again,
I would look at the deposition transcript to
refresh my memory. My understanding of your
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2692
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question was, like I said, if you give me a
minute to just read the transcript, to get a
context, I would appreciate it.
Q. Sure.
MR. STEPHENS: I have another
objection, Your Honor, this is to the Exhibit
CDX-1022, and I believe that mischaracterizes
the expert report. It says that the
supplemental expert report says there’s only
two types of encoders, and I don‘t think that‘s
an accurate characterization of the expert
report.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I don’t know where we
are, Mr. Stephens, because, right now, we have
a question and an answer, and then you said, I
have another objection. To what? Are you
moving to strike the answer, or do you have an
objection to the question that we got an answer
to or what? I don’t know where we’re going,
Mr. Stephens.
MR. STEPHENS: So, Your Honor, on the
screen now, and I believe that the witness is
being questioned about this exhibit,
demonstrative CDX-1022, which characterizes two
expert reports of Dr. Kakaes, saying that, on
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2693
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the left side, February lst, 2007 expert
report, there are many types of encoders.
Those encoders do not appear in any expert
report, I don’t believe, from Dr. Kakaes.
Similarly, on the right side, it says
June 2nd, 2008 supplemental expert report,
there are only two types of encoders, and that
suggests that the expert report of Dr. Kakaes
said there were only two types of encoders, I
think that‘s also an inaccurate
characterization of the expert report.
So I object to the exhibit and the
question about the exhibit.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Right now, we have a
question, then I asked you what other
occurrences, and you identified these
occurrences at the deposition, correct, and the
answer that wasn’t -- you were me, or
something, my understanding of your question
wasn‘t like that, went on, and then -- I’m
trying to find out what you’re objecting to.
You’re objecting to something on the screen,
but I don’t see testimony about that,
Mr. Stephens.
And do you remember, I asked you, when
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2694
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
you would not remember what you told him, this
is an earlier question:
“ANSWER: I remember you asked me what
I told Dr. Ugone, and I don’t remember.”
I still don‘t understand what you’re
objecting to with respect to a question that we
need an answer for. That’s my problem right
now. What’s on the screen I’m listening to
this witness testifying, Mr. Stephens, I’m
confused.
MR. STEPHENS: So am I, Your Honor,
and the reason I’m confused is he’s asking him
questions about alternative encoders, and I
guess, as I understand the question, I can’t
tell.
JUDGE LUCKERN: What question is it,
tell me the question, you‘ve got realtime, I
want to have the question. Go to your realtime
and line and give me the question.
MR. STEPHENS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE LUCKERN: It’s not a memory
contest for anybody. We’ve got this record
here being developed that I’ve got to read two
weeks from now.
MR. STEPHENS: The question, Your
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2695
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Honor, is -- but then I asked --
JUDGE LUCKERN: And where are you on
your realtime, about --
MR. STEPHENS: It’s right before I
objected, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Page, line, what.
MR. STEPHENS: 325, line 1.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Pardon me.
MR. STEPHENS: 325.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I see we’re way back
earlier. All right. I may not be the same,
325, line 1. It’s on my realtime, line 10, but
then I asked you what are the alternatives, and
you identified these alternatives at the
deposition, correct? Is that it?
MR. STEPHENS: That’s it, Your Honor,
but the question before is specifically
directing his attention to CDX-1022, and that‘s
the problem that I have.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, the question
before, and do you remember, I asked you, and
you could not remember. What’s --
MR. COYNE: Let me back up for a
second.
BY MR. COYNE:
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2696
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Sir, can we agree that, if your best
combination of references doesn’t invalidate
the claim, your worst ones won’t?
JUDGE LUCKERN: What is going on, now?
Please, who is doing that? I don‘t want -- all
right. Mr. Brittingham, will you control your
people? How is that going on? Anything we
hear, the reporter has got to put down.
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, I’ll be happy
to rephrase.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Right now, I don’t
know what we’re withdrawing. I want this
record clear. We are on a tremendous time
bind, but it doesn‘t help us to zip, zip, zip,
and the record is horrible. So right now, I
want to find out what Mr. Stephens has in mind
and what I’m supposed to be ruling on if
anything, so slow down.
I’QUESTION: And do you remember, I
asked you, when you could not remember what you
told him, I asked what the alternatives were,
and that is what is listed on Exhibit CDX-1022,
correct?Il
So, Mr. Coyne, he’s not testifying,
but he said some alternatives are on CDX-1022.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2697
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
- 25
"ANSWER: I remember you asking me
what I told Dr. Ugone, and I don't remember
what I told Dr. Ugone, so I don't know what the
question is, what was my answer at the
deposition.
Well, that's nothing.
"QUESTION: Yes, sir.
IIANSWER: I don't remember what all of
the alternatives that I discussed with
Dr. Ugone were.
I don't understand. I mean, we're
getting answers from the witness who's saying I
don't remember, or whatever it is,
Mr. Stephens, so I still don't, are you asking
me to strike these answers, they seem all
right. Mr. Stephens, I'm confused.
MR. STEPHENS: I'm objecting to the
characterization of Exhibit CDX-1022.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, he's not
testifying. However, Mr. Coyne is
characterizing it. I'm not paying any
attention to it.
MR. STEPHENS: But he used it in the
question, Your Honor, so the
mischaracterization that is contained in the
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2698
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
demonstrative.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You want this answer
stricken, you want the answer stricken from
this witness, is that what you’re asking, are
you moving to strike these answers?
MR. STEPHENS: Yes, Your Honor, and
to -- and I object to any further question
about this exhibit.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Your
motion is denied, and this is an expert,
denied.
MR. STEPHENS: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Move on, Mr. Coyne.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Did you, on July 1, identify a number
better of alternative encoders to the patented
technology?
A. In the deposition of July 1, you asked
me if I could tell you which alternatives I
identified to Dr. Ugone. I indicated to you
that I didn’t remember. Following that, you
asked me outside of what I may or may not have
told Dr. Ugone, if I could identify what
alternatives could be used, I told you, in
response to your question that, as I sit here
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2699
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
today, I haven't prepared a list of all the
possible alternatives.
So my response was that I did not have
a list of all the possible alternatives. You
then proceeded to read a number of different
coding schemes and asking me, could this have
been used in response, to which I gave you the
answers that I gave you, and for the most part,
those answers were in the affirmative.
That's not to say that I identified a
list of what alternatives could be used, and
that's not to say that the alternatives that
you proposed I identify as belonging to the set
that was available in the 3GPP standard. It
was an academic question that you were asking
me, could coder X be used in the scrambling
path, and seeing no reason why that coder X
would have to be excluded for the most part, I
answered that question in the affirmative.
That's not the same as having created
a list.
Q. Thank you, sir. Sir, are you aware --
well, let me just ask you, first off, do you
agree that these references that you've relied
on in forming your opinions failed to teach
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2700
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
using a half-rate convolutional encoder to
generate from a user ID, user equipment ID, a
scrambling code that can be used to scramble a
high-speed shared control channel?
A. No, they don’t teach that.
Q. Sir, do you agree that none of the
references that you’ve identified teach using a
UE ID processing it with a half-rate
convolutional encoder to generate a scrambling
code that can be used to scramble a high-speed
shared control channel, do you agree?
A. Unless I misheard your previous
question, this is a different question. You’re
right, none of the prior art disclosed using a
rate one-half convolutional encoder to process
the user ID in order to generate a scrambling
sequence.
If they did, with the proper claim
constructions, I should say, if they had, I
would have identified those documents as
anticipating Claim 1, and with the proper claim
constructions, none of the documents I‘ve
identified anticipate any of the claims, and I
reemphasize with the proper claim
constructions.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2701
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Sir --
A. On the other hand, the arguments of,
of invalidity that I made, for the most part,
are based on obviousness arguments, as opposed
to anticipation.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let me ask you this
question, now, you're talking about the
references you identified, are you talking
about the references that you identified today
in your direct examination? Is that it?
THE WITNESS: That certainly is it,
sir.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Those are the only
references that you have, you're saying, right
now, the references you identified today.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I
trimmed down that, so that the, here is my,
here was my problem, Your Honor, this problem
was so trivial, and the solution so widespread,
that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
even without any one of those documents, would
see the solution.
However, with the help of any number
of those documents, the person would see the
solution, and all of those documents would
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2702
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reinforce each other. In the interest of the
limited time and scope of this discussion, I
have identified a very, very small set, which I
presented today in my direct testimony.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead, Mr. Coyne.
MR. COYNE: Thank you, Your Honor.
John, would you please bring up CX-601.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Sir, are you aware that, after you
identified your opinions in this case,
InterDigital submitted your report, and the
attached references that you had relied on to
the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in
connection with another application out of the
family that gave rise to the '579 patent?
A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
Q. And if you'd look down toward the
lower part of the list, John, you see a
reference Il/BH" on the left-hand margin. Do
you see that, sir?
A. Yes, I do see that.
Q. And it lists expert report of
Apostolos Kakaes regarding invalidity, do you
see that reference?
A. Yes, I do.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2703
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And that's the report you entered in
this case on October 17th, 2007, correct?
A. I believe that is correct.
Q. Okay. And, sir, would it surprise
you --
MR. COYNE: Would you turn, John, now,
to 600, CX-600, and the second page, the top of
the page, the third page of the document,
excuse me, paragraph five.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Do you see the portion there, sir,
that's been highlighted? "The following is an
examiner statement of reasons for allowance.
The prior art of record fails to teach using a
high-speed shared control channel to combine
user equipment identification data and
half-rate convolutional encoding to produce a
scrambling code.Il Did I read that correctly?
A. I believe you read that correctly.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Next question.
MR. COYNE: Bring up, John, CX-1077,
turn to page five of that.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. Sir, are you aware that a U.S. patent
issued off of that application, in spite of the
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2704
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
examiner having access to your arguments, sir?
JUDGE LUCKEFW: And the witness has
before him CX-1077?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor, CX-1077.
BY MR. COYNE:
Q. And my question, sir, is are you aware
that the examiner allowed this application and
a U.S. patent issued in spite of your arguments
being presented to the examiner of why you felt
the invention of this patent, at least the '579
would have been obvious?
A. You're asking me if I'm aware that the
patent '540 was issued, right?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, it was. And, yes, I am aware of
that.
Q. And, sir, just so we're clear, if you
turn to the claims page, it's the next to the
last page of the document, you can pick up
Claim 1. And, sir, these claims also include a
half-rate convolutional encoding of the UE ID.
If you look at column 3, beginning at line 20,
do you see in Claim 1 the reference to
half-rate convolutional encoding the UE ID to
produce a code used by the user equipment for
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2705
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
descrambling?
A. Yes, I do see that claim.
Q. Sir, the examiner in this case doesn't
agree with your assessment of obviousness, does
he?
A. I believe the examiner is looking at
the different claim in a different patent,
different claim, similar claim, absolutely.
The same claim, I haven't analyzed this claim
to see if this claim would or would not
withstand a test of obviousness.
MR. COYNE: Your Honor, I have no
further questions for the witness at this time.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Levi.
MR. LEVI: The Staff has no questions.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Redirect?
MR. STEPHENS: Just two questions,
Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Oh, boy, you shouldn't
say a few questions. Go ahead. How many
questions do you have?
MR. STEPHENS: I hope it will only be
two.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I thought you said a
few, maybe you said two. I'm sorry, yes, you
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2706
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did, so I was wrong. I thought I heard 'la
few. Two. Go ahead.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. STEPHENS:
Q. Dr. Kakaes, did the Qualcomm chips
that are used in the accused Samsung handsets
demask the high-speed shared control channel?
A. No, they do not.
Q. Did you confirm that with Qualcomm?
A. Absolutely.
MR. STEPHENS: No more questions, Your
Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I can release -- we
have exhibits though. Wait a minute. Where do
we stand on exhibits, about getting any
exhibits in with this witness? Go off the
record, please.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: Where do we stand?
We're back on the public record, Cynthia.
Where do we stand on exhibits.
MR. QUERESHI: Your Honor, this is
Wasif Quereshi for Samsung. Parties are in
agreement to the following Respondent exhibits
RX-2128 --
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2707
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let me ask you this,
are these exhibits Respondent wants in or
Complainant wants in.
MR. QUERESHI: These are Respondent
exhibits, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead.
MR. QUERESHI: CX-2128, RX-2808C,
RX-0038, RX-0085, and the following are RDXes,
Respondents’ demonstrative exhibits, 900, 902
through 907, 915, 919, 920, 921, 924 through
926, 930 through 934, 936, 938, 940, 942, 948
through 960, 962 through 965, 969, 974 through
976, 978, 979, 981, 982, 986, 987, 989, 991
through 994, 997, 1000, 1004, 1005, 1013, 1016,
1019 *
JUDGE LUCKERN: Are you finished
counsel? Counsel, you finished?
MR. QUERESHI: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: The realtime says
this, I want to make sure the realtime is
correct, well, the realtime is correct, but you
said Samsung parties are in agreement to the
following, then you started off Respondents’
exhibits RX-2128, but then I butted in, and
then I said go ahead, and then you say CX-2128,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2708
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so are there two exhibits.
MR. QUERESHI: I’m sorry if I said
that, it’s RX-2128.
JUDGE LUCKERN: It‘s not CX-2128?
MR. QUERESHI: It is not.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. So I’m
going to receive into evidence the following
exhibits: RX-2128, RX-0038, RX-0085, RDX-900,
RDX-902 to RDX-907, RDX-915, RDX-919, RDX-920,
RDX-921, RDX-924 to RDX-926, RDX-930 to
RDX-934, RDX-936, RDX-938, RDX-940, RDX-942,
RDX-948 to RDX-960, RDX-962 to RDX-965,
RDX-969, RDX-974 to RDX-976, RDX-978, RDX-979,
RDX-981, RDX-982, RDX-986, RDX-987, RDX-989,
RDX-991 to RDX-994, RDX-997, RDX-1000,
RDX-1004, RDX-1005, RDX-1013, RDX-1016, and
RDX-1019.
They’re all in now, and as I
understand it, when you said through, there’s
no numbers skipped.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2709
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Respondent Exhibit Numbers RX-2128,
RX-0038, RX-0085, RDX-900, RDX-902 to RDX-907,
RDX-915, RDX-919, RDX-920, RDX-921, RDX-924 to
RDX-926, RDX-930 to RDX-934, RDX-936, RDX-938,
RDX-940, RDX-942, RDX-948 to RDX-960, RDX-962 to
RDX-965, RDX-969, RDX-974 to RDX-976, RDX-978,
RDX-979, RDX-981, RDX-982, RDX-986, RDX-987, RDX-989,
RDX-991 to RDX-994, RDX-997, RDX-1000, RDX-1004,
RDX-1005, RDX-1013, RDX-1016, and RDX-1019 were
received in evidence.)
MR. COYNE: CDX-1002 --
JUDGE LUCKERN: No objection by
anybody?
MR. COYNE: No, Your Honor, we’ve
talked, and there’s no objection to these:
CDX-1002, CDX-547A, CDX-1004, CDX-l004A,
CDX-l004B, CDX-1010, CDX-1011, CX-601, CX-600,
and CX-1077.
JUDGE LUCKERN: These are exhibits
that the Complainant wants into evidence. No
objection by anybody else, according to
Complainant, so I’ll receive in evidence the
following exhibits: CDX-1002, CDX-547A,
CDX-1004, CDX-l004A, CDX-l004B, CDX-1010,
CDX-1011, CX-601, CX-600, and CX-1077.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2710
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Complainant Exhibit Numbers CDX-1002,
CDX-547A, CDX-1004, CDX-l004A, CDX-l004B,
CDX-1010, CDX-1011, CX-601, CX-600, and CX-1077
were received in evidence.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: So that’s it. So as
far as you’re concerned, Mr. Stephens, I can
release this witness?
MR. STEPHENS: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Coyne, I can
release this witness?
MR. COYNE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Levi.
MR. LEVI: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You’re released.
Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Have a safe trip back
to Vienna, Virginia. Let’s call your next
witness, Mr. Healey. We have another witness
here?
MR. HEALEY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Get him on the stand.
MR. HEALEY: Mr. Charles Donohoe.
JUDGE LUCKERN: And, Mr. Coyne, you’re
up again?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2711
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COYNE: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Brittingham is
finally doing some work. I’m being facetious.
He’s behind the scenes pulling everything he
can and doing a great job, as all people are
doing on this case.
Okay. So let’s -- Mr. Donohoe, you’re
in there.
Whereupon--
CHARLES DONOHOE
a witness, called for examination, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE LUCKERN: Please start,
Mr. Healey, with your direct examination.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HEALEY:
Q. Mr. Donohoe, would you please state
your name for the Court?
A. Yes. It’s Charles R. Donohoe, I live
at 3701 Glenn Eagle Drive, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Q. Mr. Donohoe, did you formerly work for
Samsung Electronics?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And can you tell the Court the years
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2712
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you worked there and the position you held?
A. Yes. I was at Cushman, Darby &
Cushman as a partner for quite a few years,
then one of my clients, Samsung Electronics,
asked me to come to Seoul, Korea to become --
well, to start up a patent program for them and
a legal program for them, so I list Cushman in
early 1989 and joined them in February of '89.
Q. And what was your position when you
left at the end of 2003?
A. I was executive vice president and
chief patent counsel of Samsung Electronics.
Q. And, Mr. Donohoe, are you a member of
any bar or professional association?
A. Yes. I graduated from the George
Washington University Law School, went to night
school there. I am on the IP advisory board at
the GW Law School. I'm a member of the
Maryland bar and the D.C. bar and a member of
the Patent Office bar.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2725
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 MR. HEALEY: This can be public, yes.
21 JUDGE LUCKERN: Off the record.
22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 JUDGE LUCKERN: So we're now on the
24 public record. Mr. Donohoe, the question, Itand
25 can you tell us what is the claim that Samsung
OPEN SESSION
BY MR. HEALEY:
Q. Let's look at CX-0824. Mr. Donohoe,
do you recognize CX-824?
A. I do, yes.
Q. And what is CX-824?
A. That's the amended complaint in the
Delaware litigation, Samsung is a Plaintiff,
InterDigital is the Defendant.
Q. And would you turn to page eight of
that complaint?
A. I have that.
MR. HEALEY: And, Nate, can we have
page eight on the screen?
BY MR. HEALEY:
Q. And can you tell us what is the claim
that Samsung has in count one of the complaint?
MR. LEVI: Would this testimony be
public?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2726
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has in count one of the complaint?Il
THE WITNESS: Sure. It’s a breach of
contract claim. We maintain that IDC has
breached its obligation under -- its commitment
to ETSI to offer Samsung a license under fair,
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms, and
we’re asking for relief because of that.
BY MR. HEALEY:
Q. Now, Mr. Donohoe, this is a first
amended complaint.
this breach of contract claim based on ETSI IPR
policy was in the original complaint?
Do you know whether or not
A. I read the original complaint way back
when, and this is just, I think, virtually
identical to the count in that, the first count
in that complaint.
Q. And when did Samsung file the original
complaint?
A. I think it was March 23rd or 24th of
2007.
Q. And what was the reason Samsung filed
that complaint?
A. We filed it because we were telephoned
by Mr. Bernstein saying that they were going to
sue us, and so we quickly filed this complaint.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2727
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
Q. Okay. Mr. Donohoe, during 2006-2007,
you were acting as a consultant for Samsung, is
that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what was your role in the
negotiations?
A. I was core in the negotiation, I was
involved in all of the negotiation meetings,
except one, which I could not be involved with
because of other commitments, and that was --
so I knew everything that was going on in
negotiation, I was copied on everything.
Q. And had Samsung changed its position
regarding the ETSI IPR policy and its
importance of that policy in dealing with
InterDigital since you began negotiating with
InterDigital in February of 2002?
A. Not at all.
MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, pass the
witness.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You're finished?
MR. HEALEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Okay. Boy,
Mr. Healey, you really get a triple gold star
on this.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2728
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HEALEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Brittingham, let’s
proceed with your cross-examination.
MR. BRITTINGHAM: They surprised us,
Your Honor. They were not ready for the
cross-examination binder.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, can’t you ask
something? All right. We‘re on the public
record. Start your cross-examination,
Mr. Brittingham. How long do you think you’re
going to be? Are you going to beat Mr. Healey
and get a triple star or a gold star? The
time?
MR. BRITTINGHAM: About a half-hour,
Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRITTINGHAM:
Q. Mr. Donohoe, you said you retired from
Samsung right at the end of 2003, correct?
A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. And since that time, you‘ve been a
consultant for Samsung?
A. Among other things.
Q. You‘ve also been an expert witness in
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2729
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
patent damages cases?
A. And I consult with other companies on
patent and licensing issues, yes.
Q. And I take it, since the time you’ve
been a consultant, you’ve not been part of one
of Samsung’s, you know, business units where
they’re making decisions about what business
moves to make?
A. Well, I’m working with Samsung people
all the time. I work with both the general
counsel of Samsung Electronics. I work with
the people in the telecommunications business,
which is a business unit of Samsung
Electronics. I work with the people in the
semiconductor business at Samsung Electronics,
so I’m there, and I’m meeting with people.
I have dinners with business vice
presidents at Samsung. So I‘m, you know, I was
with them for 15 years, and I knew the people
very well. We maintained relationships, so
we’re talking business, and we’re meeting all
the time about things.
Q. But YOU -- I’m sorry.
A. Of course, when you‘re in a
negotiation, you have to understand what’s
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2730
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
going on, on the business side. That‘s the
core to any negotiations. So that’s what I
did.
Q. But you’re not one of the business
leaders that makes decisions for Samsung,
correct?
A. No, I‘m an advisor, basically. I take
the information that’s given to me, and then I
give back what I think is prudent advice on how
to proceed with various things that come up,
various legal issues that come up, including
negotiations, yes.
Q. You don’t decide, for example, whether
to introduce a new product or build a new plant
for Samsung?
A. I never did.
Q. Right. And when you were at Samsung,
you were in their legal department?
A. That’s right. I was head of the legal
department, and so I was a counselor to
Samsung, not a -- obviously, I had a say in, a
voice in products to be introduced by Samsung
because of patent exposure and various legal
issues, but I did not decide what products we
were going to design, develop, and manufacture,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2731
no.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Now, you said in your direct you were
familiar with the ETSI IPR policy, but when you
were at Samsung, you didn’t get involved with
the telecommunications group with respect to
the ETSI licensing declarations, correct?
A. Not with the procedure process of,
number one, declaring patents to ETSI or,
number two, selecting the patents that would be
declared essential to ETSI or, for that matter,
any other standards organization. No, that
wasn’t my responsibility.
Q. And in fact, you have no personal
knowledge of Samsung’s involvement with ETSI,
recollect?
A. Well, no, I knew Samsung was involved
with ETSI, I knew that from, you know, as we
met to plan our negotiations and everything.
And at one point, I issued directives, I know,
in the semiconductor part of it, regarding how
we should comport with the JEDEC requirements,
but I was not personally involved in telling
people to declare this patent or that patent to
ETSI.
What they did is they reported to me
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2732
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from time-to-time about their involvement in
ETSI. That’s all.
Q. You have your deposition which is at
the front of the yellow binder.
A. Sure.
Q. That deposition took place March 2nd,
2008. And could I refer you to page 38, lines
12 to 15?
A. Is this 38 of the transcript or 38 of
the shortened version here?
Q. I think it’s 38 of the transcript, so,
yeah, you have the minuscript.
A. Okay.
Q. If you look at the screen, we have the
full version, if the type is too small.
Sometimes, I hate those little things.
A. Sure.
Q. At page 38, line 12 to 15, you were
asked, I’m sorry, I need to, that was the wrong
quote, let’s go to page 96, line 6 to 9. I
apologize for that.
A. Well, here, I do indicate that I’m
reported at page 39 --
JUDGE LUCKERN: No. But he wants to
go down to page 96.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2733
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: Okay.
JUDGE LUCKERN: That’s what he wants.
BY MR. BRITTINGHAM:
Q. Page 96, lines 6 through 9, once you
have that --
JUDGE LUCKERN: You want to read it to
yourself before Mr. Brittingham continues, you
can do it, however you want to proceed. Right
now, we have page 96, lines 6 to 9, so it
doesn‘t take very long to read that to
yourself. You want to read something before or
after you can. Let me know when you’re ready
to proceed, Mr. Donohoe.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Go ahead
Mr. Brittingham.
BY MR. BRITTINGHAM:
Q. At that passage of your deposition,
you state, there was a question asked, and I
think, from what you just said, you had no
personal knowledge of Samsung’s involvement
with ETSI, correct, your answer was yes, yes,
that was the answer you gave at your
deposition, correct?
A. That was in the context of what
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2734
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Samsung was doing to report to ETSI its
patents. I wasn’t involved in the business
side of it, where they were trying to promote
certain types of technology to ETSI. I wasn’t
involved in that. I wasn‘t involved in the
decision to select patents and that sort of
thing to ETSI. As I said earlier in the
transcript, that, from time-to-time,
people
from the telecommunications business would
report to me what they were doing with ETSI.
But I was not personally involved in
the actual disclosure of information to ETSI or
the policy position Samsung took within ETSI.
Q. And at your deposition, you actually
said you had no personal knowledge of that
involvement, you didn’t just say you weren’t
involved?
A. Well, this has to be taken in the
context of what I’ve said other places in the
deposition, what I meant here was that I had no
personal knowledge of our involvement in the
sense of an engineer going to an ETSI meeting
and promoting a certain type of technology over
a different type of technology.
I wasn’t knowledgeable or involved in
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2735
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
the decision to vote on it. I wasn’t involved
in disclosure of patents to ETSI and that sort
of thing, so I had no personal involvement in
that, and that’s what I’m referring to here.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2771
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
OPEN SESSION
MR. LEVI: Your Honor, I do have a few
questions, but I’m happy to break.
JUDGE LUCKERN: The reporter wants to
break. How much time do you think you’re going
to be?
MR. LEVI: I’d be surprised if it‘s
more than five minutes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: And what do you have
on redirect?
MR. HEALEY: Probably under five
minutes.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Levi, get your
questions. We’re on the public record. Go
ahead, Mr. Levi.
MR. LEVI: Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, I’m going to be referencing
testimony that came up on the confidential
record, so I believe we need to go on the
confidential record.
JUDGE LUCKERN: On the confidential
record. Whose information is it?
MR. LEVI: At least Samsung, if not
Samsung InterDigital.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2772
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2774
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
OPEN SESSION
JUDGE LUCKERN: We’re on the public
record. And off the record, Mr. Healey made
some comments about where we’re going with
time, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Brittingham,
what do you think about what you heard
Mr. Healey said off the record?
MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, I talked to
Mr. Brittingham, and in order to make sure we
finish tonight, and both parties have agreed,
if the Court will agree, and the court reporter
is able to accommodate us and the Staff and
Mr. Levi and his colleagues and the facilities,
that we would be agreeable to adding 15 minutes
per side to each side’s time, which would give
Samsung about 53, 54 minutes and InterDigital
about an hour and 23 minutes or so.
And that that ought to get us out of
here before the Court’s 9:30 deadline and keep
both sides aware of what they’re permitted to
do, and we should be able to do that.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Mr. Levi,
do you have any problem with that?
MR. LEVI: It’s fine, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I have no problem with
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2775
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. I have no problem. Fine, that’s fine
with me. Let’s proceed now on the confidential
record.
(Whereupon, the trial proceeded in
confidential session.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2780
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
OPEN SESSION
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HEALEY:
Q. Mr. Donohoe, just to refresh my
recollection, what was your title in the
timeframe of 2000 to 2003 before you retired
from Samsung?
A. I was executive vice president and
chief patent counsel. My real function though
was general counsel of Samsung for all external
Korea affairs.
Q. Okay. And you had said earlier in
your testimony that you had negotiated in 1999
or 2000 licenses with Motorola and Lucent?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what was your
understanding of what Samsung’s
telecommunications business was doing in this
timeframe of the late ‘90s and 2000 to the
early part of the 2000 century or up until now,
more or less?
A. We were primarily designing and
developing a manufacturing second generation
GSM CDMA 1 cell phones.
Q. And were you paying InterDigital any
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2781
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
royalties on CDMA 1 cell phones?
A. No, that was never an issue with IDC.
Q. And have they ever sued you for CDMA 1
cell phones?
A. No.
Q. And what is your understanding of the
relationship between CDMA 1 and CDMA 2000?
A. CDMA 1 is now evolved into CDMA 2000
products, and GSM, which was our major second
generation product, that has evolved into the
WCDMA technology.
Q. And the TDMA patent license agreement
that Samsung signed in 1995, that covered the
GSM products, correct?
A. That's correct.
(6:OO p.m.)
BY MR. HEALEY:
Q. And what is your understanding of the
relationship between WCDMA and GSM?
A. WCDMA is backward compatible with GSM,
so that in all our WCDMA phones, we also have
GSM functions in it, so that constitutes part
of the product.
Q. Okay. And from the time period in
1999 on up through, say, 2006, 2007, when you
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2782
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were negotiating with InterDigital on behalf of
Samsung, what was Samsung doing in regard to
its WCDMA business?
A. It was increasing the business
consistently. Our sales climbed over that
period of time. We’re now one of the larger
manufacturers of WCDMA products. We invest
heavily in plant design development, promotion,
et cetera, for the CDMA, WCDMA products.
Q. And how, has based on your involvement
in the business at Samsung first as executive
vice president and later as a consultant,
continuing in that role here, what has been
your understanding of how Samsung has analyzed
the ETSI intellectual property rights policy in
developing that WCDMA business?
A. We relied upon it, we understood it,
and we relied upon it, we expect that we‘ll get
a license under essential patents from all
companies who have declared essential patents
for WCDMA, we expect we’ll get a license under
FRAND terms in accordance with ETSI IPR policy.
We rely upon that.
Q. And would Samsung, in your view, be
harmed if Samsung were not able to rely upon
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2783
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the ETSI IPR policy in maintaining its WCDMA
business?
A. Sure. We've committed to that
business. We spent billions of dollars on the
business, and if we couldn't get licenses under
the ETSI IPR requirements of FRAND agreement,
we'd be harmed.
MR. HEALEY: Thank you, Your Honor,
nothing further.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Healey, should all
of your redirect have been confidential?
Certainly, the title -- I don't see has to be
confidential, when you asked his title, the
timeframe of 2000 and what.
MR. HEALEY: I think, Your Honor, that
the questions did not get into the details of
trade secret or detailed business information,
so that we could either -- we don't really have
to have that part on the confidential record.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I mean, are you saying
all of your redirect can be public?
MR. HEALEY: Mr. Donohoe, you know
better than I do the sensitivity --
THE WITNESS: I think it's fine.
JUDGE LUCKERN: So make it all public.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2784
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MR. HEALEY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: We’re on the public
record. What about exhibits? Do we have any
exhibits for this witness, Mr. Healey?
MR. HEALEY: Yes, Your Honor,
Mr. Schwartz will handle the exhibits.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I hope he’s talked to
Mr. Brittingham and Mr. Levi. Have you done
that, Mr. Schwartz?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Your Honor. It’s
Andrew Schwartz for Samsung. I have spoken to
the Complainants, and they have agreed to the
admission of the following exhibits.
JUDGE LUCKERN: And Staff has agreed
too?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Let me show the list to
the Staff.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Staff has
agreed?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The Staff has agreed,
Your Honor. It’s CRX-0236, CX-0082, CX-0098,
CX-0293, CX-0297, CX-0732, CX-0745,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2785
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CX-07 -- strike that -- CX-0751, CX-0824,
CX-1174, CX-1197, RX-0307, RX-0345, RX-0384,
RX-0648, RX-0698, RX-0859, RX-1109, RX-2475,
RX-2486, RX-2513, and RX-2524.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Based on
the representation of Mr. Schwartz, I'm going
to receive into evidence the following
exhibits: CRX-0236, CX-0082, CX-0098, CX-0293,
CX-0297, CX-0732, CX-0745, CX-0751, CX-0824,
CX-1174, CX-1197, RX-0307, RX-0345, RX-0384,
RX-0648, RX-0698, RX-0859, RX-1109, RX-2475,
RX-2486, RX-2513, and RX-2524.
(Complainant Exhibit Numbers CRX-0236,
CX-0082, CX-0098, CX-0293, CX-0297, CX-0732,
CX-0745, CX-0751, CX-0824, CX-1174, and CX-1197
were received in evidence.)
(Respondent Exhibit Numbers RX-0307,
RX-0345, RX-0384, RX-0648, RX-0698, RX-0859,
RX-1109, RX-2475, RX-2486, RX-2513, and RX-2524
were received in evidence.)
JUDGE LUCKERN: Now, go back on the
public record. Did you have any exhibits, Mr.
Brittingham, you want in? And if so, everybody
else is happy with them, and there's no
problem?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2786
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BRITTINGHAM: No, I had no
exhibits that needed to be in.
JUDGE LUCKERN: That‘s okay. I didn’t
think you did with the binder. Then I’m going
to release this witness. No problem,
Mr. Healey?
MR. HEALEY: No, sir, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Brittingham?
MR. BRITTINGHAM: Fine, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Levi?
MR. LEVI: That’s fine with the Staff,
Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: You are released.
Thank you very much, Mr. Donohoe. Now, do I
understand that we have completed Respondents’
direct case, is that correct?
MR. HEALEY: Yes, Your Honor, we have
completed the Respondents’ direct case.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Let’s
start the -- are you going to surprise me and
really give me a super present, no rebuttal,
Mr. Brittingham?
MR. BRITTINGHAM: That was my
position, but I was overruled by others.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Well, call
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2787
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your first live rebuttal witness.
MR. BRITTINGHAM: We will be calling
Dr. Gitlin first.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Where is
the good man? Get on the witness stand. Who’s
going to do any cross-examination of this
witness?
MR. STEPHENS: I will, Your Honor,
Garland Stephens.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Okay. Dr. Gitlin, I
want you to raise your right arm and administer
the oath, please.
Whereupon--
RICHARD GITLIN
a witness, called for examination, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
JUDGE LUCKERN: Who’s going to do the
examination?
MR. GUPTA: Roger Gupta, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let’s start. And
we‘re on the public record too?
MR. GUPTA: Yes, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GUPTA:
Q. Dr. Gitlin, were you here in the
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2788
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing room when Dr. Kakaes testified
regarding the validity of the ‘579 patent?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you agree with his opinions?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. None of the references cited by
Dr. Kakaes go beyond the prior art of previous
methods of generating scrambling sequences,
which are explicitly described in the
background section of the patent. And none of
the references disclose all of the elements of
the patent, in particular, use of a rate
one-half convolutional code to generate a
scrambling sequence.
So it’s my opinion that one of
ordinary skill in the art, it would not have
been obvious to him or her to conceive the ‘579
patent.
Q. Now, you mentioned the prior art
method. Turning to CDX-1501, which is on the
screen, which is an excerpt from CX-3, the ’579
patent, what is disclosed as the prior method
of generating a UE specific scrambling
sequence?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2789
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. This is the familiar Reed-Muller 32,lO
block code with a, with a 10 bit UE ID as
input.
Q. And at the time that the 10 bit UE ID
was being changed to a 16 bit UE ID, what were
some of the competing proposals that were
proposed for generating a UE specific
scrambling sequence? And here, I have on the
screen CDX-1503.
A. There were --
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, I object.
The question and this line exceed anything
that’s in Dr. Gitlin’s expert reports on this
subject. The only competing report -- and I’m
being generous in that characterization
identified by Dr. Gitlin -- is the Siemens
proposal in the last bullet in his expert
reports.
JUDGE LUCKERN: How do you want to
respond?
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, these are
facts about what transfer transpired at the 3G
PP working group committees and what were being
proposed in these references and these
proposals and were discussed even during
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2790
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Dick’s testimony that was earlier, and
these are just facts about what actually
transpired at those meetings, and I believe
that Dr. Gitlin has also given a summary as to
what transpired towards the development of the
’579 patent.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Let me go back to
Mr. Stephens. You stated, in the live
testimony of your witness, Dr. Kakaes, it’s
your position that he did not get into any of
this stuff, the live testimony had to do with
something else?
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, I don’t
believe Dr. Kakaes testified about competing
proposals. I don’t believe Dr. Gitlin
previously testified about competing proposals,
and I don’t believe they’re in Dr. Gitlin’s
expert reports.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Do you have anything
new you want to say, Mr. Gupta, before I hear
the position of the Staff?
MR. GUPTA: Yes, Your Honor, this is
just to demonstrate the development that led to
the ’579 patent, which is material to the issue
of obviousness, which is what Dr. Kakaes has
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2791
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been testifying about and what his only
position regarding the invalidity of the ’579
patent.
JUDGE LUCKERN: But it‘s your position
that this line of questioning is rebutting the
testimony that I heard at this hearing from
Dr. Kakaes?
MR. GUPTA: Yes, Your Honor, to the
extent that Dr. Kakaes is testifying that the
‘579 claims are obvious, it is important to
realize in the context in which the ’579 patent
is developed.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I know, I’m not being
argumentative, but I pinned him down at times
to say you’re obvious, what are you relying on,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, well, all
right, I understand the position.
MR. GUPTA: And also, Your Honor,
these references are in Dr. Kakaes’ expert
reports.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, the expert
report is not in evidence.
MR. GUPTA: I understand, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: It’s not in evidence.
What is in evidence is the testimony that I
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2792
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
23
24
25
heard in Respondents’ direct case from this
witness. That’s it. So your reference to
expert reports, I don’t know, means nothing to
me, and I know there’s been situations where --
at least I don’t like to rely on my memory,
where Respondents have said they’ve come down,
or whatever it is, with reference, so I don‘t
want to get into expert reports with this
witness.
They’re not in evidence. So -- all
right. Anything new you want to say before I
hear the position of the Staff?
MR. GUPTA: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Mr. Levi,
what’s your position with respect to the
objection to that question?
MR. LEVI: Your Honor, my memory is
not as good as it used to be, and I was
attempting to go back to Dr. Kakaes’ testimony
to determine whether the current question could
fairly fall within that scope. And I’m still
in the midst of doing that, so I think, in the
interest of moving things along, I think I’ll
simply state that the Staff has no position on
this particular objection.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2793
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Let me
just read, again, what is the position of
Complainant as to what this CDX-1503 is?
You’re not testifying. What is CDX-1503? Are
you saying this is from his expert report?
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, at the time,
the decision was made by the working group
committee to adopt InterDigital’s proposal that
is now in the ’579 patent and in the standard,
there were other competing proposals that were
trying to address that problem, and some of
these proposals go directly to what Dr. Kakaes
has testified about regarding whether there was
a problem at the time and whether this was
being addressed. Some of these proposals
address that very same issue.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, can you point to
the realtime where he has -- did that in some
way, and read the realtime to me as to where he
did that? Can you do that, Mr. Gupta?
MR. GUPTA: I will try to, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Pardon me?
MR. GUPTA: I will attempt to, Your
24 Honor.
25 JUDGE LUCKERN: You said, III will try
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2794
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to, Your Honor.I1 All right. I’m talking about
testimony today, or yesterday, whenever he was
on the stand.
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, I don’t
believe Dr. Kakaes testified about any of these
exhibits, I don’t think he testified about any
competing proposals, and most importantly, I
don‘t think any of these competing proposals
are described that way in Dr. Gitlin’s expert
reports.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, let’s hear from
Mr. Gupta, he said he’s going to point to
something in realtime that the witness
testified under oath before me, and I’m waiting
to hear from Mr. Gupta.
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, also,
Dr. Kakaes has testified that there were
limited number of encoders available, and these
very proposals demonstrate that that is not
true, and it goes towards the entire case
regarding whether there were limited number of
encoders available or one of ordinary skill in
the art as people in the -- or at least the
people in the working group committee, were
they looking at other encoders to solve that
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2795
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exact problem?
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, this sounds
like a moving target, but in any event,
Dr. Kakaes testified about a limited number of
encoders in the standard, and I don‘t think
there was any dispute about that. There was
cross-examination about a bunch of other
encoders not in the standard. I don’t think
really that has anything to do with his
question of competing proposals.
JUDGE LUCKERN: How do you respond to
that?
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, these
proposals actually demonstrate that people were
not limited to Dr. Kakaes.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I’m still waiting on
realtime, you point to realtime, precise
testimony that you’re referring to, if you want
me to pursue it. Otherwise, move on. Right
now, I want realtime, and we’ll get to the
realtime, what it is, Mr. Gupta.
MR. GUPTA: Yes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, we‘re getting the
realtime, but the RDX-977 and 998 both deal
with the available encoders to one of ordinary
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2796
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
skill in the art in trying to solve this
problem.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Stephens, do you
have anything to respond to that?
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, he was
asking a question about competing proposals,
that’s the title of this slide, and so I don’t
think, again, that there’s been any testimony
or anything in the expert reports about these
proposals being competing proposals.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Well, now, you’re
saying this is a surprise or something that,
Mr. Stephens, that the expert reports never
made reference to that? Is that your position
now?
MR. STEPHENS: That’s right, Your
Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: Mr. Gupta, we have
something else thrown into the harbor, as far
as there‘s nothing in the expert reports of
this witness that went into that.
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, the specific
points addressed regarding the available
encoders which Dr. Kakaes is relying on is
being rebutted by these proposals, but I will
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2797
take one more minute to find -- try and attempt
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
to find you the realtime, Your Honor.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right.
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, in the
interest of time, I‘m going to move on for now.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Go ahead.
Next question.
MR. GUPTA: We’ll come back to it.
BY MR. GUPTA:
Q. Dr. Gitlin, did you hear Dr. Kakaes
testify that the problem arising from the
change from 10 bits to 16 bits was not really a
real problem?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you agree with that?
A. No.
Q. And why not?
A. If you look at the contributions to
the working group meeting, for example, in the
LG contribution, they explicitly state that, at
the previous working group meeting, it was
decided to change the UE ID from 10 bits to 16
bits.
Q. Okay.
A. And Dr. Dick’s testimony, as I recall,
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2798
he viewed it was the consensus among the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
working group -- or at least among some of
them, that this indeed had happened.
Q. And did you also hear Dr. Kakaes
testify that one of ordinary skill in the art
was limited to a -- to six encoders that were
available at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you agree with that testimony?
A. Not at all.
Q. Why not?
A. The range of encoders was very, very
broad. The classes of block encoders, there
were just families of Reed-Muller,
Reed-Solomon, BCH codes, families of
convolutional codes, and within each of these
families, like the Reed-Solomon, there were
parameters that could be varied, and they can
generate hundreds of variations of the codes.
And I think also one of the
contributions by Siemens, they make an
interesting point in terms of implementation
that, when the way the scrambling sequence is
used in this application, in contrast to a
channel encoding, you can precompute and store
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2799
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the scrambling sequence offline, so it doesn‘t
burden the receiver in terms of processing.
So that would encourage people who
were looking for a high performance scrambling
sequence generators to certainly go beyond the
space of the existing codes, to see if they can
indeed find superior solutions.
MR. GUPTA: Now, can we have CDX-1507,
John, please, CDX-1507, please?
BY MR. GUPTA:
Q. Now, Dr. Gitlin, here on CDX-1507, we
have a page from InterDigital’s proposal, which
appears in RX-0029. Now, if you can, if you
look at that highlighted section and if you can
blow that up, please? Did InterDigital limit
themselves to Dr. Kakaes’ list of six encoders?
A. No, they did not. If we look at this
table, they list six options, each of the rows
is a coder that they considered. The first one
is the half rate convolutional coding and
puncturing, which was selected and
standardized, they considered a one-third rate
convolutional coder, then option three is
pretty interesting.
It’s a 24 bit CRC, a CRC is not a
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2800
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
channel encoder, but it's an error detection
device, so they went beyond the space of
channel encoding to look at other forms, such
as error detection devices. Option four -- so
option three was certainly not in the release
99 list. Option four looked at the 32/10 TFCI
code, that's the Reed-Muller code, and
InterDigital thought about what they could do
to reuse the Reed-Muller code.
Option five was a 16,5 TFCI
Reed-Muller code, in combination with a half
rate convolutional code, so this is actually
quite interesting as well. This was not in the
standard, and it shows that you can explore and
increase the solutions space by combining
coding elements.
So option five was not in the release
99 list. And option six was a repetition code.
That was not in the list either. In the
right-hand column is a metric that they used to
support through their candidates, it's the
minimum distance and, actually, more precisely,
the minimum, the minimum hamming distance.
Larger is better.
So they had identified two candidates
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2801
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
of very high hamming distance, option one, the
half rate convolutional code, and option three,
the CRC based code.
Q. And which option was presented and
adopted by the working group?
A. Option one was produced in the working
group meeting, the half rate convolutional
code, it was presented and in fact adopted in
the very same meeting.
Q. And is that significant?
A. That’s very significant. In my
experience, that’s very rare for something like
that to happen.
Q. Now, if you can have CDX-1506, please.
Now, Dr. Gitlin, here on the screen we have
CDX-1506, which is a page from a Siemens
proposal R1-02-0783,
which is CX-142. What
encoder was used by Siemens to generate a UE
specific scrambling sequence?
A. Yes, a Siemens proposed a BCH 31,16
block code extending to 32,16. What’s
significant about this is that Siemens was the
company that originally proposed a Reed-Muller
code with a 10 bit UE ID, and when confronted
with this problem of a 16 bit UE ID, they went
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2802
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to a completely different solution of block
codes.
As I recall, from Dr. Dick’s
testimony, this proposal was not presented,
there was some discussion between Siemens and
InterDigital folks, and Siemens supported the
InterDigital proposal.
Q. If you could have CDX-1512, please?
MR. STEPHENS: Objection, Your Honor,
and I move to strike that last question and
answer. The only testimony in the record about
this Siemens proposal being withdrawn as a
result of the IDC proposal was rank hearsay by
Dr. Dick, who said that he heard it from
somebody else that this happened, so there’s
really nobody -- a percipient witness involved
in that proposition that this Siemens proposal
was somehow withdrawn as a result of the IDC
proposal.
And it’s inappropriate for this expert
to rely on that type of at least third or
fourth hand hearsay.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Mr. Gupta,
how do you respond?
MR. GUPTA: Your Honor, Dr. Dick was
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2803
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here under oath, testified on the stand
regarding this, and I also understand this is
an administrative proceeding, unless the
hearsay is egregious, I think here’s an expert
who’s listening to testimony by the inventor on
the stand, under oath, and he is relying on it.
And to the extent that they want to question
the accuracy of that information, they have the
opportunity to do so under cross-examination.
MR. STEPHENS: Your Honor, Dr. Dick
testified he was not at that meeting where this
proposal was to have been presented.
JUDGE LUCKERN: All right. Mr. Levi,
what‘s your position with respect to the motion
to strike?
MR. LEVI: Your Honor, the Staff would
have no objection, the Staff does not support
the motion, I think these points that
Mr. Stephens raised could be addressed on
cross-examination.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I’m going to deny the
motion to strike. Go ahead, Mr. Gupta.
BY MR. GUPTA:
Q. Could I have CDX-1512, please? Now,
Dr. Gitlin, how many encoders were known to one
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2804
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
predating the filing of the application leading
to the ‘579 patent?
A. So there were many -- almost an
uncountable number of encodings. This is an
excerpt from a U.S. patent. When I‘m done, if
you could recite the number prior to the
invention, it talks about hamming codes, GOLAY
codes, Reed-Muller codes, Reed-Solomon codes,
BCH codes, zero tail convolutional codes, tail
biting convolutional codes, and it goes on.
And the point is that each of these
families, for example, each of these codes is a
family, a Reed-Muller code can have hundreds,
if not thousands of variations, and as
InterDigital pointed out, it’s possible to
combine these codes, and now, you get an even
larger set of codes that you can explore.
Q. And how many convolutional codes were
available to one of ordinary skill in the art?
A. Almost an uncountable number. The
convolutional codes, you can change the
internal polynomial, and you can generate a
very large family of codes. Most directly, you
can change the coding rate, which is the ratio
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
2805
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
of the input to the output bits. So there's a
large family of convolutional codes that are
known.
Q. Now, if you can have CDX-1516, please?
Now, here, on CDX-1516, we have a page from
Siemens proposal R1-02-0783,
which is CX-142.
Why did Siemens choose a block encoder that was
not in Dr. Kakaes' list of six?
A. Siemens was very performance oriented,
and they gave a very good reason, which is in
the last sentence of the excerpt, mask code
word generation is done "offline1I and so is
negligible, in effect, and what that means is,
once the UE ID is in possession of the UE, you
can generate the code word that you need
offline so you don't have to recompute this.
It's done offline and doesn't burden
the processing and the UE. So now, that
complexity, implementation complexity is not an
overriding concern, you could really explore
the space of available codes.
Q. Were you finished?
A. I think I was done. You could really
explore the space of codes.
JUDGE LUCKERN: I guess the sound
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
m3s .. Yup, that was EXACTLY my point .. and most of the good old boys network based on where they got their MBA resided and resides in the major firms.
OK, could you please tell me what YOU think "doing your own DD" involves? Nice catch phrase, but tell me if you will in specific detail what goes into your DD besides internet forums. I'm not trying to bait you. Lots of people use that phrase on this board and I wonder what they mean by it as well.
The only comprehensive DD I've was associated with in my 25 year career involves a significant amount of looking at the work product and analysis of others. You don't really think that any institution relies exclusively on the work product of covering analysts for their DD do you? It is just part, and an increasingly smaller part, in the information age, of the DD puzzle.
MO,
Danny
12bees .. Right on target .. of course, this comes from another investor who bought ten years ago LOL.
MO,
Danny
m3s .. No problem .. but you ought to be a little more careful in your choice of words in generalizing a correlation between "IVY league" and "trickery" or between analysts and trickery for that matter. Most (all?) of the analyst offenders worked for the major brokerage firms where trickery as you call it is the order of the day. The firm someone works for on WS is the correlation you are looking for, not their background or role.
I would certainly hope everyone here does their own DD. But I assume you are not telling me that outside analysis of any kind brought to this board should not be ignored and everyone should just rely on opinions expressed by folks like yourself on internet forums only.
MO,
Danny
m3s .. Everyone at every job operates in a "self-motivated" pattern to some degree. Don't know if Nasgovitz does all of his own DD or if he employs someone to do it and/or if he reads what the covering analysts have to say. I do know that, in large measure, the rest of the institutions own IDCC as a result of that IVY league MBA and other school of thought forecasting analytics whether it be from covering analysts and/or internally generated.
PS I sure wish I had never put it in my profile that I have a Harvard MBA. Man, I'm never going to live it down LOL. BTW, not all Harvard MBAs came from a background of privilege. I came from a VERY poor background, commuted to Northeastern from 20 miles away to get an engineering degree while working nights and weekends, was married and had one child when I graduated, spent two years at Kodak, took the money we had saved to buy a house and borrowed the rest to go to Harvard with my wife who was pregnant with our second child. Lived in a basement apartment in Mattapan (google that one) MA and commuted. My wife worked from 4:00 to midnight while I took care of the kids and tried to study. When I graduated I was $16,000 in debt (big money in 1969) and had to borrow $93.17 from Harvard to pay the interest due on my outstanding loans from Harvard.
No big deal. Lots of people have done the same thing I did and much more. Just wanted to set the record straight. Now, I feel better getting that off my chest LOL.
MO,
Danny
OT Wilco .. In the end I didn't go to see anyone outside our local hospital (small and 1/2 mile from my home) and my very close personal friend and orthopedic surgeon who lives here. It became clear to me that the issue was just as much where I was going to have it done as it was about who was going to do it. I kept going back and forth and finally decided to have it done here .. in the middle of a VERY cold and snowy winter.
I am so glad I did. I couldn't have had a better result or recovery. Piece of cake as they say .. home in three days .. driving in three weeks. Knew everyone that took care of me in the hospital .. all locals. Little pain but that was probably because they had me laughing 24/7. Complete joint replacement .. there really wasn't any other option left .. and I chose titanium. (For good reasons, but I'll be damned if I can remember them.)
What made me so glad that I had it done here is that I didn't do what they told me to do .. take it slow the first couple of days .. and my surgical leg swelled up considerably the first evening. So I called my friend and asked if there was anything to be concerned about and he said, "get your azz to the ER now. I'll be there when you arrive."
Man, did he give a dressing down! Told me that only thing wrong with me was that I was too stubborn for my own good as well as his reputation as to having never had a failed joint replacement. It didn't make me feel any better to catch my wife out of the corner of my eye nodding vigorously in agreement. He had ordered up a bunch of tests to make sure my stupidity had not resulted in a blood clot. It hadn't, but later I thought, "what would have happened if I had this done in Portland or Boston?"
You just have to do what makes YOU the most comfortable, not what someone else suggests. I do think that distance to after-care, particularly in an emergency, is something you might want to think about.
Good luck and keep me posted.
Danny
m3s .. They try to determine the appropriate assumptions (in their opinion) to be used in forecasting earnings and stock price that are then plugged into their own spreadsheets. Excel spreadsheets are a science. Opining on the assumptions DEFINITELY is not. But, that is what investment research and DD is ALL about and it is fraught with debate among prognosticators. It is a prime example of that old computer adage .. GIGO .. garbage in, garbage out.
MO,
Danny
dclarke .. Again THANK YOU! BTW, everyone if you go to "Page Set-up" and click on "Landscape" and "Fit to One Page" the spreadsheet will print on one rather than two pages.
Danny
Jim .. Thanks, that is terrific! And a REALLY special thanks to DClarke for providing an Excel file rather than PDF!! Don't know if you noticed or if it was so stated on Wireless Ledger, but any Excel user can save it to their computer and perform their own sensitivity analysis. I just did and everything else updates automatically with each change. Moreover, double clicking on any cell shows the formulas used which you can change if you want as well. He also has notes as to how he made some of the estimates.
MO,
Danny
dmiller .. You completely missed my point and by doing so made it even better than I did. First of all, unlike you have implied, being a "trader" does not make one a professional trader, being employed as one does. As far as I know you aren't and have never been.
There is a very high correlation between the success of those who trade for a living and their ability to remain unemotional about the instrument they are trading. It soon becomes indelibly ingrained or the trading professional is looking for a new profession. Those who make it, NEVER lose that unemotional approach and, instead, they constantly increase their commitment to that approach.
SO, when such an individual chooses to put aside his many years of training and experience in the profession of trading and become emotional about a stock I own I take notice. Perhaps you should put aside your emotional feelings about this individual and do the same.
MO,
Danny
To All: I don't trade, but if I did I'd be paying close attention to what a trading professional has to say:
http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?mode=read&id=430310
Also, you buy and hold types like me should be pretty upbeat when someone who has traded bonds for a living his entire career has found a stock that he is committed to holding and is counseling his clients to do the same.
MO,
Danny
ronny .. My Added Comment: We (this board) found several accounting errors under Rich Fagan, IDCC's previous CFO. However, we have yet to find any accounting error under Scott McQuilken, IDCC's current CFO.
Thanks for providing the update and, more importantly, for pointing out that accounting errors may have exited with Fagan. Scott is considerably more articulate, don't you also think?
MO,
Danny
tangent .. Good one LOL!
Danny
m3s .. Another VERY good point.
MO,
Danny
idccjoe .. Sounds like what the Countrywide Mortgages of the world were doing a few short years ago.
Not in the slightest. There are tons of financially stable companies that have ongoing fee relationships with major brokerage companies. It is a very rare company that doesn't have some borrowing, capital raising or M&A needs at any given point in time. IDCC is not one of them. That is GREAT news from a business perspective but it does not induce coverage from a major brokerage firm. Those not in the major category are still interested and will continue to be. The majors are always the last to join in on non-fee producing companies.
MO,
Danny
revlis .. DEFINITELY not a big deal, except as a catalyst for the creative writing juices of some on this board. Besides, it will make next year's EPS comparisons look even better LOL.
MO,
Danny
Dish .. Also true.
Mo,
Danny
revlis .. I feel there would be no need to do the hand holding if Merritt was almost certain of a settlement.
The operative words in that sentence are "almost certain." Even if WM believes there is 99.9% chance of settlement, it is only smart to cover all bases ,particularly if he is 100% certain of a good ultimate and final result which it appears he is.
Mo,
Danny
iddcjoe .. You may characterize Janet' comments as "deer in the headlight" but I think everything she said was right on point (no pun intended). It really is simple: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
WS firms don't seek "non-profit" status .. they ALWAYS go first to where the revenues that will have a DIRECT impact to their bottom line. Since IDCC does not have any direct fee business available for a major brokerage right now, other than perhaps for M&A assistance and advice, any money a major would pick up by covering IDCC would be indirect, insignificant and unidentifiable. Not good words of encouragement for any major to cover IDCC.
Having said that, their institutional money management clients who own IDCC might push hard for coverage because of the direct impact it could have on their investment performance. That kind of coverage comes under "ongoing client service with no direct revenue impact." That is the bad news. The good news is if a major initiates coverage for that reason alone, that is VERY good news for us.
MO,
Danny
revlis .. After listening to the conference call, I am now 50% certain. Why spend so much time discussing the effects of an adverse decision if a settlement was near at hand?
Just typical "hand holding" that goes on in just about every CC, not just those of IDCC. An attempt to dampen the effect of no settlement on the share price. No more, no less.
MO,
Danny
OT Sail ... It has been taking longer for my messages to post .. I'm assuming it is because there is a lot of traffic on this site today, most of which does not involve posting.
Danny
frobinso .. Absolutely .. plus after getting burnt by the "substantial progress" reference to a NOK settlement, I would imagine IDCC is strictly following a "once burned, twice careful" approach on this subject.
MO,
Danny
Neo .. The only price that counts today is where we close .. after the CC, after those who don't read this board sort through all of their info on other companies as well, etc. etc. This board is "real time" and singularly focused when it comes to all things IDCC. Don't make the mistake of thinking that is the case with all other investors, institutions and individuals alike.
MO,
Danny