throbber
1
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2:19-CV-123-JRG
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`SEPTEMBER 24, 2020
`)(
`9:03 A.M.
`)(
`PRETRIAL HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`VOCALIFE LLC
`
`VS.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL.
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: (See Attorney Attendance Sheet docketed
` in minutes of this hearing.)
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS:(See Attorney Attendance Sheet docketed
` in minutes of this hearing.)
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Shelly Holmes, CSR, TCRR
`Official Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on a CAT system.)
`
`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
`
`IPR PETITION
`US RE48,371
`Sonos Ex. 1039
`
`

`

`98
`
`saw was the State of Texas and an arrow above it.
`MR. RUBINO: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: He's as good an artist as I am.
`MR. RUBINO: Yes, Your Honor, that was the slide.
`And so the question there is whether Mr. McAlexander had
`some admission in his deposition, and Defendant put up a
`slide with his deposition testimony.
`If I could, Mr. Iturralde, are you able to put up
`the depo testimony?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes.
`MR. RUBINO: And while Mr. Iturralde is putting up
`the depo testimony, I would like to just mention -- and
`this is in our briefs -- that Mr. McAlexander, on Page 189,
`Lines 1 through 5 of his deposition, testified -- and
`I'll -- I'll go back a second.
`The citation that Defendants were putting up was
`in the context of an invalidity discussion. When
`Mr. McAlexander addressed this limitation, the spatial
`location limitation in the context of infringement, he
`clarified that the limitation requires estimating the
`location of a target sound signal, which is not the
`question that was asked to him earlier in his deposition
`about estimating spatial location.
`And when it comes to estimating a spatial
`location -- or comes to estimating the location of the
`
`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
`
`11:45:25
`
`11:45:25
`
`11:45:28
`
`11:45:32
`
`11:45:32
`
`11:45:32
`
`11:45:38
`
`11:45:38
`
`11:45:42
`
`11:45:43
`
`11:45:45
`
`11:45:45
`
`11:45:47
`
`11:45:51
`
`11:45:56
`
`11:45:57
`
`11:45:59
`
`11:46:04
`
`11:46:06
`
`11:46:10
`
`11:46:14
`
`11:46:17
`
`11:46:20
`
`11:46:22
`
`11:46:25
`
`

`

`99
`
`target sound signal, Mr. McAlexander says that azimuth is
`sufficient. It gives you an indication of where in space
`it may be located along an azimuth, but it doesn't identify
`the location. It just identifies direction for which sound
`is launched, but it -- sorry, this is not the right -- this
`is not the right citation.
`189, please.
`If we look at the question preceding -- 189.
`MR. FABRICANT: 189.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Sorry, I don't have -- I don't
`have that.
`MR. RUBINO: Oh, sorry.
`Well, anyway, on Page 189 of Mr. McAlexander's
`deposition, he indicates that spatial -- that azimuth is
`sufficient for estimating the location of a target sound
`signal. And that was specifically with regard to the
`question of whether an azimuth is sufficient to meet that
`limitation of -- of the claim for purposes of infringement.
`And so here we have, if anything, a question of
`whether Mr. McAlexander's statements were consistent across
`his deposition, which just resolves into a question of
`cross-examination for the trier of fact, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. What else, Mr. Rubino?
`MR. RUBINO: That's it for me, Your Honor, unless
`the Court has any further questions.
`
`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
`
`11:46:30
`
`11:46:33
`
`11:46:36
`
`11:46:39
`
`11:46:43
`
`11:46:46
`
`11:46:48
`
`11:46:52
`
`11:46:58
`
`11:46:58
`
`11:46:59
`
`11:47:00
`
`11:47:02
`
`11:47:06
`
`11:47:10
`
`11:47:14
`
`11:47:17
`
`11:47:19
`
`11:47:24
`
`11:47:28
`
`11:47:30
`
`11:47:33
`
`11:47:37
`
`11:47:38
`
`11:47:40
`
`

`

`100
`
`THE COURT: Anything further from the Plaintiff in
`response to the Defendants' motion?
`MR. RUBINO: No.
`THE COURT: If not, I'll hear rebuttal from
`Defendant.
`MR. RE: I -- on the point on the spatial
`location, I think even the deposition is replete with the
`expert using location and direction in different ways. And
`regardless of whether he opined on infringement with one
`definition, he can't use another definition on invalidity.
`So we do have this legal tussle of the expert
`sometimes using one definition and sometimes using another.
`And even the clip that Mr. Rubino was going to
`show showed exactly that. He was distinguishing between
`azimuth or direction versus location, Kansas/Canada versus
`north. Those are two different things.
`And the claim language controls. So regardless of
`what he thinks, we still have two words in the claim that
`are different words, and they should have different
`meanings. And that's -- that's the legal problem.
`The other legal problem I want to raise is on the
`Doctrine of Equivalents. It's -- the opinion of the expert
`really has no play when we're having a legal bar that the
`amendment includes the words that are clearly part of their
`Doctrine of Equivalents argument, which is digital signal
`
`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
`
`11:47:43
`
`11:47:46
`
`11:47:48
`
`11:47:49
`
`11:47:51
`
`11:47:53
`
`11:47:55
`
`11:48:00
`
`11:48:05
`
`11:48:10
`
`11:48:13
`
`11:48:18
`
`11:48:20
`
`11:48:23
`
`11:48:26
`
`11:48:32
`
`11:48:34
`
`11:48:38
`
`11:48:41
`
`11:48:44
`
`11:48:45
`
`11:48:48
`
`11:48:53
`
`11:48:58
`
`11:49:03
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket