throbber
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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
`- - - - - - -
`)
`PINN, INC.,
` )
` Plaintiff/Counter defendant, )
` )
` vs.
` ) No. 8:19-CV-01805-DOC
` ) Volume I
`APPLE, INC.,
`)
` )
` Defendant/Counter Claimant. )
`___________________________________)
`
`
`
`
` CERTIFIED
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`COUNSEL APPEARING VIA ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE
`Hearing on Motions/Claim Construction
`Santa Ana, California
`Tuesday, November 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`411 West 4th Street, Room 1-053
`Santa Ana, California 92701
`(714) 558-8141
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`FOR PLAINTIFF/COUNTER DEFENDANT PINN, INC.:
`
`Ryan E. Hatch (via Zoom videoconference)
`LAW OFFICE OF RYAN E. HATCH PC
`13323 Washington Boulevard
`Suite 100
`Los Angeles, California 90066
`310-279-5076
`ryan@ryanehatch.com
`Cabrach J. Connor (via Zoom videoconference)
`(pro hac vice)
`CONNOR KUDLAC LEE PLLC
`609 Castle Ridge Road
`Suite 450
`Austin, Texas 78746
`512-777-1254
`cab@connorkudlaclee.com
`David A. Skeels (via Zoom videoconference)
`(pro hac vice)
`WHITAKER CHALK SWINDLE & SCHWARTZ PLLC
`301 Commerce Street,
`Suite 3500
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`817-878-0500
`dskeels@whitakerchalk.com
`Jennifer A. Tatum Lee (via Zoom videoconference)
`(pro hac vice)
`CONNOR KUDLAC LEE PLLC
`609 Castle Ridge Road
`Suite 450
`Austin, Texas 78746
`512-777-1254
`jennifer@connorkudlaclee.com
`Kevin S. Kudlac (via Zoom videoconference)
`(pro hac vice)
`CONNOR KUDLAC LEE PLLC
`609 Castle Ridge Road
`Suite 450
`Austin, Texas 78746
`512-777-1254
`kevin@connorkudlaclee.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES (continued):
`FOR DEFENDANT/COUNTER COMPLAINANT APPLE, INC.:
`
`Christopher S. Marchese (via Zoom videoconference)
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC
`633 West 5th Street
`26th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`213-533-4240
`marchese@fr.com
`John W. Thornburgh (via Zoom videoconference)
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC
`12860 El Camino Real
`Suite 400
`San Diego, California 92130
`858-678-5070
`thornburgh@fr.com
`Joy B. Kete (via Zoom videoconference)
`(pro hac vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`617-542-5070
`kete@fr.com
`Seth M. Sproul (via Zoom videoconference)
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC
`12860 El Camino Real
`Suite 400
`San Diego, California 92130
`858-678-5070
`sproul@fr.com
`Tucker Nephi Terhufen (via Zoom videoconference)
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC
`12860 El Camino Real,
`Suite 400
`San Diego, California 92130
`858-678-5070
`terhufen@fr.com
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`David Keyzer, Technical Special Master
`
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`

`

` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 4
`
`5
`6
`
`I N D E X
`PROCEEDINGS PAGE
`HEARING ON MOTIONS/CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Initial remarks by the Court
`
`Disputed Terms "Wireless Pairing," etc.
`(Terms 1, 5, 12)
`
`Argument by Mr. Connor (Pinn)
`
`Argument by Mr. Sproul (Apple)
`
`Rebuttal by Mr. Connor (Pinn)
`
`Rebuttal by Mr. Sproul (Apple)
`
`Further rebuttal by Mr. Connor (Pinn)
`
`Further rebuttal by Mr. Sproul (Apple)
`
`Ruling by the Court
`
`"Smartphone" (Terms 2, 7 13)
`
`Argument by Mr. Hatch (Pinn)
`
`Argument by Mr. Marchese (Apple)
`
`Rebuttal by Mr. Hatch (Pinn)
`
`Rebuttal by Mr. Marchese (Apple)
`
`Court's Construction of "smartphone"
`(Terms 2, 7, 13)
`
`"Mobile Application" (Terms 3, 9, 14)
`
`Argument by Mr. Hatch (Pinn)
`
`Argument by Mr. Marchese (Apple)
`
`Court's Construction re "Mobile Application"
`(Terms 3, 9, 14)
`
`"Response to pressing user button" (Term 6)
`
`8
`12
`18
`20
`21
`23
`25
`26
`28
`31
`35
`41
`43
`
`44
`45
`46
`46
`
`47
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`10:59
`10:59
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 5
`
`SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
`Volume I
`HEARING ON MOTIONS/CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`(10:59 a.m.)
`THE COURT: Okay. Well, thank you.
`Then we'll call the case to order, Pinn v. Apple.
`It's Case Number 19-0105. And first, I hope all of you are
`well and I hope your families are well, and we'll try this
`with multiple parties; and if it doesn't work, then we'll
`all get together. But we're trying to proceed in these
`difficult times.
`I've asked David Keyzer to join me. Hopefully,
`he's viewable to you. He's right behind me. A multitude of
`law clerks are also listening and in the Court, but you
`can't see them at the present time.
`INITIAL REMARKS BY THE COURT
`THE COURT: By way of background, the
`patents-in-suit involved the '491 patent, titled "Electronic
`Device With Wireless Earbud" issued on October 31st of 2017.
`(To court reporter:) And Deb, let me know if I go
`too fast. Some of these will be technical terms.
`The '066 patent titled "Mobile System With
`Wireless Earbud" issued on October 22nd, 2019. The
`'198 patent titled "Personal Media System Including Base
`Station and Wireless Earbud" issued on March 31st, 2020.
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:01
`
`11:01
`
`11:01
`
`11:02
`
`11:02
`11:02
`11:02
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 6
`
`All three of the patents-in-suit bear an earliest priority
`date of April 3rd, 2015.
`Defendants submit that the '491 and the
`'198 patents share essentially identical specifications,
`while the specification of the '066 patent overlaps to some
`extent with two other patents but also omits and adds some
`figures and features.
`DISPUTED TERMS "WIRELESS PAIRING"/"WIRELESS
`PAIRED"/"WIRELESS PAIRING" (TERMS 1, 5, 12)
`THE COURT: So we are going to start with the
`disputed terms. And so I'm not jumping back and forth in a
`multitude of documents submitted to the Court, we're going
`to start with the first disputed term: Wireless pairing,
`wirelessly paired, wireless -- I'm sorry. Let me say that
`again:
`
`"Wirelessly pairing/wirelessly
`paired/and wireless pairing, which are
`Terms 1, 5, and 12, as set forth in the
`numberings by the parties in the Second
`Joint Claim Construction Docket
`Number 97." (Verbatim.)
`Plaintiffs proposed construction is as follows:
`First, no construction is necessary.
`Alternatively, "wirelessly pairing" and "wireless
`pairing" mean: Establish or establishing a wireless
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

` 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
`
`11:02
`
`11:03
`
`11:03
`
`11:03
`
`11:03
`
`11:03
`
`11:04
`11:04
`
`11:04
`
`11:04
`11:04
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 7
`
`connection between two devices to relay information.
`Plaintiff previously proposed: "Establish or
`establishing a connection between two devices to relay
`information."
`"Wirelessly paired" means a wireless connection is
`established between two devices to relay information.
`Plaintiff previously proposed: "A connection is
`established between two devices to relay information."
`Defendant's proposed construction: "Wirelessly
`pairing" and "wireless pairing": Establishing a trusted
`relationship between two devices that allows them to connect
`wirelessly, such as Bluetooth pairing.
`"Wirelessly paired": A trusted relationship is
`established between two devices that allows them to connect
`wirelessly, such as Bluetooth pairing.
`Defendant's previously proposed: "A trusted
`relationship is established between two devices that allows
`them to connect wirelessly."
`I'd like to hear from Pinn first.
`MR. SKEELS: Thank you, Your Honor. This is David
`Skeels on behalf of (inaudible) --
`THE COURT: We're going to do that again. And
`could you please slow down.
`I'm going to strike that, Deb.
`MR. CONNOR: Uh, this is Cabrach Connor on behalf
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:04
`11:04
`11:04
`11:04
`11:04
`
`11:04
`11:05
`11:05
`
`11:05
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 8
`
`of Pinn, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Now, just a moment.
`THE REPORTER: I just heard two different people.
`THE CLERK: Try it again, Counsel.
`THE COURT: One more time, Counsel.
`MR. CONNOR: Good morning, Your Honor. Cabrach
`Connor on behalf of Pinn.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`ARGUMENT BY MR. CONNOR (PINN)
`MR. CONNOR: The key issues in this claim
`construction were two-fold: Whether the Bluetooth standard
`and artifacts of that standard, especially the trusted
`nature of the relationship between devices, should be
`imported into the claims. Bluetooth standard is cited in
`the specification as one and the only protocol that's
`discussed; however, the specification explicitly states that
`"other wireless protocols may be used."
`The second issue is whether -- if there is a
`relationship, whether "wirelessly pairing" means that the
`two devices must, in fact, be connected and communicating.
`Pinn's contention at claim construction was that no trusted
`relationship should be part of the construction, that that
`is something from the Bluetooth standard that is not part of
`the claimed subject matter. And Pinn further contended that
`the connection should be part of the construction that two
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

` 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
`
`11:06
`
`11:06
`11:06
`11:06
`11:06
`11:06
`
`11:06
`11:06
`
`11:06
`
`11:07
`11:07
`11:07
`11:07
`11:07
`
`11:07
`11:07
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 9
`
`devices (unintelligible) --
`(Court reporter requests clarification for the
`
`record.)
`THE COURT: No. We're going to strike that.
`We missed that. Unfortunately, you cut out.
`(To court reporter:) So, Deb, what was the last?
`(Record read.)
`THE COURT: "Part of the construction that two
`
`devices."
`
`MR. CONNOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
`-- that two devices would be, in fact, connected
`and communicating. That was Pinn's contention.
`The reason for that position by Pinn is that
`context of the inventions in the specification that refer to
`"pairing" synonymously with "communicating."
`THE COURT: All right. Now, just a moment. Stop.
`Deb, did you get that?
`COURT REPORTER: I did.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`MR. CONNOR: And secondly, Your Honor, that the
`specification describes "turning off pairing," and "turning
`off pairing" to mean, in context, that the two devices stop
`communicating.
`THE COURT: All right. Just a moment.
`Deb, did you get that.
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:07
`11:07
`11:07
`11:07
`
`11:07
`
`11:08
`
`11:08
`
`11:08
`11:08
`11:09
`
` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 10
`
`COURT REPORTER: I did.
`THE COURT: All right.
`Thank you. Please continue.
`MR. CONNOR: Those were Pinn's contentions and
`argument at claim construction.
`The Special Master found that the proper
`construction does indeed require a trusted relationship and
`does not necessarily require that the devices be in
`communication. The Special Master's construction is that
`the devices be allowed to communicate such that they are in
`a relationship, trusted under the Special Master's
`construction -- and we took issue with that -- and in a
`relationship where they are able to communicate -- or
`"allowed to communicate" are the precise terms in the
`Special Master's construction.
`We objected to only a part of the Special Master's
`construction: The part that requires the relationship
`between the devices to be trusted. And the basis for our
`objection is that a trusted relationship which is a quality
`that is (audio interference) --
`(Court reporter requests clarification for the
`
`record.)
`THE COURT: We lost you again. I apologize.
`"We objected to that."
`MR. CONNOR: -- on the grounds that the
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

` 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
`
`11:09
`
`11:09
`
`11:09
`11:10
`11:10
`11:10
`11:10
`
`11:10
`
`11:10
`11:10
`
`11:10
`
`11:10
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 11
`
`relationship, a trusted relationship is not discussed or
`disclosed in the intrinsic record.
`The trusted nature of the relationship between
`devices is something that the Bluetooth standard calls for.
`And we submitted that it was improperly reading an extrinsic
`limitation into the claim to require the trusted nature of
`the relationship between the two devices (unintelligible) --
`(Court reporter requests clarification for the
`
`record.)
`THE COURT: You cut out again. I apologize.
`(To Court Reporter:) Deb, the last words you got.
`(Record read.)
`THE COURT: "Between the two devices."
`MR. CONNOR: -- does not require the trusted
`requirement that the Special Master's construction sets
`forth.
`
`The rest of the Special Master's construction we
`do not take issue with and Pinn does not object to it.
`THE COURT: So it would read what?
`MR. CONNOR: Our proposal is that the construction
`would read:
`"Establishing a relationship between
`two devices that allows them to
`communicate wirelessly."
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:10
`
`11:10
`
`11:11
`
`11:11
`11:11
`
`11:11
`
`11:11
`
`11:11
`
`11:12
`11:12
`
`11:12
`11:12
`11:12
`
` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 12
`
`Now I'd like to hear the opposing viewpoint from
`
`Apple.
`
`MR. SPROUL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Seth
`Sproul from Fish & Richardson on behalf of Apple.
`May I share a PowerPoint presentation through
`
`Zoom?
`
`THE COURT: If you can see it.
`MR. SPROUL: How about I -- well, it says that I
`am disabled from screen sharing. Is there any way to enable
`that?
`
`THE COURT: Well, if you'd come out here and help
`us, there would be. I'm just joking.
`THE CLERK: Counsel, I'm going to make you as a
`host. Okay? I'll make you a cohost. Go ahead and see if
`you can share.
`MR. SPROUL: And I'm on the "Apple" counsel feed
`here, and I -- it's still saying I'm disabled.
`THE CLERK: Okay. Sorry.
`THE COURT: All right. Why don't you make your
`oral presentation.
`MR. SPROUL: All right.
`ARGUMENT BY MR. SPROUL (APPLE)
`MR. SPROUL: Your Honor, two points on the
`construction of "wireless pairing." (inaudible.) I know
`there are three different terms (unreportable).
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:12
`
`11:12
`
`11:12
`11:12
`
`11:12
`
`11:13
`
`11:13
`
`11:13
`
` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 13
`
` (Court reporter requests clarification for the
`
`record.)
`THE COURT: Way too fast. I can hear you and
`understand you. The record can't. Please start again and,
`please, slowly.
`MR. SPROUL: Understood.
`The Special Master, in construing wireless
`pairing, got it right. He largely adopted defendant's
`proposed construction, which read:
`"Establishing a trusted relationship
`between two devices that allows them to
`communicate wirelessly."
`Pinn offers two arguments: One, in its objection
`to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation, and a
`second different argument in its opposition to Apple's
`Motion for Summary Judgment. This "wireless pairing" term
`is dispositive of one of Apple's non-infringement grounds
`that it moves on.
`The Special Master, in construing "wireless
`pairing," found that it was a term of art and he credited
`the evidence put forward by Apple that showed "wireless
`pairing" was a term of art.
`Apple relied on two patents that disclosed
`wireless Bluetooth features and define wireless pairing.
`The first -- and I'm referring to Report and Recommendation
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:14
`
`11:14
`
`11:14
`
`11:14
`
`11:14
`11:14
`11:14
`11:14
`
`11:15
`
`11:15
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 14
`
`ECF-159 (unintelligible) --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. You'll have to repeat
`
`that.
`
`MR. SPROUL: I'm referring to the Report and
`Recommendation --
`THE COURT: No. I know that. You need to be more
`distinct. You're referring to the --
`MR. SPROUL: Report and Recommendation on claim
`construction ECF 159-1.
`THE COURT: All right. Deb?
`MR. SPROUL: At pages 12 to 13.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. SPROUL: The Special Master credited Apple's
`reliance on two prior art patents that defined "wireless
`pairing." He also credited Apple's expert that explained
`"wireless pairing" as a term of art.
`Important in these definitions of "wireless
`pairing" found in these prior art patents is the aspect that
`their relationship is trusted. Pinn asks that "trusted" be
`removed from the definition adopted by the Special Master.
`That would vitiate the common understanding of what the term
`"pairing" means.
`For instance, one of the prior art patents that
`Apple relied on, credited by the Special Master, was a
`patent issued to Broadcom. It can be found at ECF
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

` 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
`
`11:16
`11:16
`11:16
`11:16
`11:16
`11:16
`11:16
`
`11:17
`11:17
`
`11:17
`
`11:17
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 15
`
`(unintelligible) --
`THE COURT: Once again the number, please.
`MR. SPROUL: 102-4.
`THE COURT: Do you have that, Deb?
`COURT REPORTER: I do. Thank you.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. SPROUL: And I will read it into the record:
`"Pairing quite simply is the act of
`introducing two wireless devices to one
`another so that they can...communicate.
`Pairing enables the two or more wireless
`devices to join and become a trusted
`pair. Within a trusted pair, each
`device recognizes the other device.
`Then each device can automatically
`accept communication and bypass the
`discovery and authentication process."
`(As read.)
`The second patent, the '219 patent issued to
`Apple, also a prior art patent, found at ECF 102-5, states
`something similar:
`When two Bluetooth devices initially connect, they
`first share some general information with each other -- I'm
`paraphrasing that part. Quote:
`"-- in order to enhance the
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 16
`
`connection, the devices can establish a
`trusted relationship by using a secret
`passkey. This passkey is typically
`provided by a user or stored on memory
`in a device. According to a known
`Bluetooth standard, the process of
`establishing this trusted relationship
`is called 'pairing.'"
`When Pinn asks for "trusted" to be removed, it
`guts the common understanding one would ascribe to "wireless
`pairing." "Trusted" cannot be removed.
`We would refer to our briefing on the evidence
`submitted by Dr. Jonathan Wells and the argument as to how
`Pinn's experts don't actually dispute that it is and was a
`term that had a common understanding.
`Now, Pinn submits that the definition adopted by
`the Special Master has two parts: One, the relationship
`part; and, two, the requirement that the devices actually
`connect and communicate. This was not put forward by Apple
`as part of the definition that was ultimately adopted by the
`Special Master. That was Pinn's interpretation during the
`first round that was expressly rejected by the Special
`Master in his Report and Recommendation.
`Pinn -- Pinn's view that the claim, as construed
`by the Special Master, "requires connection" is wrong and is
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`11:17
`
`11:18
`
`11:18
`
`11:19
`
`

`

`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 17
`
`not what the Special Master ordered. I refer to the Special
`Master's Report and Recommendation, again ECF 159-1, at
`page 15, where he addresses Pinn's argument that
`communication and connection are required in addition to the
`relationship. He states, quote:
`"Plaintiff notes that above-reproduced
`Claim 1 of the '491 patent recites,"
`quote, "'turning off the wireless
`pairing with the smartphone when the
`wireless earbud is being charged,'" end
`quote, "which plaintiff interprets as
`implying that," quote, "'pairing,'" end
`quote, "refers to a connection rather
`than a relationship."
`But whereas plaintiff argues this disclosure
`demonstrates that turning off "pairing" -- as opposed to
`turning off "communication" -- the use of the word "pairing"
`rather than "communication" in the claim is consistent with
`understanding that the patentee used "pairing" to have a
`meaning different than "communication."
`Plaintiff Pinn had argued that "wireless pairing"
`was only the communication, the temporal connection that is
`turned off and on when you connect/disconnect from the
`devices and not the long-term relationship argued by Apple.
`So the Court -- excuse me -- the Special Master,
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`11:19
`
`11:20
`
`11:20
`
`11:21
`
`

`

`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 18
`
`rejecting this "communication" argument from Pinn, rejected
`their new argument they put forward today and in the summary
`judgment briefing, which is that the sum -- the definition
`adopted by the Special Master inserts that active
`communication requirement at the end. That's not what the
`Special Master said. He rejected that argument directly.
`That was not part of the proposal put forward by Apple.
`And so we ask, Your Honor, that you adopt the
`Special Master's construction that he put forward in his
`Report and Recommendation.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`A brief rebuttal, then, by Pinn, please.
`REBUTTAL BY MR. CONNOR (PINN)
`MR. CONNOR: Cabrach Connor on behalf of Pinn.
`Your Honor, I'll take the last point first. Pinn
`is not objecting to the portion of the Special Master's
`(audio interference) --
`THE COURT: No, I'm sorry. For some reason your
`connection is extraordinarily bad. We keep picking up an
`echo that my court reporter is unable then to transcribe
`you.
`
`Is there anything you can do on your end?
`Apple's counsel is much clearer.
`MR. CONNOR: Is that better, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: A little bit, yes. Thank you. Let's
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`11:21
`
`11:21
`11:21
`11:21
`11:21
`11:22
`
`11:22
`
`11:22
`11:22
`11:22
`11:22
`
`

`

` 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
`
`11:22
`11:22
`
`11:23
`
`11:23
`
`11:24
`
`11:25
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 19
`
`try again.
`MR. CONNOR: Yes, sir.
`Pinn does not take issue with the second part of
`the Special Master's construction that says -- and I'm
`quoting from the Report and Recommendation -- "that allows
`them to communicate wirelessly."
`The issue is -- that Apple is raising is not that
`construction. Both of the parties are on the same page with
`respect to the requirement that "the relationship between
`the devices be established and allow them to communicate
`wirelessly." Pinn does not contend that the construction
`requires the devices to actually communicate.
`With respect to the part of the construction that
`Pinn has objected to, the "trusted" modifier for the word
`"relationship," as you heard from Apple, that limitation is
`intrinsically sourced limitation from the Bluetooth
`protocol. And that is the basis for our objection.
`The relationship between two devices is what the
`patent is describing when it recites the devices being in
`communication or pairing so that they can communicate. The
`specification does not describe a passkey or other
`information that would establish a trusted relationship.
`But we do not disagree that a relationship between the
`devices is required.
`A relationship between the devices would be
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:25
`11:25
`11:25
`11:25
`
`11:25
`
`11:26
`
`11:26
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 20
`
`required to allow them to communicate. And that part of the
`construction, the parties agree on. And Pinn does -- has
`not objected to and agrees with the Special Master's
`construction.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`Apple, a brief rebuttal.
`REBUTTAL BY MR. SPROUL (APPLE)
`MR. SPROUL: I'm unclear what Mr. Connor's
`position is, given that their summary judgment opposition
`was clear that they were requiring -- that they viewed the
`Special Master's construction as having an active
`communication requirement.
`I deposed their technical expert. He said that
`was the portion that was met by the "turning off" provision.
`It was clear that they were arguing, rearguing,
`reinterpreting the construction adopted by the Special
`Master to mean what they originally proposed and lost.
`So if they're withdrawing that now, that's fine.
`But the papers, I think, are clear, Your Honor, that they
`advocated that position.
`With regard to "trusted": The basis of the
`Special Master's adoption of the meaning of "wireless
`pairing" as "the establishment of a trusted relationship"
`was not pulled from thin air. It was pulled from multiple
`references showing that one of ordinary skill understood
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 21
`
`this term to have a very specific meaning in the art. Those
`two patents that I read existed well before this litigation,
`and it shows how those of skill in the industry, working
`with wireless devices understood wireless pairing.
`THE COURT: Is that the '219 patent, the 8,401,219
`of which Apple's the assignee?
`MR. SPROUL: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. SPROUL: That's one of them.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. SPROUL: The other is the Broadcom
`'151 patent.
`THE COURT: Now, just -- Counsel, thank you. Just
`a minute. I want to reread a number of things as we go now.
` I'll be with you in just a moment. I want to look at a
`number of documents for just one moment.
`(Pause in the proceedings at 11:35 a.m.)
`
`(Proceedings resumed at 11:46 a.m.)
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you for the time.
`I'd like to turn back to Pinn, if you have any final
`comments. And then one more very brief summary by Apple.
`FURTHER REBUTTAL BY MR. CONNOR (PINN)
`MR. CONNOR: Cabrach Connor for Pinn. Thank you,
`Your Honor.
`One comment on what (audio interference) most
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`11:27
`
`11:27
`11:27
`11:27
`11:27
`11:27
`
`11:27
`
`11:35
`11:46
`11:46
`
`11:46
`11:46
`
`11:46
`
`

`

`11:46
`
`11:47
`11:47
`11:47
`
`11:47
`11:47
`
`11:47
`11:47
`
`11:47
`11:47
`11:47
`
` 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
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 22
`
`likely hear more of in the context of the summary judgment
`motion today. Pinn is not arguing now or on summary
`judgment nor since the claim construction hearing --
`THE COURT: Now, just a moment. We couldn't get
`you. Debbie, my court reporter, says you need to possibly
`"turn down his speaker." Not his microphone, his speaker."
`Could you try that and see if we can hear you.
`MR. CONNOR: Is that better, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: A little bit. Please.
`MR. CONNOR: I can turn it down even more, if that
`
`helps.
`
`I'll --
`
`THE COURT: Better.
`MR. CONNOR: I'm tempted to try even more, but
`
`All right. I'll start over if the Court prefers.
`THE COURT: Yeah, I would prefer that. I want you
`to have a full and fair argument, and I'm worried about the
`feedback.
`
`MR. CONNOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Cabrach Connor for Pinn.
`In response to Apple's assertion that Pinn is
`arguing that the claim construction requires active
`communication, we disagree. It is not Pinn's position on
`summary judgment, or since claim construction in the context
`of these objections, that pairing requires active
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:48
`
`11:48
`
`11:49
`11:49
`11:49
`11:49
`11:49
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 23
`
`communication.
`The Special Master's construction requires,
`however, that the devices be allowed to communicate. In
`other words, communication must be enabled, but need not be
`actually done between two paired devices.
`I expect that Your Honor will hear more about this
`in the context of the summary judgment briefing; but that,
`on claim construction, is an important point that I wish to
`make clear on behalf of Pinn: That Pinn's proposed
`modification to the Special Master's construction merely
`removes the word "trusted" and leaves intact the second part
`of the construction regarding the capability of the devices
`to communicate, that they are allowed to communicate.
`Pairing is a predicate, among other things, for those
`devices to be allowed to communicate.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: And then Apple, please.
`FURTHER REBUTTAL BY MR. SPROUL (APPLE)
`MR. SPROUL: Two brief points, Your Honor.
`One, just to summarize the problem with removing
`"trusted." "Trusted" is part of the definition of the term
`as understood by one of ordinary skill. You can't remove
`"trusted." It's like cutting out the mouth of Mona Lisa and
`saying, Well, we have her painting. It's inextricable.
`It's part of it.
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`

`

`11:50
`
`11:50
`
`11:50
`
`11:51
`
`11:51
`
`8:19-CV-01805-DOC - 11/17/2020 - Volume I
` 24
`
`And so what you see Pinn trying to do is, is gut
`the construction adopted by the Special Master and negate
`essentially the definition that one of ordinary skill would
`hold that term to have.
`And a second point I wanted to address,
`Your Honor, was this confusion, I guess, over what Pinn is
`actually advocating with respect to the second part of the
`Special Master's adopted construction.
`Clearly, in their briefing they break it down into
`two parts. They say there is an "establishing relationship"
`part; there is an "allowing communication" part. And this
`is from their briefing in opposition to the summary judgment
`motion.
`
`Now, what they've argued today is, is a flavor or
`a gloss on what they lost at claim construction because
`they're going to say, Well, with the Bluetooth radio turned
`off, you're not allowed to communicate. But that was
`exactly their position put forward in claim construction
`that the Special Master properly rejected. And we may
`address this again in the summary judgment argument.
`But Pinn's position that active communication is
`not required is not entirely true given that they've read
`disallowing communication, which they say is the second part
`of the construction. The second part of the construction
`that reads -- that allows for communication was not an
`
` 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
`
`Certified for Fish & Richardson PC
`Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR
`Federal Official Court Rep

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