Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 10 PageID
`#: 14817
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:7)
`#: 14818
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`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
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`10:57 a.m.
`
`Marshall, Texas
`
`RYAN HARDIN and ANDREW
`HILL,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`CO., LTD, and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`))))))))))))
`
`Defendants.
`--------------------------------------------------------
`TRANSCRIPT OF CONTINUED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
`January 30, 2023
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`--------------------------------------------------------
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`MR. JACK WESLEY HILL
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`wh@wsfirm.com
`
`MR. REX A. MANN
`Winston & Strawn LLP - Dallas
`2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`rmann@winston.com
`
`MR. JOHN T. BOYCE
`Winston & Strawn LLP - Houston
`800 Capital Street, 24th Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`tboyce@winston.com
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:8)
`#: 14819
`
`92
`
`403.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Mann.
`
`MS. COPE:
`
`Your Honor, unlike in most cases,
`
`the inventor himself here -- the plaintiff in this case
`
`is the inventor, and the inventor drafted the patent
`
`applications.
`
`All of the patent applications in this
`
`family of patents.
`
`And the Court acknowledged at the
`
`last pretrial conference that these patents involve some
`
`of the lengthiest claims any of the lawyers have ever
`
`seen in patent applications.
`
`It is hard to understand
`
`them even for those of us who are used to reading
`
`statutes.
`
`In this e-mail, the inventor and drafter of
`
`the patents at issue is saying that prior art searches
`
`can't understand the different terminology that
`
`inventors use to confuse patent examiners and their
`
`search tools.
`
`In fact, he says the term -- just to give
`
`you context, Judge -- he says the term dynamic token
`
`instead of something else seems weird, but inventors do
`
`it so patent examiners don't know what the heck the guy
`
`is talking about.
`
`Importantly, your Honor, this is not
`
`hypothetical.
`
`Mr. Hardin actually filed another patent
`
`using the word "dynamic token."
`
`THE COURT:
`
`And what is this relevant to?
`
`MS. COPE:
`
`Your Honor, it's relevant because
`
`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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 4 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:9)
`#: 14820
`
`we're challenging the patents as invalid under 112.
`
`93
`The
`
`jury is going to have to decide whether the description
`
`does not sufficiently disclose the claimed technology.
`
`They're going to have to look at whether this is clear,
`
`and we're entitled to show that this description does
`
`not clearly disclose this invention and that that
`
`confusing result was intentional.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`And so this is character
`
`evidence?
`
`You're trying to show that the inventor had a
`
`habit of misleading the patent office?
`
`MS. COPE:
`
`Your Honor, it does go to his
`
`intent of whether he -- he actually clearly disclosed
`
`and intended to clearly disclose the claimed patents.
`
`And, instead, what he was trying to do was make it so
`
`that it isn't clear.
`
`And the jury has to make a factual
`
`determination of whether this specification clearly
`
`discloses the claimed patents.
`
`And that is very
`
`relevant for them to see that when they read and they
`
`think it is very confusing, that was by design.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`I'm going to sustain
`
`the objection to Exhibit 260 under Rule 403.
`
`I think
`
`the prejudicial impact vastly outweighs whatever
`
`relevance it might have.
`
`That takes us to Category 22.
`
`MR. MANN:
`
`Your Honor, Category 22 discusses
`
`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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 5 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:10)
`#: 14821
`
`94
`
`four pieces of prior art.
`
`I believe these probably can be handled as a
`
`group, but if Samsung believes there's one that's more
`
`particular than -- you know, has an issue, I guess they
`
`can raise that, and we can address them on a per issue
`
`basis.
`
`They're basically four pieces of prior art.
`They're basically four pieces of prior art.
`
`As
`As
`
`your Honor is aware, often in these cases there's a
`your Honor is aware, often in these cases there's a
`
`narrowing process.
`narrowing process.
`
`You know, we narrow claims.
`You know, we narrow claims.
`
`They
`They
`
`narrow prior art, et cetera.
`narrow prior art, et cetera.
`
`That process has happened.
`That process has happened.
`
`And these are -- I believe all of them -- if not, three
`And these are -- I believe all of them -- if not, three
`
`of the four of them -- I think all of them were prior
`of the four of them -- I think all of them were prior
`
`art that Samsung was using in 103.
`art that Samsung was using in 103.
`
`And they have an
`And they have an
`
`expert who opines that these are all prior references
`expert who opines that these are all prior references
`
`that invalidate the patent.
`that invalidate the patent.
`
`They were dropped.
`They were dropped.
`
`And so,
`And so,
`
`you know, we believe under the Court's MIL No. 4, for
`you know, we believe under the Court's MIL No. 4, for
`
`example, they can't refer to non-asserted prior art.
`example, they can't refer to non-asserted prior art.
`
`And that prior art should not go back to the jury.
`And that prior art should not go back to the jury.
`
`We
`We
`
`believe the prejudice is too great for summary in prior
`believe the prejudice is too great for summary in prior
`
`art to be used here.
`art to be used here.
`
`Now, we also don't believe their expert
`
`really ties these -- I think they're trying to say that
`
`we want to use these for 101.
`
`We don't believe their
`
`expert really ties these to 101, but to the extent their
`
`expert has -- and he can testify consistent with the
`
`report.
`
`You know, we don't have an issue with 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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 6 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:11)
`#: 14822
`
`95
`expert, you know, raising the fact that these issues may
`
`have been known in prior art.
`
`You know, but for these
`
`to go back to the jury, for them to go into evidence, we
`
`believe the risk is too great.
`
`And then, finally, your Honor, you know -- to
`
`the extent they are just trying to show that this is
`
`prior art that, you know, shows routine and
`
`conventional, I would direct the Court to Berkheimer,
`
`which says that -- you know, that you can't just say
`
`something is prior art to show it's routine and
`
`conventional.
`
`And then, finally, your Honor, from an
`
`evidentiary standpoint, you know, when these were first
`
`offered on their exhibit list, they were offered for
`
`purposes of prior art.
`
`And as your Honor is well-aware,
`
`I'm sure, with respect to prior patents, publications,
`
`and things like that, if they're a series of prior art,
`
`they're not hearsay, right?
`
`Because they're not --
`
`they're not being offered for the truth of the matter.
`
`They're being offered of evidence of what the document
`
`describes.
`
`But now what they're offering these
`
`documents for is a totally different purpose.
`
`They're
`
`offering it for 101.
`
`For the parts of these exhibits --
`
`for these patents that say, hey, this was routine and
`
`conventional at the time and things like that.
`
`And that
`
`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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 7 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:12)
`#: 14823
`
`96
`
`is being offered for the truth.
`
`It's being offered for the truth of what was
`
`routine and conventional, et cetera, at the time.
`
`Therefore, it is hearsay in that regard.
`
`So we believe
`
`that it's also hearsay, your Honor.
`
`We haven't had a
`
`chance -- you know, these people who made these
`
`statements in these documents -- the inventors or
`
`whatnot -- we haven't had a chance to cross-examine
`
`them.
`
`Again, in the prior art situation, it doesn't
`
`really matter, right?
`
`I mean, the inventor could have
`
`lied in the document.
`
`It could have been totally false.
`
`It could have been wrong.
`
`It doesn't matter.
`
`What
`
`matters is what the prior art says and discloses.
`
`With
`
`101, it's totally different.
`
`It's what was routine and
`
`conventional at the time.
`
`And using these documents and
`
`their discussions of what was routine and conventional
`
`is for the truth, your Honor.
`
`So it's prior art in
`
`addition to being -- it is hearsay in addition to being
`
`extremely prejudicial and -- in which this Court has
`
`recognized the prejudice of non-asserted prior art being
`
`used.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`There is still a live 103 defense
`
`in this case?
`
`MR. MANN:
`
`Yes, your Honor.
`
`But not -- to be
`
`clear, not with these prior references.
`
`With other
`
`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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 8 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:13)
`#: 14824
`
`97
`
`prior references.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Thank you.
`
`MR. ZAHARIA:
`
`Good afternoon, your Honor.
`
`Sorin Zaharia for the Samsung defendants.
`
`As was discussed this morning, Judge Gilstrap
`
`ruled on Samsung's motion for summary judgment under
`
`Section 101 ruling that Step 2 will go to the jury as a
`
`disputed fact because, in his words, question of facts
`
`survive as to whether these claims address something --
`
`activities that are more than well-understood, routine,
`
`and conventional.
`
`And all these references go to
`
`whether the elements of these claims and the way they're
`
`ordered are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Are these three or four exhibits
`
`discussed by your expert?
`
`MR. ZAHARIA:
`
`Yes.
`
`Yes, your Honor.
`
`And
`
`that was the next point I was going to.
`
`They're
`
`discussed in significant detail in our technical
`
`expert's report starting with Paragraph 1470 and ending
`
`with Paragraph 1485.
`
`And the other section specifically
`
`say the asserted claims do not contain an inventive
`
`concept apart from the abstract idea where he quotes
`
`various elements of the claims, and he makes reference,
`
`sometimes explicit, in those paragraphs to these
`
`references.
`
`In all other cases, he also makes
`
`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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 9 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)
`#: 14825
`
`98
`
`references to other portions in his report where he
`
`addressed those references.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Well, there is certainly nothing
`
`wrong with your expert talking about these patents in
`
`connection with his Section 101 discussion, but the
`but the
`
`reason they're not going to be admitted is that you have
`reason they're not going to be admitted is that you have
`
`a 103 defense.
`a 103 defense.
`
`You have withdrawn these from that
`You have withdrawn these from that
`
`defense, and it is inherently confusing to the jury if
`defense, and it is inherently confusing to the jury if
`
`you are introducing these patents as exhibits but not
`you are introducing these patents as exhibits but not
`
`relying upon them in your 103 defense.
`relying upon them in your 103 defense.
`
`And that puts
`And that puts
`
`the plaintiff in the position of either hoping that the
`the plaintiff in the position of either hoping that the
`
`jury realizes these are not invalidating prior art or
`jury realizes these are not invalidating prior art or
`
`putting on a defense as to why they're not, which is a
`putting on a defense as to why they're not, which is a
`
`waste of time.
`waste of time.
`
`So while your expert can talk about them,
`
`they're not going to be admitted as exhibits.
`
`MR. ZAHARIA:
`
`Like I say, your Honor -- if I
`
`may, two of these references -- and contrary to what
`
`counsel said -- two of these references were never
`
`asserted as -- as a combination.
`
`They were always for
`
`this other purpose.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`And the rationale is the same
`
`whether they have been elected and withdrawn or simply
`
`not elected at all.
`
`But because you have a defense that
`
`is going to be presenting exhibits to the jury or
`
`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
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 361-9 Filed 02/28/25 Page 10 of 10 PageID
`(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:35)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:34)(cid:25)(cid:37)(cid:32)(cid:27)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)
`#: 14826
`
`99
`patents as invalidating art, we're not going to have you
`
`introducing other patents that are not.
`
`You can -- your
`
`expert can talk about them.
`
`You can seek to use them as
`
`demonstratives if you just want to show some portion of
`
`them, but I will sustain the objection to introducing
`
`them as exhibits.
`
`MR. ZAHARIA:
`
`May we use them with -- our
`
`expert use them as demonstratives?
`
`THE COURT:
`
`You know, we have a process for
`
`demonstratives.
`
`You display those to the other side,
`
`and if they have an objection, they bring it up.
`
`And
`
`I'll leave that issue as to what's a proper
`
`demonstrative to Judge Gilstrap.
`
`But it -- you know, the concern is very
`
`similar.
`
`And so it's frequently decided that their use
`
`as demonstratives would also be inherently confusing to
`
`the jury because they're receiving the exhibits and the
`
`demonstratives in largely the same way.
`
`But objections
`
`to demonstratives are something that will be taken up
`
`during the trial.
`
`But these will not be on the list of
`
`preadmitted exhibits.
`
`MR. ZAHARIA:
`
`Thank you, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Thank you, Mr. Zaharia.
`
`MR. BOYCE:
`
`Your Honor, if I may approach?
`
`April D. Hargett, CSR, RPR, RVR
`(409) 654-2891
`
`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
`
`