[00:00:00] Speaker 01: Our next case for argument is 24-1039, Finesse Wireless versus AT&T Mobility. [00:00:06] Speaker 01: Mr. Lampkin, please proceed. [00:00:10] Speaker 04: Thank you, and may it please the court. [00:00:12] Speaker 04: I'd like to begin with the 775 patent before turning to the 134 and then the $166 million verdict that was based on the price of Spectrum. [00:00:21] Speaker 04: For the 775 patent, Finesse failed to show literal infringement because, first, [00:00:25] Speaker 04: The claims require three signals to perform seven specified simple multiplications. [00:00:31] Speaker 04: The accused devices use two signals, not three. [00:00:34] Speaker 04: They use three multiplications, not seven. [00:00:37] Speaker 04: And those aren't even the same multiplications. [00:00:40] Speaker 04: And that's without getting into the definition of co-located. [00:00:43] Speaker 00: But do the three signals have to be unique? [00:00:47] Speaker 04: No, Your Honor, but they must be, according to the court's definition, separately identifiable. [00:00:51] Speaker 04: And what the expert did here is he simply counted the same signal twice. [00:00:57] Speaker 04: And that's not separately identifiable. [00:00:58] Speaker 01: For example, if the court were to turn to page 14,000... So if they were, for example, copied, replicated, they would be separately identifiable. [00:01:07] Speaker 04: That would be if you have two things. [00:01:09] Speaker 04: For example, I have two copies of a painting. [00:01:11] Speaker 04: They might not be unique. [00:01:12] Speaker 04: They're identical copies, but they're separately identifiable. [00:01:14] Speaker 04: But if I had one copy, I couldn't count that copy twice and say, I have two separately identifiable paintings. [00:01:20] Speaker 04: There's only one painting. [00:01:21] Speaker 01: And so your argument is the Nokia documents don't demonstrate that the signals are copied such that even though there's only two unique signals, there are, in fact, seven signals, or three signals, or whatever it is. [00:01:35] Speaker 01: I don't know. [00:01:37] Speaker 04: I think more to the point. [00:01:39] Speaker 01: Well, they're experts. [00:01:40] Speaker 01: More to the point, it's not the thing the judge wants to hear. [00:01:43] Speaker 01: She wants to hear, yes, Your Honor, you're right, and I have another thing. [00:01:46] Speaker 04: Yeah, the answer is yes, and I have something else, which is Wells's own testimony, Finesse's experts on testimony. [00:01:52] Speaker 04: In trying to get to three signals, he explained to the jury exactly what he was doing. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: If the court were to turn to page 14,969 of the record, lines two to three, he says, quote, hang on one second. [00:02:09] Speaker 01: 14, what? [00:02:10] Speaker 04: 9-6-9, ends lines 2-6. [00:02:14] Speaker 04: And he's saying, quote, I am really just using two signals in each equation to do this mapping. [00:02:20] Speaker 04: And if you look further down to line 711, he says, I'm using the signal x1 twice, and I'm using the signal x2 once. [00:02:28] Speaker 04: I can use the same signal twice. [00:02:30] Speaker 04: And if you flip to 15,024, lines 2 to 3, I take two signals, and I map it to the three signals. [00:02:38] Speaker 01: Oh, I'm sorry. [00:02:38] Speaker 01: What's the other page? [00:02:39] Speaker 04: 15,024. [00:02:40] Speaker 04: My apologies. [00:02:45] Speaker 04: I take two lines, two to three. [00:02:47] Speaker 04: I take two signals and I map it to the three signals that are in the claim. [00:02:51] Speaker 04: And finally, lines eight to 11 on the same page. [00:02:54] Speaker 04: Question, you have one input signal X2, but you map it to the same signals in the claims S2 and S3. [00:03:00] Speaker 04: Yes, I do. [00:03:02] Speaker 04: Each time he admits, he's not saying there's a copy, he's taking the same signal and pointing it and mapping it to two different things. [00:03:09] Speaker 04: And that's not how anyone counts [00:03:11] Speaker 04: three signals. [00:03:12] Speaker 04: If I were to say I'm before a five-judge panel because I have Judge 1, Judge 2, Judge 3, Judge 4, Judge 5, no one would take that seriously as a method of counting. [00:03:21] Speaker 01: You made me the crazy three-headed person. [00:03:23] Speaker 01: I got it. [00:03:24] Speaker ?: Go ahead, keep going. [00:03:25] Speaker 04: I just gave you three votes, Your Honor. [00:03:28] Speaker 04: And the district court said it'll take it if there's evidence of two signals like X1 and X2 plus a copy of those signals. [00:03:36] Speaker 04: But you scour the record and there's no place an expert says [00:03:39] Speaker 04: But anyone says, you know what, there's two copies of X1, X2. [00:03:42] Speaker 04: One of them's copied, and we have three signals. [00:03:45] Speaker 04: So I've stuck with two signals, not three. [00:03:47] Speaker 04: And there is no infringement. [00:03:48] Speaker 04: And that's even before we get to the need for infringement. [00:03:51] Speaker 02: I felt that there was testimony, particularly from Dr. Wells, that they were trying to point to in terms of pointing to the modular and complex conjugate, if I'm using the right terminology, in addition to X1, X2, to try to say that they have [00:04:08] Speaker 02: the right number of signals. [00:04:13] Speaker 02: Is that right, or is my understanding correct in terms of argument first? [00:04:17] Speaker 04: There's two difficulties to that theory. [00:04:19] Speaker 04: First, it talks about the signals s1, s2, s3, and calls for the multiplication of those signals, s1 times s2 times s3, for example. [00:04:27] Speaker 04: If you're looking for a multiplication of s1, s2, s3, you don't have that. [00:04:32] Speaker 04: You have complex conjugates of signals. [00:04:34] Speaker 04: You take x1 or x2 and you have a complex cognitive, or you have a modulus, which is the magnitude. [00:04:38] Speaker 04: It's not multiplying the signal itself, which is what the claim counts for. [00:04:42] Speaker 04: And if you were to look at the spec, again, this is appendix 221, column 12, line 69. [00:04:48] Speaker 04: It says the digital copies of the signals to be transmitted are multiplied together. [00:04:52] Speaker 04: So you're multiplying the signals, not a complex conjugate of a signal. [00:04:56] Speaker 04: If you look up further in the claim, it talks about the signals being the signals to be transmitted. [00:05:02] Speaker 04: So there are the signals that have been multiplied, not complex conjugates of it. [00:05:05] Speaker 04: And even if we were to take, say for example, complex conjugates, if you turn to the page 24 of our reply, this is based on the mapping that's on page 17 of their brief. [00:05:20] Speaker 04: And on the left-hand column, this is what the claims require. [00:05:24] Speaker 03: Where are you? [00:05:25] Speaker 04: Page 7, 24 of our apply. [00:05:32] Speaker 04: And the left-hand column, this is reproduced from Vanessa's brief on page 17. [00:05:37] Speaker 04: Left-hand time is what the claims require. [00:05:39] Speaker 04: And then on the right, this is what, on appeal, where they say this is performed in the radio. [00:05:44] Speaker 04: And it says, performed in group as. [00:05:46] Speaker 04: Now, if the jury didn't see this, that's one problem. [00:05:49] Speaker 04: But if you look at the third one, it says it maps S3 to be X2 prime, so the complex conjugate of X2. [00:05:56] Speaker 04: If you look at the sixth equation, S2 suddenly becomes the modulus or magnitude of X2. [00:06:02] Speaker 04: So even when they're saying, well, we're not going to use the actual signal X1, X2, we'll use some function of the signal. [00:06:10] Speaker 04: They map it inconsistently, and that shows they don't have infringement, because it can't be that S3 is two different things at once. [00:06:17] Speaker 04: If they say S2 is X2 prime, they're missing the sixth equation. [00:06:21] Speaker 04: If they say that S3 is the modulus of X2, they're missing the third equation. [00:06:29] Speaker 04: Any way they cut it, they're missing one of those equations. [00:06:34] Speaker 04: ultimately why they cannot prevail. [00:06:36] Speaker 04: There's simply no way to come up with. [00:06:38] Speaker 04: First, you have to have two signals, not three. [00:06:41] Speaker 04: And if you look at page 17 of their brief, this is the demonstrative. [00:06:47] Speaker 01: You just kind of swept something else in. [00:06:48] Speaker 01: There's only two signals, not three. [00:06:50] Speaker 01: I mean, there could be two signals, but if they were two unique signals, but if one of them was replicated, [00:06:58] Speaker 04: And I think the short answer is, where is the replication? [00:07:01] Speaker 04: They still need three separately identifiable signals. [00:07:04] Speaker 04: And there's simply nothing in the record that shows that you're replicating it and you have a third signal. [00:07:09] Speaker 04: The expert went out of his way to say, no, I'm counting one signal twice. [00:07:13] Speaker 04: I don't need an extra signal. [00:07:15] Speaker 04: I can count the same signal twice. [00:07:17] Speaker 04: And that's the record I gave you. [00:07:18] Speaker 04: Without that evidence, they can't have three signals. [00:07:22] Speaker 04: It's particularly problematic given the prosecution history where they gave up two signals [00:07:27] Speaker 04: and modified the claim so that SO is to require a three. [00:07:30] Speaker 04: But it's not even the same multiplications that are required. [00:07:33] Speaker 04: The claims are very specific, has seven listed out multiplications, right? [00:07:38] Speaker 04: S1 times S1 times S2, et cetera. [00:07:41] Speaker 04: How many multiplications are performed in the radio? [00:07:44] Speaker 04: Concededly three. [00:07:45] Speaker 04: So if you look on page 17 of Vanessa's brief, they have this little chart where they try and equate [00:07:50] Speaker 04: the different colored equations to the claim terms. [00:07:53] Speaker 04: But three equations isn't seven. [00:07:56] Speaker 04: And there's no doctrine of equivalence. [00:07:58] Speaker 04: And the radios only perform three multiplications. [00:08:01] Speaker 01: So where is it you think that Finesse surrendered the claim scope to two signals? [00:08:05] Speaker 01: Because I'm not sure I agree with that. [00:08:08] Speaker 01: So where is it you think they surrendered that in the prosecution history? [00:08:13] Speaker 04: So when they amended the claims to change it from [00:08:16] Speaker 04: two or three signals to three signals in response to Filipovic. [00:08:22] Speaker 04: Because Filipovic said, recited two signals, I and Q. And the examiner said, no, you can't have that. [00:08:28] Speaker 04: And so they amended to say three signals. [00:08:31] Speaker 04: Because two discloses a claim that has two or three. [00:08:34] Speaker 04: So they went from two or three signals to three. [00:08:37] Speaker 04: And that's in the examiner's decisions on 1006 of the appendix. [00:08:41] Speaker 04: And the original claim is on 1021 to 1022. [00:08:46] Speaker 00: But that doesn't disclaim having three signals if, in fact, you could duplicate a signal. [00:08:56] Speaker 04: I think that's correct. [00:08:57] Speaker 04: That's simply when they say three signals, they mean three signals, not I'm going to have two signals and count one of them twice, which is what the expert did here. [00:09:05] Speaker 04: But you also need seven multiplications. [00:09:08] Speaker 04: As you can see from the chart on page 17, and this is Vanessa's chart, they have three colors. [00:09:12] Speaker 04: There's actually only three multiplications performed. [00:09:15] Speaker 04: They say they're equivalent, but there's no documented equivalence here. [00:09:18] Speaker 04: And they aren't actually even the same multiplication. [00:09:21] Speaker 04: So if you look down, the claims call for simple multiplication, s1 times s1 times s2. [00:09:27] Speaker 04: And what the radio does is this very complex equation with [00:09:34] Speaker 04: complex multiplication, complex numbers, you have your complex conjugate. [00:09:38] Speaker 04: So you're gonna have to flip the sign of your imaginary number. [00:09:41] Speaker 04: You have your modulus or magnitude. [00:09:44] Speaker 04: You're gonna measure the distance, not the path. [00:09:47] Speaker 04: And so it simply doesn't match. [00:09:49] Speaker 04: And you have the literal infringement here. [00:09:50] Speaker 04: It literally does not infringe on three different grounds. [00:09:53] Speaker 04: If I can turn quickly then to the one, three, four path. [00:09:58] Speaker 04: And that's actually in some ways worse still. [00:10:00] Speaker 04: That pattern requires a passband, sampling a passband, with two sorts of signals in it. [00:10:05] Speaker 04: One is your interference-generating signal, and the other is your signal of interest, the signal of interest you want to receive, and the interference-generating signal that can create intermodulation products in band of your signal of interest and prevent you from getting it. [00:10:18] Speaker 04: Now, the district court found that the only thing that SNES's expert, Matt, identified as an interference-generating signal expressly was the model PIM path. [00:10:28] Speaker 04: But it's now off the table, everybody agrees, [00:10:31] Speaker 04: The model PIM path cannot be the interference generating signal. [00:10:33] Speaker 04: It's just not sampled. [00:10:34] Speaker 04: It doesn't use limitation. [00:10:36] Speaker 00: Help me out here. [00:10:37] Speaker 00: I'm a little confused by the terminology. [00:10:39] Speaker 00: It's a reference over and over again to a model PIM path. [00:10:44] Speaker 00: Is a path a signal? [00:10:46] Speaker 04: I think this was a problem with the theory to begin with. [00:10:49] Speaker 04: The model PIM path is simply the path the model PIM follows. [00:10:53] Speaker 04: But if you were just to say model PIM as opposed to model PIM path, it would still be the same problem. [00:10:58] Speaker 04: What they have, if you turn to page 15 of our brief, there's a little chart there that everyone takes reflecting what the radio actually does. [00:11:06] Speaker 00: Bear with me a minute. [00:11:16] Speaker 04: And so if you look, the RFADC in blue, the radio frequency analog to digital converter, is what Finesse characterizes as the receiver. [00:11:26] Speaker 04: But the PIM adaptive model is purple. [00:11:30] Speaker 04: It comes after it, so it never gets sampled by that receiver. [00:11:35] Speaker 04: And therefore, they can't use that in the district court. [00:11:37] Speaker 01: So I'm just going to try and simplify and tell me if I get this wrong. [00:11:42] Speaker 01: The RF, analog to digital converter, is the receiver where the sampling occurs. [00:11:48] Speaker 01: So it can only sample stuff that's inside of it. [00:11:50] Speaker 01: The PIM adaptive model generates this PIM signal, and that is generated after the receiver does its sampling. [00:12:00] Speaker 01: So it can't obviously be sampled by that receiver. [00:12:03] Speaker 04: That's your argument. [00:12:04] Speaker 04: Exactly. [00:12:05] Speaker 04: And that's exactly what the district court held. [00:12:07] Speaker 04: The only thing they expressly identified was that PIM. [00:12:10] Speaker 01: But I think their argument is that on that little red line that precedes the receiver, [00:12:16] Speaker 01: you have two transmit signals that are coming in, X1 and X2. [00:12:21] Speaker 01: And I'll grant you, it's not a model of clarity, but those two signals, can I understand the expert's testimony to be that X1 and X2 are the signal of interest and the download signal also, well, the signal interference, the interference generating signal? [00:12:41] Speaker 01: There's two signals, right? [00:12:42] Speaker 01: Interference generating signal and signal of interest that the claims require, right? [00:12:46] Speaker 01: And they're expert. [00:12:48] Speaker 01: I mean, look, you caught him in an aha, clearly. [00:12:50] Speaker 01: I mean, whoever or whoever did it with the whole PIM thing. [00:12:54] Speaker 01: And so then he kind of pivoted and he starts talking about X1 and X2. [00:12:59] Speaker 04: So I think there's two problems with that. [00:13:01] Speaker 04: The first is this court's precedent requires, especially in complex cases, everyone agrees this is about as complex case as one can imagine. [00:13:08] Speaker 04: that the record must specifically identify the infringing features of the accused opponents and the reason of one in skill in the art would recognize them as infringing. [00:13:21] Speaker 04: If you search this document, you will not find a single place where their expert says specifically as the cases require. [00:13:28] Speaker 04: X1 and X2 are both the signal of interest and the interference generating sequence. [00:13:32] Speaker 04: It's not there. [00:13:34] Speaker 04: But worse, there's nothing where the expert says, here's why they would satisfy what those mean. [00:13:40] Speaker 04: And he didn't because he put it for two reasons. [00:13:44] Speaker 04: First, if you looked at the expert report, the expert report says the opposite. [00:13:49] Speaker 04: The expert report doesn't say X1 and X2 are signals of interest interference generating signals. [00:13:54] Speaker 04: It says, quote, where are you? [00:13:57] Speaker 03: Pardon? [00:13:57] Speaker 04: Appendix 4477. [00:14:01] Speaker 04: The quote is, as such, the model PIM signal is the interference generating signal. [00:14:07] Speaker 04: So if he'd actually said, hey, my X1, X2 are my interference generating signal, not my model PIM, that would have been stricken, because there would have been objection, because it's not in the Rex report. [00:14:18] Speaker 04: It's also disavowed. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: Where were you reading from? [00:14:20] Speaker 04: 4477, I believe. [00:14:31] Speaker 04: It's a sideways. [00:14:38] Speaker 04: So it's the last sentence before the chart. [00:14:41] Speaker 04: As such, the model PIM is the interference generating signal. [00:14:46] Speaker 04: The interference generating signal capable of generating intermodulation products in band of the signal of interest, not X1, X2, model PIM. [00:14:54] Speaker 04: The second, it's disavowed. [00:14:57] Speaker 04: And I hate to keep turning to pages, but this one's 13,838. [00:15:00] Speaker 04: And this is the Rule 50 response. [00:15:07] Speaker 00: What page? [00:15:08] Speaker 04: 15,838. [00:15:08] Speaker 04: No, 13,838. [00:15:09] Speaker 04: 13,838. [00:15:13] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:15:17] Speaker 04: And so if you'd look at that, it says, [00:15:20] Speaker 04: Dr. Wells never identified either the X1 or X2 signal as both the signal of interest and the interference-generating signal. [00:15:28] Speaker 04: But that's exactly the theory we now have before us. [00:15:30] Speaker 01: Yeah, but I think that if I understand their argument right, they're saying he never said X1 is both signal of interest and interference-generating signal. [00:15:38] Speaker 01: He never said X2 is both signal of interest and interference-generating signal. [00:15:42] Speaker 01: He never tried to use one of the transmit signals and say it satisfies as both. [00:15:49] Speaker 04: Right, but I think their position now, if you look at page 13 of our briefing, page 33, is X1 and X2 are both the interference generating signal. [00:15:57] Speaker 01: No, their position is one of X1 or X2 is interference generating, and the other of X1 or X2 is the signal of interest. [00:16:04] Speaker 01: They're saying two signals come in, and they're saying there's two claimed signals. [00:16:09] Speaker 01: I think that fairly you can understand what they're saying possibly on 13.838 as being, we never said X1 was both, we never said X2 was both, but we said here's two and you need two. [00:16:22] Speaker 01: And it doesn't matter to us which one you're going to call X1 or which one you're going to call the signal of interest and which one you're going to call the interference generating signal. [00:16:30] Speaker 04: I think if you read two lines up from where they're talking, it tells you what they're actually saying. [00:16:34] Speaker 01: Okay, tell me. [00:16:37] Speaker 04: Here's what Wells did say, quote, here Dr. Wells explained to the jury that the red path contains two signals. [00:16:45] Speaker 04: The documentation describes the as the DLTX reference and the model PIM path. [00:16:49] Speaker 04: In terms of the patent, the red path contains the signal of interest and the interference generating signal. [00:16:53] Speaker 04: So we're talking about the model PIM path. [00:16:55] Speaker 04: not x1, x2, and we're on rule 50 at that point, opposing our motion. [00:16:59] Speaker 04: So this is something for which they themselves were not pressing on rule 50 as a way of supporting the judgment. [00:17:05] Speaker 04: And ultimately, the notion that one could be one and one could be the other, you're going to have to find that what's happening in the device is that it's actually taking, it's canceling out PIM from x1 [00:17:19] Speaker 04: to cleanse x2 or pin from x2 to cleanse x1. [00:17:23] Speaker 04: That's the whole point. [00:17:24] Speaker 04: You want to get your signal of interest clear. [00:17:27] Speaker 04: There's simply nothing in the record that shows that that is what's going on. [00:17:30] Speaker 04: It just turns the whole thing upside down when the signal of interest is what you want to be getting from the cell phone. [00:17:36] Speaker 04: The tower wants to hear from the cell phone. [00:17:37] Speaker 04: And that's not what they're saying it is, the signal of interest. [00:17:39] Speaker 04: The signal of interest somehow is the transmit signal from the cell tower itself. [00:17:45] Speaker 04: I see I'm way into my rebuttal. [00:17:46] Speaker 04: If there are further questions, I'm happy to answer them. [00:17:48] Speaker 04: But I also would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. [00:17:51] Speaker 01: No problem. [00:17:52] Speaker 04: Studying aside damages really quickly, which just can't be sustained because running royalty is not the same as a lump sum. [00:17:59] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:18:00] Speaker 01: OK, Mr. Lampkin, Mr. Clement. [00:18:10] Speaker 05: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the court. [00:18:13] Speaker 05: The jury in this case heard competing testimony as to both infringement and damages. [00:18:20] Speaker 05: As to infringement, the jury heard Dr. Wells explain on cross-examination that Nokia's own documents showed two signals, X1 and X2, on the red line, which corresponded to the signal of interest in the interference generating system. [00:18:35] Speaker 05: signals. [00:18:36] Speaker 05: They also heard him explain how two unique signals could be mapped onto three variables to generate third order calculations and how the Q's products did just that. [00:18:46] Speaker 05: And on damages, the jury heard both experts testify. [00:18:50] Speaker 02: Can you explain to us how there are, if you start with the 775 pen, how there are seven multiplications? [00:18:56] Speaker 05: So there are seven multiplications that are done with the three different variables, which is common ground. [00:19:03] Speaker 05: They don't have to be unique variables. [00:19:05] Speaker 05: So you can use one signal twice. [00:19:09] Speaker 05: And there's no way to use one signal twice. [00:19:11] Speaker 05: There's no practical way to use one signal twice in these calculations without copying. [00:19:15] Speaker 05: And there might not be like a place in the record where everybody says, we all agree that it was copying when you did the third order multiplication using S2 for two of the variables. [00:19:24] Speaker 05: But that's because, like, what else are you going to do? [00:19:27] Speaker 05: How else are you going to get the second S2 or the first? [00:19:30] Speaker 01: Maybe it's because Nokia doesn't actually do seven multiplications. [00:19:34] Speaker 01: I mean, they don't have to have copying if they don't do seven multiplications. [00:19:38] Speaker 05: But sure they do. [00:19:38] Speaker 05: With all due respect, Your Honor, if you go to page, I think an easy way to see this is on pages 20 and 21 of the blue brief with those diagrams in that 4.21 non-linear block. [00:19:50] Speaker 05: It's complicated, but if you look that through, you know, in the middle, the blue middle, which is blown up there, you have x1, x1, and then x2 prime, and then you have under it x1 and then x2 sort of squared to the second power. [00:20:06] Speaker 05: You go those, you take those out, it shows you essentially ten different calculations that are being done. [00:20:13] Speaker 05: Those calculations correspond on the next page to a0 through a4 for the first [00:20:20] Speaker 05: and A5 through A9 on the next. [00:20:23] Speaker 05: They all involve multiplication of three variables. [00:20:26] Speaker 05: In some cases, there's additional steps, like taking the modulus. [00:20:30] Speaker 05: But all of that's happening. [00:20:31] Speaker 05: All of that's happening in the device. [00:20:34] Speaker 05: And you just don't get that second one without copying, which is why nobody disputed it. [00:20:38] Speaker 05: I mean, copying is not part of the claim terms anyways. [00:20:41] Speaker 05: So if there's some other way to get use S2 twice, or to use S1 twice, or I suppose use S1 three times. [00:20:48] Speaker 01: So you're saying because three things are being multiplied, there have to be three signals. [00:20:52] Speaker 05: yes and it's that the key thing is nobody said that nobody said that nobody said that no expert said that sure dr wells I mean here here's the thing the doctor wells what dr wells said and I think a good place to look on this is appendix 15,025 and 26 and this is in cross-examination where what they're actually disputing 15,000 just help well I want I want you to walk me through this so 15,000 what 25 and 26 [00:21:28] Speaker 05: And I think what's helpful here, the context I'd just like to give you is, you know, there's not a place where he says copying because nobody's disputing. [00:21:35] Speaker 05: Copying's taking place when you have three order calculations involving two unique signals. [00:21:42] Speaker 05: You have to have some copying. [00:21:43] Speaker 05: So that's not what they're cross-examining Dr. Wells on. [00:21:46] Speaker 05: What they're cross-examining Dr. Wells on is they've still kind of stuck on this theory. [00:21:51] Speaker 05: that you have to have unique signals. [00:21:54] Speaker 05: And so what they're hitting him on is whether there are really seven different multiplications. [00:22:01] Speaker 05: And what Dr. Wells testifies here is, I've mapped on, I've showed you seven multiplications, and then the cross-examination is now [00:22:10] Speaker 05: but are they seven different multiplications? [00:22:13] Speaker 05: And he says, oh, well now you only have three different multiplications. [00:22:17] Speaker 05: And then this is at lines 12 through 14 on 15, zero, two, five. [00:22:21] Speaker 05: I still have seven multiplications, but it results in three different separately identifiable multiplications on the right. [00:22:28] Speaker 02: So fundamentally, is their argument, in your opinion, that it has to be separately identifiable multiplication, so why they get to three, but you're saying we still have some multiplication, even though some are repeat multiplication? [00:22:42] Speaker 05: Is that? [00:22:42] Speaker 05: That's fair, Your Honor, and I think what they're doing is they're trying to make separately identifiable mean the same thing as unique variant. [00:22:48] Speaker 05: And it doesn't. [00:22:50] Speaker 05: And they've been stuck on this idea that it has to be unique signals. [00:22:54] Speaker 05: And so you can't use one signal twice or one signal three times. [00:22:59] Speaker 05: And that's wrong. [00:23:00] Speaker 05: That's the construction that was rejected. [00:23:03] Speaker 05: And in both the claims and in the accused device, they're using it. [00:23:07] Speaker 02: Does Dr. Wells testify that these seven multiplications actually happened? [00:23:11] Speaker 02: What is that testimony? [00:23:13] Speaker 05: I think he does. [00:23:14] Speaker 02: So where does he do that? [00:23:16] Speaker 05: I think it's in the same place. [00:23:17] Speaker 05: And he's using the phrase mapped on to seven. [00:23:21] Speaker 05: But I think that's what he's saying. [00:23:23] Speaker 05: And of course, the documents support that. [00:23:25] Speaker 05: If you look to Nokia's own documents, and again, they're 20 and 21 of the blue brief, they are showing you these multiplications in the device. [00:23:32] Speaker 05: Now, my friend will tell you well, but those multiplications involve the modulus and the like. [00:23:37] Speaker 05: And our response to that is, [00:23:39] Speaker 05: You're still doing the three steps. [00:23:41] Speaker 05: The fact that you're doing something else doesn't take you out of literal infringement. [00:23:46] Speaker 02: But I don't think mapped on is necessarily the same thing as doing the calculations, actually doing them. [00:23:52] Speaker 02: I feel like there's a difference potentially in that wording. [00:23:55] Speaker 05: I mean, there is, but at some point, I think the burden's on them. [00:23:58] Speaker 05: This is all taking place in cross-examination. [00:24:00] Speaker 05: And he's saying, I'm mapping it on to seven. [00:24:02] Speaker 05: And they're not saying, well, show me where it's actually happening. [00:24:06] Speaker 05: And if they'd done that, he could have pointed to the same documents I just pointed, which are documents in the record, and that support substantial evidence for the jury's finding. [00:24:14] Speaker 01: I feel like maybe we're like ships crossing in the night here. [00:24:19] Speaker 01: There have to be seven multiplications that take place. [00:24:23] Speaker 01: It doesn't have to be unique multiplications, but there just have to be seven of them. [00:24:27] Speaker 01: And I only see three in the Nokia system. [00:24:29] Speaker 01: And that's my problem, is there have to be seven. [00:24:33] Speaker 01: Seven has to happen. [00:24:34] Speaker 01: The Nokia documents you cite in the appendix, those documents themselves, they only show three multiplications. [00:24:41] Speaker 01: And so I don't have a problem with your repeating signals concept, but I just have to actually be seven multiplications, one times two, two times three, seven things have to be multiplied. [00:24:52] Speaker 01: And I only see three that the Nokia system does. [00:24:54] Speaker 01: And that's my fundamental problem. [00:24:56] Speaker 05: With respect, the documents I'm pointing you to show not just seven, but 10. [00:25:02] Speaker 05: Those are calculations that are actually happening. [00:25:05] Speaker 05: Those are the Nokia documents. [00:25:07] Speaker 05: They show seven documents. [00:25:09] Speaker 05: They show, as I said, more than seven. [00:25:11] Speaker 05: They show 10. [00:25:13] Speaker 00: But they all reduce down to three. [00:25:15] Speaker 05: Exactly. [00:25:16] Speaker 05: They all reduce down to three. [00:25:17] Speaker 05: And that's what they were trying. [00:25:18] Speaker 05: That was their attempted gotcha moment on this. [00:25:21] Speaker 05: It wasn't, oh, we don't do seven. [00:25:24] Speaker 05: It was, there's only three different ones when you get right down to it. [00:25:29] Speaker 00: But if they reduce down to three, then there's only three. [00:25:33] Speaker 05: No, with all due respect, you can do seven, and then you can look at it and say, well, because we're only using two variables, it's really just three different ones. [00:25:44] Speaker 05: And the emphasis in the cross-examination is on this word different. [00:25:48] Speaker 05: He's trying to say, I gotcha, because you only have three different equations, because you're using one of the variables twice. [00:25:54] Speaker 05: And our answer to that is, both in the claims and in what's actually in the Nokia documents, you are actually doing it [00:26:03] Speaker 05: And you have seven multiplications or more. [00:26:07] Speaker 05: But if you look at them, they amount to three different ones. [00:26:12] Speaker 05: And our point throughout has been consistent with the idea that their effort to construe three signals as three unique signals is wrong. [00:26:21] Speaker 05: We don't need seven different multiplications. [00:26:24] Speaker 05: And we do need to. [00:26:25] Speaker 02: Is there any expert testimony that there are seven or 10 multiplications happening? [00:26:30] Speaker 02: You mentioned 10. [00:26:30] Speaker 02: So that's one reason why I'm throwing that out there. [00:26:32] Speaker 05: Mean I will say that because this isn't the way they came at this in the cross-examination you got you know I think I've showed you where he says they map onto seven and I don't see how if they don't point out in real time that they have an issue with the difference between mapped onto and actually did Like you know at a certain point. [00:26:52] Speaker 05: I mean you know he's testifying he's laying it out, and he's subject to cross-examination and [00:26:58] Speaker 05: I don't want to jump, but I realize time's limited. [00:27:00] Speaker 05: And I think something very similar is the case with respect to the 134 path. [00:27:05] Speaker 05: And there, I tend to think that the critical thing is just a few pages earlier. [00:27:11] Speaker 05: And the critical, to me, cross-examination on this whole issue starts at 15,010 and goes through 15,019. [00:27:20] Speaker 05: And here's what I think is going on here. [00:27:24] Speaker 05: And I don't think it's that complicated. [00:27:25] Speaker 05: And I don't think it amounts to any material problem with the 134 patent. [00:27:30] Speaker 05: And that is, if you look at the document that everybody uses to show, this is how this thing actually works. [00:27:36] Speaker 01: Before you pivot, I mean, I'll give you more time. [00:27:38] Speaker 01: Don't worry about that. [00:27:39] Speaker 01: Before you pivot, could you go to 26, 486? [00:27:41] Speaker 01: This is, you know, it's the same thing, I think, that you have at page 21 of your [00:27:48] Speaker 05: Yeah, or maybe page 14 of my... I'm looking at page 14 of the RedBerry, for example. [00:27:53] Speaker 01: Well, I'm at 26, 486. [00:27:54] Speaker 01: I think it's the same thing as you have, or somewhere, or whatever. [00:27:58] Speaker 01: But how do I see that seven multiplications are being done here? [00:28:02] Speaker 01: What in this tells me there are seven? [00:28:06] Speaker 05: Okay, somebody's got to give me the document you're looking at. [00:28:08] Speaker 05: Okay, yeah. [00:28:10] Speaker 05: So... [00:28:12] Speaker 05: Those are all different multiplications that are being done. [00:28:15] Speaker 05: And the first- What is? [00:28:20] Speaker 01: I'm looking under where it says the nonlinear engine is capable of modeling. [00:28:23] Speaker 01: That's where I think the multiplications are. [00:28:26] Speaker 01: Where are you? [00:28:27] Speaker 01: Are you in the same place as that? [00:28:30] Speaker 05: I think so. [00:28:31] Speaker 05: I'm looking at A0, A1, A2, A3, A4, which all correspond to [00:28:38] Speaker 05: If you go to the red brief to page 14, they correspond to, they're all, as you can see, they're labeled special. [00:28:45] Speaker 05: And they're all correspond to the second blue box. [00:28:49] Speaker 05: And that second blue box, if you run it across, has these five different [00:28:54] Speaker 05: sort of places where there's a zero and an X under a red box. [00:28:57] Speaker 05: And those are all multiplications that are actually happening. [00:29:00] Speaker 05: And then if you go to the next five numbers down and they correspond to this thing, they say instead of special, they say cross. [00:29:07] Speaker 05: Then you go down to the third blue box, it says cross. [00:29:11] Speaker 05: You go around and you'll see the sort of five circles with the X. That's actually happening in the document, the product. [00:29:20] Speaker 05: This is their documents. [00:29:23] Speaker 05: So if the issue is, does the accused device actually do the seven multiplications, the answer is yes. [00:29:31] Speaker 05: If the question, which was really the question that they were disputing below and was the subject of the crossing examination is, does it need to be seven different or is three different OK, we win on that. [00:29:42] Speaker 05: And they maybe don't hate to say it, map up perfectly. [00:29:45] Speaker 05: But I mean, I think that was the dispute below. [00:29:48] Speaker 05: The testimony is sufficient. [00:29:50] Speaker 05: And if you have some lingering doubt because of an argument they really weren't pressing below, that you're not doing seven actual, the accused product doesn't do seven actual multiplications, the documents that are in the record disprove that. [00:30:03] Speaker 05: So if it's okay to switch to the 134, [00:30:06] Speaker 05: I mean, to me, this is all, you're going to call it a gotcha moment. [00:30:10] Speaker 05: And I think in some respects, that's fair. [00:30:13] Speaker 05: But it's an understandable gotcha moment that is instantly explained away by Dr. Wells at 15-0-10. [00:30:19] Speaker 05: And the understandable confusion here, I think, is that he's looking at, as I think we understand, and I'm now looking at page [00:30:29] Speaker 05: 12 of the red brief, but it's app 26421. [00:30:32] Speaker 05: It's the document everybody's been looking at probably the most, at least with respect to the 134 pat. [00:30:38] Speaker 05: And if you look at that, there is the dotted red line, and it goes into the receiver, the RFADC. [00:30:46] Speaker 05: And I don't really think there's a dispute that there are two transmit reference signals on that dotted red line before it gets to the receiver. [00:30:56] Speaker 05: And they are X1 or X2. [00:30:58] Speaker 05: Now it is true that Dr. Wells looked at the legend to Nokia's own document [00:31:07] Speaker 05: And it says, red, DLTX reference and modeled PIM path. [00:31:11] Speaker 05: And he took from their legend that the two signals are like the DLTX and a modeled PIM. [00:31:19] Speaker 05: Now, it was pointed out, well, it couldn't be modeled PIM because modeled PIM doesn't happen until downstream of that RFADC receiver. [00:31:30] Speaker 05: And Dr. Wells did not say when that was pointed out on cross-examination, oh, well, we lose. [00:31:37] Speaker 05: He said, and this is all in 15010 where it's first pointed out. [00:31:44] Speaker 05: And he responds immediately. [00:31:46] Speaker 05: Well, and I'm quoting now, this is lines 15 through 15 and 16. [00:31:51] Speaker 05: Well, there's two signals on that red path, because we know that, because that's X1 and that's X2. [00:31:57] Speaker 05: And then for the next eight or nine pages, the cross-examination goes on in great detail. [00:32:06] Speaker 05: The council for AT&T and Nokia say, well, you said Pimpath. [00:32:12] Speaker 05: And he's like, well, yeah, like I said, Pimpath. [00:32:15] Speaker 05: But it's X1 or X2, and that's what's relevant. [00:32:18] Speaker 01: Where does he say X1? [00:32:21] Speaker 01: is the signal of interest and x2 is interference-generating signal or vice versa. [00:32:26] Speaker 01: Or where does he even say, I don't have to say which is which, but there's two and these are two. [00:32:30] Speaker 01: Where does he say anything at all? [00:32:32] Speaker 01: So here's my problem with this. [00:32:34] Speaker 01: Throughout the entire trial, at all times in his expert report, even in the JMAW motion, your side is constantly mapping the signal of interest and the interference-generating signal [00:32:48] Speaker 01: The signal of interest is the download reference and the signal the interpersonal signals the model Pimpat always like all time boom boom boom throughout absolutely report is everything but but How could the jury where did he when's the first time he said oh, okay? [00:33:05] Speaker 01: Wait, it's not the model Pimpat signal. [00:33:07] Speaker 05: It's x1 next to it's when it's pointed out on cross-examination But just to be clear the theory never changes. [00:33:14] Speaker 05: It's not like [00:33:15] Speaker 05: It's not like, oh, now we're going to change which receiver it's going to. [00:33:18] Speaker 05: It was that was the two things on that dotted red line that go into. [00:33:23] Speaker 05: that RFADC receiver. [00:33:24] Speaker 05: That was always the case. [00:33:26] Speaker 05: All that happened is using Nokia's own document, Dr. Wells said, well, their document calls that whole thing the DL reference and modeled PIM path. [00:33:37] Speaker 05: And so I'm going to say, like, I'm going to use as a shorthand that it's the DL reference is the signal of interest and the PIM is, the modeled PIM is the interference generating signal. [00:33:52] Speaker 05: I think it's an understandable mistake. [00:33:55] Speaker 05: And Judge Lin, you actually alluded to this, which is the legend talks about the Model PIM path. [00:34:00] Speaker 00: A path. [00:34:01] Speaker 05: And I suppose, like, since at the end of this, you get Model PIM, it's fair to say it's the Model PIM path. [00:34:09] Speaker 05: But he took from that. [00:34:11] Speaker 05: And erroneously, it turns out, that that meant sort of the two signals corresponded to that. [00:34:16] Speaker 05: But this is not something that wasn't explored on cross-examination to a fair degree. [00:34:23] Speaker 05: And if you read the, and you know, this is what cross-examination is like, but if you read 15010 to 15019, it is as if their counsel said, I gotcha. [00:34:36] Speaker 05: And Dr. Wells is saying, no, you don't have me at all. [00:34:39] Speaker 05: I'm going to continue to explain to you that it's X1 and it's X2. [00:34:44] Speaker 01: Well, you say continue. [00:34:45] Speaker 01: Where did he explain it before that? [00:34:46] Speaker 01: Where before 1510 did he explain it? [00:34:48] Speaker 01: Because not in his expert report, and it's not in any of his direct testimony, [00:34:52] Speaker 01: So where, when you're going to say continue to explain to you it's X1 and X2, implicit in that is that that is what he had represented prior to that moment. [00:34:59] Speaker 05: OK, maybe I misspoke by saying continued, because up to that point, he's laboring under the misimpression that X1 and X2 correspond to DLX and model PIN. [00:35:11] Speaker 05: But it's just a labeling problem. [00:35:13] Speaker 01: It's not a substantive problem. [00:35:13] Speaker 01: No, he's not. [00:35:14] Speaker 01: He's not labeling under that. [00:35:15] Speaker 01: X1 and X2 are both the DLTX reference signals. [00:35:19] Speaker 01: They're both transmit signals. [00:35:20] Speaker 01: That's what they are. [00:35:21] Speaker 01: That's what your expert knows what they are. [00:35:22] Speaker 01: That's why he would never answer the question straight up. [00:35:25] Speaker 05: No, no. [00:35:25] Speaker 05: With respect, and here's one of the things you have to, I think is a critical fact that makes it clear that yes, there are two signals on there, X1 and X2. [00:35:35] Speaker 05: They are both download transmit reference signals. [00:35:37] Speaker 05: He testifies that. [00:35:38] Speaker 05: He says that. [00:35:39] Speaker 05: And especially at the point where he's being cross-examined. [00:35:42] Speaker 05: And one of the things to keep in mind is this is a dual-band radio or a tri-band. [00:35:46] Speaker 01: Where does he say then that the 2DL-TX reference signals, two transmit signals, [00:35:52] Speaker 01: One of them can be interference generating signal and the other could be the signal of interest. [00:35:56] Speaker 01: Where does he say that? [00:35:58] Speaker 05: Anywhere. [00:36:00] Speaker 01: with respect he says it he doesn't say it like all in one place and i wish he did i know because you're dot dot dot stands a hundred pages of testimony you're like always said this then i thought he said this how is the jury supposed to take you know a few words from this place in its testimony and then a hundred pages later from this and say oh yeah that's clear he's saying x1 and x2 are these two things it's a reach it's just such a reach and after he repeatedly testified that it was the PIM [00:36:29] Speaker 01: model path signal that was the interference-generating signal, how can the jury possibly follow that now he needs a sex 1 and x2? [00:36:40] Speaker 05: Because he says all of that on cross-examination, but just give me 10 pages. [00:36:45] Speaker 05: Just read [00:36:46] Speaker 05: 15-0-10 to 15-0-19. [00:36:47] Speaker 01: I love them a bunch of times. [00:36:49] Speaker 01: I assure you. [00:36:50] Speaker 01: Tell me what line and sentence you think is best. [00:36:53] Speaker 01: Tell me what line and sentence. [00:36:54] Speaker 01: Tell me. [00:36:55] Speaker 01: Walk me through it. [00:36:56] Speaker 01: Tell me what you think is best. [00:36:56] Speaker 05: I think the best lines are at 15-10 [00:37:01] Speaker 05: And I've already given them to you, so I fear I may not persuade you. [00:37:05] Speaker 05: But the exchanges on 12 through, and to me it's clear, it's just 12 to 16. [00:37:14] Speaker 05: So then upstream of the RFADC, before the copy of the transmit signal gets to the RFADC, there's no modeled PIM on that signal, is there? [00:37:22] Speaker 05: There's two signals on the red path, because we know that there's X1 and X2. [00:37:26] Speaker 05: Correct. [00:37:27] Speaker 05: The X1 and the X2 are the two transmit signals. [00:37:29] Speaker 05: Correct. [00:37:30] Speaker 05: The legend says, and this is where he's trying to correspond them to that, the two signals are the downlink TX reference and the modeled PIM path. [00:37:37] Speaker 05: And then they go on over that for a while, and then I think you pick it back up. [00:37:40] Speaker 01: I think everything in there tells you they're talking about... Do you think we should understand his testimony throughout? [00:37:46] Speaker 01: At all times when he's talked about the model PIMPATH signal, that he always meant X1 or X2. [00:37:52] Speaker 01: That's what we should understand, that he at all times, this expert, always thought that the signal that is generated by the [00:38:02] Speaker 01: PIM adaptive model, which is what everybody understands to be the model PIM path signal. [00:38:07] Speaker 01: He mistakenly was calling it that, but it was really X1, X2? [00:38:11] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:38:12] Speaker 05: I mean, yeah. [00:38:13] Speaker 05: Yeah. [00:38:15] Speaker 05: But here's the thing. [00:38:16] Speaker 05: It's not like at some point in the case, the expert jumped from the brown path to the red path and changed his theory. [00:38:22] Speaker 05: The only thing that changed was the nomenclature. [00:38:26] Speaker 05: And the nomenclature is, like I said, I think his loose language or mistake, if you want to call that, is perfectly understandable because their own document says that it's the modeled PIM path. [00:38:37] Speaker 05: And even when it's up there before the RFADC, it is on that path. [00:38:43] Speaker 05: And there are two signals on that path. [00:38:45] Speaker 05: And again, these are dual band radios. [00:38:46] Speaker 05: So part of the problem is that you can have interference from one band to the other. [00:38:52] Speaker 05: And X1 corresponds to one band and X2 corresponds to the other. [00:38:56] Speaker 01: And you cancel that out. [00:38:57] Speaker 01: Is there a new signal generated or a different signal that comes out of the PIM adaptive model block? [00:39:04] Speaker 05: At the very end? [00:39:05] Speaker 01: After you get out of the receiver, you then go into the PIM adaptive model block. [00:39:10] Speaker 01: And is that result in a signal? [00:39:14] Speaker 05: I don't know if it results in a signal. [00:39:16] Speaker 05: I honestly don't know. [00:39:19] Speaker 05: But what I know is throughout this case, the receiver was the RFADC, the signal of interest and the interference generating signal, the two things that went into that receiver. [00:39:33] Speaker 05: The only thing that changed is, what should we call it? [00:39:39] Speaker 05: Dr. Wells, and again, I don't think you should have to super apologize for looking at their document, which says there's like two concepts going on in that red path and says, well, one's one, one's the other. [00:39:49] Speaker 01: But there are two concepts going on in the red path. [00:39:52] Speaker 01: One of them is the DLTX reference, which is the combined X1 and X2 signals. [00:40:00] Speaker 01: and the other is the signal that comes out of the PIM adaptive model, which is also on the red path. [00:40:05] Speaker 01: They're just not both on the red path the entire time. [00:40:09] Speaker 01: Just like you can be at the start of the yellow brick road, and I can be at the end of the yellow brick road. [00:40:12] Speaker 01: There's two people on the yellow brick road. [00:40:14] Speaker 05: I don't really disagree with that. [00:40:15] Speaker 05: But what I do insist on is that throughout this, even when he was calling it the PIM, you know, what is it, the modeled PIM, even when he's calling it the modeled PIM, he's up above [00:40:27] Speaker 05: the RFADC and that's why when their lawyer points it out across examination he's like oh yeah like that's downstream. [00:40:36] Speaker 05: I think that's consistent with everything he's talked about the parties had a dispute about whether RFADC was a receiver or not so all the actions above that and that's why [00:40:51] Speaker 05: when it's pointed out, oh, well, model PIM is generated downstream from that. [00:40:54] Speaker 05: He's like, OK, yeah, that would be a problem. [00:40:57] Speaker 05: He admits in the process that would be a problem. [00:41:00] Speaker 05: But we know it's x1 or x2. [00:41:02] Speaker 05: And essentially, again, I think if you read those 10 pages, you get the. [00:41:08] Speaker 05: And I think the district court judge who saw this whole thing, when he's reviewing this argument on JMAW, he specifically says that, [00:41:17] Speaker 05: It's clear in context that he's referring to the X1 or X2 being either the interference generating signal or the signal of interest. [00:41:27] Speaker 05: And as the Chief Judge pointed out, nobody's ever said they're both, or X1 is both. [00:41:34] Speaker 05: It's always especially with a dual-band radio or a tri-band radio where you got two of the bands coming down here. [00:41:40] Speaker 05: One of them is the signal of interest. [00:41:42] Speaker 05: One of them is the interference generating signal. [00:41:44] Speaker 05: And you're trying to cancel those out. [00:41:46] Speaker 05: And that's the value of the product. [00:41:47] Speaker 05: That's why it's in the product. [00:41:49] Speaker 05: My friends, keep on going to this idea that, well, the only thing that would be valuable is to cancel out the uplink, that so-called brown path. [00:41:56] Speaker 05: And again, that was never our theory. [00:41:58] Speaker 05: It was always their obsession that the only way that, and they tried to sort of make this thing, that the only way that this thing could infringe is if somehow you had the uplink and the downlink together on the same path or something. [00:42:10] Speaker 05: And that was never Dr. Wells' position. [00:42:12] Speaker 05: It was always upstream of the RF-ADC. [00:42:15] Speaker 05: There's two signals. [00:42:16] Speaker 05: You may have mislabeled them, but there's two signals that have the potential to create PIM [00:42:22] Speaker 05: And they go in, and that's canceled out. [00:42:25] Speaker 05: And that's some of the value of the invention. [00:42:28] Speaker 05: And that's why it's turned on in 64,000 devices in the real world. [00:42:33] Speaker 05: It has value. [00:42:34] Speaker 05: It does something. [00:42:35] Speaker 05: And what it does is it gets rid of PIM that's calculated on the download. [00:42:41] Speaker 01: OK. [00:42:41] Speaker 01: Thank you, counsel. [00:42:44] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:42:45] Speaker 01: We give Mr. Lampkin five minutes of rebuttal time, but we went way over that with Mr. Clement, and so if you need more time, you can have it. [00:42:53] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:42:55] Speaker 04: I'd like to begin with the issue of two signals versus three and whether or not there's somehow a copy of one of the two signals for multiplication. [00:43:02] Speaker 04: As I understand my brother to say that, well actually to multiply you necessarily need to make a copy and so far there's a copy. [00:43:09] Speaker 04: There's two real problems with that, one legal, one factual. [00:43:12] Speaker 04: The factual is nobody actually testifies that to do a multiplication inside a computer, it's the computer doing the multiplication, you actually duplicate the signal twice and then do it. [00:43:21] Speaker 04: There's simply no testimony. [00:43:22] Speaker 04: If that were true, [00:43:24] Speaker 04: It would have been easy enough to have the experts say it. [00:43:26] Speaker 04: And under intellectual science, there has to be a specific identification of where the infringing device is performing the infringing conduct. [00:43:37] Speaker 04: And that's just missing. [00:43:38] Speaker 04: And my EE's tell me that computers just don't work that way. [00:43:41] Speaker 04: You don't waste memory and have the same signal in there twice. [00:43:43] Speaker 04: You have a pointer pointing to that one signal twice. [00:43:46] Speaker 04: And you're not going to multiply it by taking the whole thing against itself. [00:43:49] Speaker 04: You're going to walk through digit by digit, or bit by bit, or byte by bias. [00:43:53] Speaker 04: You're not reproducing the whole thing. [00:43:55] Speaker 04: But the whole bottom line is, even if I'm wrong about that, it's a matter of what's in the record for the jury to find that this actually has a third signal. [00:44:01] Speaker 04: And there's simply nothing there. [00:44:03] Speaker 02: And then legally. [00:44:03] Speaker 02: What about the seven multiplications? [00:44:05] Speaker 02: Because I heard opposing counsel saying there were 10, and pointing us to a part of your blue brief, and the 8081, et cetera. [00:44:13] Speaker 02: Can you respond directly to that? [00:44:15] Speaker 04: Yes, I think I can respond directly to that. [00:44:17] Speaker 04: The legal problem, if I can have 10 seconds on that, the legal problem is it says given three signals performing these multiplications. [00:44:23] Speaker 04: So the signals have to exist before the multiplications under the claim. [00:44:26] Speaker 04: You can't come up with them later. [00:44:27] Speaker 04: But seven signals. [00:44:29] Speaker 04: Seven multiplications. [00:44:31] Speaker 04: Seven multiplications, right. [00:44:33] Speaker 04: And I think if you look to page 14 of their brief, for example, 15 of their brief, [00:44:38] Speaker 04: remember these are third-order multiplications and the question is how many third where are we page page 15 of every time sorry you see the two charts there and you're looking for how many third-order multiplications I don't see any charts [00:44:52] Speaker 04: 15 of their brief. [00:44:53] Speaker 01: Here's page 15 of their brief. [00:44:54] Speaker 01: There's no chart. [00:44:55] Speaker 04: Oh, I'm sorry, two images. [00:44:57] Speaker 01: I'm trying to understand where we are. [00:45:00] Speaker 04: No, no, no. [00:45:00] Speaker 04: And so you're looking for third order equations, three factors, because that's what it calls for. [00:45:05] Speaker 04: You have three third order equations, all seven of these are. [00:45:09] Speaker 04: And what do you have? [00:45:10] Speaker 04: You have one, two, three on the right-hand side. [00:45:13] Speaker 04: That's all there is, three third order equations. [00:45:16] Speaker 04: If you look down in their brief, nonlinear engines capable of modeling, there's three [00:45:21] Speaker 01: third-order equations now I know my brother says that no yet but that could actually testify that there are seven actual multiplications being formed inside so let me this is this is meant to be a technological clarification for me let's look at 26 485 mm-hmm so I think that what mr. Clement was saying is every one of these blue boxes constitutes a multiplication is that what you understand him to be saying also I do understand him to be saying that and do [00:45:49] Speaker 01: You agree that each of those is a third order multiplication? [00:45:54] Speaker 04: No, I do not. [00:45:55] Speaker 01: Why is that one? [00:45:56] Speaker 04: Because if you look at the fourth one down in the center, it's a fifth order application. [00:46:00] Speaker 04: The one is labeled NL fifth. [00:46:02] Speaker 01: That wouldn't come to the claim, would it? [00:46:04] Speaker 04: That wouldn't be it. [00:46:05] Speaker 04: If you need a third order, N for the third order. [00:46:07] Speaker 04: And nor would the bottom one, nor the one to the left of it. [00:46:10] Speaker 01: So there might be 10 multiplications that take place, but they're not 10 multiplications like the claim require, which is a third order. [00:46:16] Speaker 01: distinct third-order multiplication. [00:46:18] Speaker 01: I don't even think there's seven multiplications that take place, because if you look at the testimony from their expert... Yeah, but if I accept what he said is true, that there are ten and these blue boxes represent them, they can't satiate the S1 times S2 times S3 seven times over. [00:46:34] Speaker 04: That's exactly right, and that's even apart from the last problem, which is they're not even the same multiplications. [00:46:39] Speaker 04: I know my colleague has said multiple times, gee, if you have a modulus in there or... He never said gee. [00:46:44] Speaker 04: If you have a modulus in there, or you have a magnitude, or you have a complex conjugate, it's just an extra step. [00:46:54] Speaker 04: But the claims actually call for x1 times x2 times x3, or s1, s2, s3, the signals times each other. [00:47:01] Speaker 04: You don't actually have that happening if what you're multiplying times it is a modulus or a complex conjugate. [00:47:07] Speaker 04: I don't think you can even mathematically re-arrange it to get there. [00:47:11] Speaker 04: But what matters is happening in the what happens in the radio. [00:47:13] Speaker 04: Is the radio doing what the claims call for? [00:47:16] Speaker 04: And the radio actually performs the three multiplications. [00:47:19] Speaker 04: And their expert never said actually does seven. [00:47:21] Speaker 04: He took the three and mapped it to seven. [00:47:24] Speaker 02: Before you run out of time, though, I do want to hear about how opposing counsels place like this uplink single that you're focused on. [00:47:30] Speaker 02: You don't need to be focused on uplink. [00:47:32] Speaker 02: You should be focused on x1, x2. [00:47:34] Speaker 02: And there's just a mistake made in terms [00:47:36] Speaker 02: on a PIM model, I need you to respond to that before you say that. [00:47:39] Speaker 04: Yeah, so I don't think it can be dismissed as a mistake in nomenclature. [00:47:43] Speaker 04: And I think there's a point of cross-examination on page 15,018, which makes that clear. [00:47:48] Speaker 04: What page? [00:47:49] Speaker 04: 15,018. [00:47:50] Speaker 04: He specifically asked, are you saying that X1 is the model PIM path? [00:47:58] Speaker 04: Are you equating X1 with the model PIM path? [00:48:00] Speaker 04: Is that your mistake? [00:48:02] Speaker 04: And the expert refuses to answer that in the affirmative. [00:48:05] Speaker 01: Well, but this goes back to that same thing I caught you on before with the JMAW. [00:48:10] Speaker 01: I think he's not saying X1 is model PIMPATH. [00:48:14] Speaker 01: He's saying there's X1 and X2, and one of them correspond to the signal of interest, and one correspond to the interference-generating signal. [00:48:20] Speaker 01: And I don't know which is which, but it doesn't matter. [00:48:22] Speaker 01: Because you've got two signals, and we need two signals to run the claim. [00:48:26] Speaker 01: I think that's what he's saying. [00:48:27] Speaker 04: If that's what he's saying, I'd love to be able to find it in this record where he actually says X1 is one, X2 is the other. [00:48:35] Speaker 04: I won't tell you which is which, but one is one, one's the other. [00:48:38] Speaker 04: He doesn't actually say that. [00:48:39] Speaker 04: He simply points over and says, well, they're both on the path. [00:48:41] Speaker 04: 1510, 15010, which my colleague points to. [00:48:46] Speaker 04: The only thing he says is they're both on the path. [00:48:49] Speaker 04: Never tells you that one is the interference generating signal, the other is the signal of interest. [00:48:54] Speaker 04: and why one is one and one is the other, why a skilled artist would understand them to be one and the other. [00:48:59] Speaker 04: And ultimately, the explanation that somehow one is one and one is the other turns the radio on its head. [00:49:05] Speaker 04: And if I could close with this, just turning to page 15 briefly, page 15 of our opening brief, and that just shows you that this is a tale of two paths that creates no infringement. [00:49:19] Speaker 04: If you're looking for the signal that the radio really wants to receive, that's that uplink for yourself when you're calling, that's your brown path. [00:49:26] Speaker 04: And so you follow the brown path from the upper right hand corner down. [00:49:29] Speaker 04: And if you look at the legend, it tells you the brown path has the UL, Rx, the uplink, and actual PIM path. [00:49:35] Speaker 04: So it's got actual PIM on there. [00:49:37] Speaker 04: And you look at the purple box, the uplink has desired UL, desired uplink, and actual PIM. [00:49:41] Speaker 04: So it's PIM in that one. [00:49:43] Speaker 04: Then you look to, okay, how are we gonna get rid of it? [00:49:45] Speaker 04: You go to the red path. [00:49:47] Speaker 04: And the red path has your X1X to your DLTX. [00:49:50] Speaker 02: I don't know where you are. [00:49:51] Speaker 02: Where are you? [00:49:52] Speaker 02: He's on page 15. [00:49:53] Speaker 04: Page 15, upper right hand corner. [00:49:55] Speaker 04: It's the red path. [00:49:57] Speaker 04: And you have your transmit signal going to the RF-ADC. [00:49:59] Speaker 04: And it figures out, ah, my transmit signal could create interference. [00:50:03] Speaker 04: I will model the interference it will make. [00:50:06] Speaker 04: And then there's a little minus sign in the middle. [00:50:08] Speaker 04: So you have your uplink signal from the pink at the bottom with actual PIM. [00:50:12] Speaker 04: The PIM adaptive model subtracts it, the minus sign, and what you get is the desired uplink in green. [00:50:17] Speaker 04: So you cleanse, what you're taking the PIM out of is that uplink signal from your cell phone. [00:50:22] Speaker 04: You're not trying to cleanse X1 of X2 or X2 of X1. [00:50:26] Speaker 04: And so the whole theory that's been presented here that somehow your signal of interest and your interference generated signal are both in that red path, are both transmit signals, doesn't make sense. [00:50:36] Speaker 04: It's not what the radio does, and that's why it doesn't infringe. [00:50:39] Speaker 00: And the transmit signals and the receive signals are in different bands, are they not? [00:50:46] Speaker 04: Yes, they're going to be in different bands, exactly. [00:50:49] Speaker 04: And the reason you have a problem with the intermodulation is [00:50:52] Speaker 04: If your transmit signal, they can mix, they can bounce off things they mix, you can lose connectors they mix, and it can shift it in band of your signal of interest. [00:51:00] Speaker 04: And so what you want to do is your uplink signal, if something shifted and got in there, you want to cancel out the PIM. [00:51:06] Speaker 04: But you're not canceling PIM out of your transmit signal, one of the two, TX1 or X2. [00:51:11] Speaker 04: You're canceling PIM out of your uplink, which is why the claim refers to canceling PIM in band of the signal. [00:51:23] Speaker 04: And all through, the only place you're going to see in-band is you're going to see in-band of the signal of interest. [00:51:27] Speaker 04: You're cleansing out him in-band of the signal of interest. [00:51:30] Speaker 04: They're trying to cleanse him of the transmitted signal of interest, which just doesn't make any sense. [00:51:35] Speaker 04: The court has... One last question, please. [00:51:37] Speaker 02: My understanding that the relief you're seeking is a straight reverse. [00:51:39] Speaker 02: Is there any reason, if we were to agree with you, why would you need to vacate instead? [00:51:45] Speaker 04: No, Your Honor, because what was presented to the jury is simply insufficient as a matter of law to sustain infringement. [00:51:50] Speaker 04: So that would be reversed for the entry of judgment. [00:51:53] Speaker 04: With respect to the damages issue, which we haven't discussed, that would be a new trial for damages. [00:51:59] Speaker 01: If the court has no- Well, what if we agree with you on one and not the other? [00:52:02] Speaker 04: Yeah, if you agree with this one and the other, I beg you not to. [00:52:05] Speaker 04: The answer would be to have to have a remand for a retrial with respect to damages, because we only have one damages figure for everything. [00:52:11] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:52:14] Speaker 04: You asked that the judge would be able to understand. [00:52:16] Speaker 01: I thank both counsel. [00:52:17] Speaker 01: The case is taken under submission. [00:52:18] Speaker 01: You both did a very good job of helping the court understand this technology.