David Nelson Makes Closing Arguments for Samsung in Apple v Samsung Trial
This is a trial report based upon my typed notes. It is not a transcript. Often it contains paraphrases of what was said. And there may be errors. David Nelson was the second of four attorneys to appear in closing arguments for Samsung. I have provided this document with the thought that it might be useful to some in the time period before official transcripts are issued.
Apple v Samsung Closing Arguments: David Nelson for Samsung
Good morning everybody might have guessed talk about patent – talk witness – havent had chance to talk to you about patent . Slide 18. I want to talk about these patents b4 – clear up Apple counsel brought in number of inventors. That number is one. Mr. Mulay Denoe and one other Garcia none of these are named inventors. Mr. Christie. He is named 721 that is all. So that means there were 13 didn’t come to testify. So other 721 you haven’t heard. So let me tell you first. You’ve heard what Apple doesn’t want you to do. Are to do. 18 one of the patent ??? infringed. Do you know what that means. 4 other up to you to decide right here on the instruction. What else all 5 up to you validity. So look keep tel you patent office you can’t second guess. But that’s not the way works. You know how our government another branch checks. That’s exactly how jury system works for patent. That’s what got to help patent office. Doesn’t have opportunity to see all the art. 3 never say patent. Other 2 patents the patent office never talked about the ?? and furthermore nobody there to hear the other side.
No one will say defer to office if there was something don’t look there is no such instruction not law. Its not just your hnor. We saw remember this patent video. Where Judge Voegel of course we need this system patent office makes mistake. It very important you consider the evidence I am going to walk you through. That is what I am asking you to do . We are entitled to a defense whatever you say Apple. Present case when you go back that is all I can ask you consider what i
So lets also look at jury instruction 24 clear up because it might be a little confusing looking at iPhone. I mean the iPhone for the most part. But that’s not deal infringement you on’t compare product – you know couldn’t iPhone doesn’t practice. Its the claims. Every world Every world when infringement we don’t get to read things out. Kind of close. no. Prior art – we don’t put new words in. Gotta be same. Very important them you are going to see has I walk you through.
1st – analyzer server 647 left off yesterday freshest. There are two independent reasons why don’t infringe. Additnaol oultine two here. 1) Prior art invalid. Won’t walk you through McElhinny – apparent where he says yes I say no where he says no I say yes. [Laughter]. Lets talk about this analyzer server. That’s limitation claim. reads a bit. You remember in this case they were trying to read it out of claim. But the court gave us construction and analyzer means something very important server routines separate from client that receives instruction. We know you have to have two things. Server. Client . Have to be separate. That’s what server – analyzer server means.
Lets talk about what said. Talk to – ?? from Google – she wrote – asked here implement as server. She told you why didn’t need to share. Who else – Dr. one inventors – apple didn’t bring we showed deposition – dx series email go back and read carefully I am not afraid because – when you read you’ll see very important at time apple filed patent February 2006 contemplated?? implemented server 1st class application – means stand along by be itself. Sure later problems performance overhead. So – now much later a different proposal maybe should eliminate build into app itself right/ that would b e shared library if you look that is 8 months after the patent is filed. This claims analyzer server not shared library??
The fact inventor decide later problems maybe change because it can’t made can’t make filed 8 months. It isn’t in the patent. It says analyzer server. It doesn’t say put functionality into app itself. Consider testimony we provided from Dr. ??? Apple didn’t bring any from 647 what it came about what it was and wasn’t . So who else did we hear. Certainly Samsung expert. This library code accusing infringement not just part it is the app. Who else. Mowry asking Apple about Linkify shared library he admits it cannot run as a standalone application So there is nothing separate. Asked him what is client – messenger app – browser – that’s what he said he freely admitted one single app. We know from court construction we need two separate things. We have one. We have one application. What Google did here and what has been done here eliminate ?? one application
Think about it does it make sense. We have construction throughout try to read out. Whats answer pointed to application. If you look in there I could pull it apart and make 2 separate doesn’t make sense.
2 Linking in applications detected structures. 2nd time around why action ? struct not met. We see here the action processor – reading – meaning its got to be analzyer serve???. And in Android remember we hear from Ms. Hackborn ??? ?? that was to make it flexible wso you could bring whatever app you wanted. You wouldn’t have ?? that was design choice. Remember open platform for that reason explain to you why different. You can select action excuse – say email you have corporate email personal touch on email address want to send which one do you want part of that reason is its flexible so there is no specific – what is Apple I don’t know I did not understand Apple said he never explained in English why that was case whey there was specific connection. This is apple’s burden proof. We explained. Its not here. I don’ have to prove both . Just one.
Now I want to talk about prior art. You recall we brought ? Denmark who designed this system. Rmember 11 years before patetn. And APple sais wait a minute doesn’t do few one pop up. Another detect multiple structure. Well we know from looking here exhibit # there are different structured there are different ?paren? just ?deahes? . Apple expert – set 1 set 2 he said they are all one pattern . Well they are not . They are – he actually said different pattern – there are different structures.
Other doesn’t do multiple applications. We know from construction it doesn’t require it is at least 1. See create (read) “and at least one”. You can have multiple actions multiple structre – there is nothing in here different type actions
Last ?opop? up apple. Remember 1985. And Sidekick itself had it in it. They just. So think of this Well. Sidekick 1 had but didn’t with respect – they never brought inventor this is why – somebody already 1 harder 2 – they didn’t bring to you inventor to say – hey this is why this is hard. They never did that right. So lady’s and gentlemen this patent is obvious.
929 – so here on the 959 patent, this is heuristic that’s what this patent. There is two things I want to walk you through – why there is no infringement there is no heuristic ? location ?? accused Google search application – ways prior art freeways freewa?? prior art. Before – reminded sidekick din’t have. Freeway. PTO didn’t have
slide. Here i just want to remind you 647 true 9?? true. – ? w’eve already see most not in. We also 647 no iPhone around 1996. We also as pRice we didn’t ?shred? expert – you didn’t hear one word expert about Apple does. You don’t have any basis I din’t know why. Now 959 again if you look at that patent it doesn’t talk about mobile phones .. desktop that’s what this is for. Let me make clear. I think Counsel apple confused several partiucarly opening
Your call you ?thpe? wait – video well very important what they are not. You are not accusing fundtioanlity accuing search ?? ?? important what is the find google search service. What has Google been in doing since 1997. but that is not accused. So what is Mr. Bringert – Google he explained he did this drawing what is accused is in? rmidel? remember not accuse. What is this yellow box? Doesn’t identify on Internet. Mr. ?? told us he said this blends the results. In other somebody located something and this blends. Well that’s not locating. Heuristics to locate – one being ?tinerent?. Doesn’t say blend information somebody else found not claim what is. You can’t let me read that limit out of claim. How does Apple’s expert actually do that . This if you go back in the 959 patent you’ll see something described 959 global heuristic. That is something different plurality. Global doing other not part of claim in patent. And we see here Apple experts says exactly that does ?iddff? thing and if you look further what did he say? Global heuristic fuse or ?? Well what is fuse? – That’s blending. Apples expert said flat out isn’t one of the plurality heuristics told you something else in court. So you’ve got to consider that when you go back
So Apple doesn’t practice claim . Accused Android do not practice. Showed you one that did was. Universal search developed couple we brought in you’ll see universal search box you type in George you ??? here what came back George Washington. And then there’s a ranking heuristic ranking described for you. So what is Apple. Well first of all Apple says we are playing a shell game because we brought to you from no US. Well ?? his name is right here on the code he developed first version. Now other people build on that . Pfeiffer built he said yes that does earch local remot same time. Before Kale?? Heurstic to do that. So those gentleman cam and testify about what there product did. What is Apple’s response to that. Apple says few things. First wait you cant prior art wasn’t us. Well that’s not right at all . They said no evidence installed ?uus?. Look DX313. Email Pfeffer email shows all US installations. Highlighted go back and read all that.
What else did Apple say? Apple said wait a minute that’s not source. Let me explain. Computer readable medium – hard disk whatever. Contains these program instructions. Program instruction are the source and said this is 1996 version change. I never changed. Apple now says wait source code can’t be program instruction. Interesting. Wait if instruction people not prior but prior art even though can’t read. You know what else doesn’t. Before Apple agreed well look at this one here is definition Apple agreed. Source code Apple written instruction computer. Apple — third thing say wait a minute all of the tings have to be located on the device (3). What you point to Dr. ?? er you point to heuristic that is ??? not ?? Well first of all ??? this is not a method claim. That is what is ?iprotatn?. Second another thing Apple adding. Nothing in here wait a minute I need to have all that info on one device. And look on of thing Internet. So logic internet has to be on local device doesn’t make sense. Third thing Samsung ?? didn’t identify plurality did not exist. Lawyer term for 2 or more. Came back on rebuttal said absolutely I did . Source for three heuristic ?? he pointed out. Now remember toward end before overtime additional day. And Apple challenged 15 never asked him single question never said – (look). you have to look –
414 patent – 414 patent that’s what keep calling background sync. I ‘m going to talk about revers order do think important. This wans’t going to show – ?? Microsoft had done before. this isn’t just about background sync. Very specific arch as we heard in this case. We prior art. We are going to see very important. Samsung does not use.
So let’s go Apple – read – implying without – same showed Lockheimer he said it was important . Background sync may be nobody ever said Lockheimer he said I would at ?Good? email 200’s that was important. Don’t be distracted this claim is every specific. Let’s walk through that. So what did Apple’s expert say when I asked him this question. He very quickly this is particular way. Shortly after he told us what . You got have three remember that? – With claim 25 way is sync all agree > Broken finger (apologized broken finger does not work right). ??? Example email contact calendar. Just different database so we know that is very particular . We don’t do it Windows Mobile – ME does. Let me show. Now ?ai magoing? to talk two device talking to each other here somebody ?maigni? contact ?aidken? Anderson turn out he working on pone number says ok send it right (two on screen) now over here what is oing he is oing on interface well yea i am looking at this and that and we see up here tower because active there so we can do exactly do. So right here has architecture this every specific of 120.
What does apple say in response. And in fact this document this describes ME mobile architecture email contact calendar this Dr. ? Provider 3 synh sofware components. Well what did Apple expert say? Each one of those are indeed ?? configured to ?? He agrees he has specific architecture. But I’ve look at source and even none of those provide. We heard never ?? So now becomes only distinction. Well Dr. Chase Agree. Interesting I listened to Chase I didnt’ hear. Well what did he say. – read. Processing threads. I don’t know what he is talking about. He tried. But you can see the testimony. He said they thread.
Judge Koh announces it is 12:02. Lunch Break
?? Lets see what we can find out what Apple’s expert was – what Apple’s expert has done change what it means does it in inconsistent. Are you saying providing is same creating thread. But then when show in his deposition – providing creating I say it provides providing is plain language I am not quite sure what create. Definition directly contradictory.
Why don’t we talk about why not infringe. But first apple counsel – he let something out. Look it took 2 years Google develop background sync. Well what was going on? That’s a full release – they weren’t just working syncing developing whole o/s. The other thing left off- here is where 414 patent comes in. Way after fact. Lets talk about this non-infringement. You’ll recall this these are the sync adapters – what they are trying to misdirection – ???? As we showed you for 4 of these there ??? that’s not what they do We brought you Mr Westbrook and he showed you and its this little yellow box – that’s the sync adapter. Its not connected database or Gmail server. It doesn’t it cant it doesn’t have access. Mr. Westbrook explained why we used different because we wanted faster. Not just not there there was a specific technical reason for this. With respect to ??? he said the same thing – we don’t use ???? which is what the claim requires. What does apple’s expert say in response. Reading it – my position components that “cause” synch to occur. Well you’ll see both places – “is configured” it doesn’t say cause. If my son came to be if my son did or caused. That would sound strange to me. And that is what we see here. This is JX* this is from file wrapper 414 you will see at one time they had including cause retrieval and storage that remove now configure to synchronize the structured data – so they had to take it out bargain patent office.
They want to come in say they change bargain because they can’t get infringement without they struck this deal they gotta stick with it. Now we turn 172 patent. Now one thing might not be clear is for phones in this case that have been released since lawsuit – notice was lawsuit. They aren’t accused. Apple does not say they have infringing I just want to make that clear it may not have been.
Let me tell you why that claim – Robinson + SXrgomics invalidates claim 18 – only thing missing look behind when you typing put what you are typing in cursor – and that would be fist area touch screen current character stream. He explains. But that was it that wa sonly thing. And if we look to # showed you here is mobile device you have the characters input – so what’s apple’s response to that. 2 fold well PTO already looked. Looked at Robinson no evidence . Nobody would word suggestion not word correct. Where does not at say/ Where does it say in claim? You’ll see in jury if they are in same field they can be combined. And one other thing.
Apple says to defer to PTO. That is not your role. I will illustrate why important. Apple underline ?? appeared. Each time very careful – because the characters don’t appear in first area – just confirming only thing missing – ?? they are saying wait a minute Robinson has everything else we don’t put in Robinson that should be for patent never brought in ?nenbors? why so ?here?. Remember in patent just Apple they could tell them all because no characters nobody like us to respond that’s very important in considering and now I want to move last..
Slide to unlock patent – first want to show Galaxy Nexus and why does not infringe words claim very important. You’ll see you need to make contact and continuously move. Same on you touch you move it. Play video a Nexus – that doesn’t happen you’ll see when touch it disappears goes away. Apple response I have in specification on something on the lock on unlock. It does not say unlock. Other thing important claim. You don’t compare specification you compare to claim says continuously move contact .
Invalidity I’ll finish up here. So here was the only inventor was only brought. that apple had. And that was Christie. Interesting testimony ?m?. He said why unlock . Unlikely accidentally. We show you Neo Note prior art phone. It is reason unlocking right there in reference you can look at in jury room. No intentional calls made. And further. What – press power button and then text right sweep to unlock right they so the only thing missing unlock image. Well we showed you prior art specifically prior art sliders from Plaisant video. Apple very important to check and not defer to Patent Office. Apple showed you first part from Plaisant. We want toggles not sliders. Right below didn’t show you – even if sliders not preferred encouraging many other can be designed. Another advantage exactly same reason slider why they came up . Patent office nobody patent out we know pointed out to you and we can only assume they pointed them to same thing,. Important for you to be check. We are here to respond. We are here to
With that I really appreciate your attention its been a long case. Your job is to weigh your attention. Think about what you brought. The Google engineers we showed. We brought them prior art. We wrote that software. What did apple do. The other thirteen weren’t here. They brought in experts. Here people did it developed. They brought in experts who contradicted. That jury room with that my colleague.
© 2009-2014 Alta Financial & Insurance Services, LLC