Very interesting....All 19 were called on the carpet imo

I understand Mr. Yungwirth’s desire to obtain

16

infringement information at this point, but how they operate

17

really has nothing to do with the extrinsic evidence of how

18

a particular claim term is or is not construed. Most of

19

these -- perhaps all of the products for Canon, Inc. were

20

not even available when these patents were -- when the

21

applications were filed for these patents, so they wouldn’t

22

even go to issues such as scope of the knowledge of a person

23

who had ordinary skill in the art or prior art. I’m not a

24

hundred percent certain on that, but I’m 98 percent

25

confident that none of these products were even available

Case 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW Document 293 Filed 05/25/10 USDC Colorado Page 24 of

39

25

AVERY/WOODS REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

455 SHERMAN STREET, SUITE 250, DENVER, CO 80203

303-825-6119 FAX 303-893-8305

1

back then. So these are just not relevant to how these

2

claims can be construed.

3

As Your Honor knows well, the only -– really the

4

only relevant evidence is the extrinsic evidence and we’re

5

confident that it supports our claim construction, but what

6

is it about one of Canon’s products that sold today, how

7

does that inform the meaning of, you know, words such as

8

flash memory or memory in general, Your Honor, just does

9

not.

10

THE COURT: Where do you get that, Counsel? Look

11

at topic 1, I’m not sure you’re interpreting that right. Do

12

you have topic 1 in front of you on the notice of deposition

13

or not?

14

MR. O’SHEA: I do, Your Honor.

15

THE COURT: Okay, tell me specifically where you

16

come up with that interpretation.

17

MR. O’SHEA: Well, Your Honor, as I read it -–

18

THE COURT: Well, I want -- that’s what I want to

19

find out, how you’re reading it. I don’t really see it that

20

way, but I may be wrong. Go ahead, tell me how you come up

21

with that conclusion and that interpretation that you just

22

mentioned.

23

MR. O’SHEA: Your Honor, it seems that each of

24

these, A, B, C, and D, the sub-topics, are directed to the

25

actual accused products for Canon, Inc. in my particular case. It speaks to -- for example, A says the manner in

2

which recorded audio is processed and stored on the memory

3

of the currently accused products and playback for memory.

4

That is not relevant and does not inform the Court’s

5

decision on claim construction issues.

6

THE COURT: Okay.

7

MR. YUNGWIRTH: Your Honor, if I may briefly -–

8

THE COURT: No, no, finish then. What about topic

9

B, C, or D?

10

MR. O’SHEA: Here again, Your Honor, in B the

11

components that are involved in storage of recorded audio on

12

or playback from memory in a Canon product, here again,

13

these products weren’t even available when these patents

14

were issued. That has nothing -- and there’s no reference

15

in the patents to any Canon product or anything relating to

16

my client, so, here again, that does not inform this.

17

THE COURT: So you’d prefer just to give them the

18

documents instead, right?

19

MR. O’SHEA: Your Honor, one, I am relatively

20

certain, although not having been aware of this issue prior

21

to just a few minutes ago, I believe the documents we gave

22

them cover exactly how information is stored to memory and

23

in the Canon products.

24

THE COURT: Then someone’s mistaken, because unless

25

I heard -–

1

MR. O’SHEA: Your Honor, I cannot say with

2

certainty.

3

THE COURT: Well, unless I heard Mr. Yungwirth --

4

MR. O’SHEA: I want to be entirely fair here.

5

THE COURT: Just a minute. Unless I misheard Mr.

6

Yungwirth, he says he didn’t get that. He didn’t get it

7

from any of the defendants, I asked him that question

8

specifically.

Another good bit dealing with overseas items, foreign laguages, etc. --gern....

MR. BRODY: Your Honor, can I speak for Pentax,

please?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. BRODY: This is Michael Brody, and I just -- I just -- we’re in a slightly different position than some o the other defendants. We’ve produced our -- we’ve produced essentially all of our English language documents to Mr. Yungwirth as required and noted at the time that our technical documents were in Japanese and are unlikely to be useful to him, and we’ve been trying to work with plaintiffs to communicate the technical information that they’re asking for in a way that’s constructive. So whether we’re going to do it by deposition orby supplemental production I think is something we’re trying (So I guess we need to trust their interpretation of their Japanese technical docs.???) to mutually agree to but it’s not a dispute. I think these other folks are saying that they have in fact produced that material and there’s some controversy about that, but I did want to make it clear that at least with respect to my

client we’re –-

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BRODY: -- not really at issue on that question

yet.

THE COURT: Well, I’m prepared to rule on this.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, may I -–

THE COURT: No, I’m prepared to rule on this, I

don’t need to hear anymore on this. We’re going to go with

these depositions as indicated. I do find that these

particular topics are appropriate on claim construction, you

can go under those areas. Let’s clear the dates for those

peoples’ depositions. I’ll order counsel to meet and confer

tomorrow to do that to get that done.

Another good bit....