Regarding the two application software our side downloaded into HTC phone: one of the applications was showed to jurors on Friday by our side. It is a speed meter kind of software that detect the cpu frequency and shows it on the screen. One could see the frequency was changing, sometime by a few hundred MHZ. HTC objected, saying this was not on the record and TPL should not show it to jurors. Our side argued that HTC was well informed about this application (web links of the two were given to HTC side in a email) and did not raise any issue about it. Judge ruled that the showing could be taken in the record, but not allowed to show to jurors again.
TPL asked calling DR. O again, HTC objected but Judge allow him to be called during rebuttal this afternoon. This is very important development, good for our side. Here is my observation – on Friday and yesterday, jurors asked many high level technical questions. To my recollection, none of those are related to binning (P -the Process or fabrication related parameter). My guess is that binning is a lot easier to understand than twp other parameters – voltage (V) and temperature (T), and our side put considerable time in explaining/arguing on binning. That may explain why no question was asked about it.
HTC showed recorded Fish tape, an emotional one. He said he was pressured by tpl lawyers (in 2010) to admit that Fish Clock is a frequency synthesizer like a PLL. He side he would never say it and Fish Clock is free running. Free running clock is not a synthesizer. At the end of afternoon session, Mr. O objected to the Fish testimony but was denied by judge.
HTC also called another expert who is in consulting business and did many patent cases as witness. In some of his slide, he showed that by putting htc phone in a oven, the running frequency of the phone did not change. By disconnecting crystal clock, PPL stop working. Although his background was challenged by Mr. O, his tests were designed to confuse jurors. (he never worked in a team in designing a microprocessor.)
Jurors asked seven questions (phrased by judge). Here are some of them: where is the location of PLL? Is crystal clock vary in frequency? Dose speed of CPU affected by RO? How the selection of clocking speed work on multiple PLL chip work in Figure 12.1? Does value of frequency divider change?
From listening to questions by jurors, one can see they were not going to rely just on binning along to make their mind. Some jurors must had good education (or possibly EE degree, we have a lot double E engineers here). I worked at more than ten Bay Area companies so I have good sense on the jury pool.
This afternoon, our side have the final chance to call DR. O to counter the misleading (or some confusing) information provided by other side. Are we still take less weight on V and T and more weight on P (binning)? From what jurors asked, I think we need to focus more on V and T. Fish tape was nothing on P. Technically, it is all on the varying, the free running stuff, the V and P factors. Jurors are still confused on V and T factors, at least some of them are.
If we use the free running phrase said repeatedly by Fish and prove the deed zone moments, the bypass mode, and the power-on moment are all free running moments that have no role for the external crystal to play in change the cpu frequency; if we can show how close the RO is to cpu on chip physically and nothing in between; if can convincing more that external crystal signal stops at phase detector, not reaching RO through the filter and the charge pump (Mr. O did good job in challenging the HTC consultant yesterday,) we can stick V and T factors into jurors' mind to nail the infringement part.
I know we have limited time left, but the good thing is Dr. O can speak again. Let's hope our side can use the time left effectively and take the right focus to win. The emotional side of Fish tape was not good for our case, but the technical side may not be bad at all. Since the whole purpose of the PLL is to leash the running dog (the RO and CPU) so its free running (varying) is confined in a narrow range (not too far from the dog owner/trainer). In other words, the use of PLL is by itself the proof of varyingness of RO and CPU, otherwise, why put extra component to lower or upper the RO/CPU frequency if they are not varying (stay fixed, not changing, no fluctuation) in the first place?
Good luck to all!
