American History 1988
Chapter 157 - 151 Hearing

Chapter 157: Chapter 151 Hearing

The California Northern District Court’s preparation for a pre-trial hearing in the patent litigation dispute between Byte Software and Bell Company has drawn much attention from the tech industry in Silicon Valley.

Because normally, a patent litigation would not undergo such a process; filing the case, gathering evidence, summoning a jury, and then holding court is the standard procedure.

But this lawsuit is special, firstly because it involves software and communications, a cross-industry patent applicability issue.

Secondly, whether the principle of referencing international standards in patents can serve as a legal basis is also a vague point of contention.

Of course, if based on the viewpoint of most people in the tech industry, as well as the evidence of authorization receipts provided by Byte Software from the International Telecommunication Union, the jury and judge will surely make a ruling in favor of Byte Software.

Especially since newspapers and other media outlets have been causing quite a stir about this lawsuit lately.

Most people believe that Byte Software’s actions are legal and reasonable, and do not constitute so-called infringement charges.

It’s also because of such public opinion advantage that WSGR filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from Bell.

Originally, if everything went smoothly, the court would likely approve Byte Software’s motion.

Meaning, to dismiss Bell’s lawsuit and not proceed with the case.

However, Byte Software’s opponent is AT&T and Bell, especially the former, which has legal resources in California that are not inferior to those of WSGR.

Even because it spends millions of US dollars annually as a political lobbying group’s budget, AT&T has more extensive connections in the public sector than WSGR.

Using outlets like the Mercury News to wave flags and cheer, AT&T, with the reasoning that Byte Software is not part of the communications industry, refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the latter’s adoption of international standards.

Under the dual influence, even the court internally began to have disagreements. Therefore, to thoroughly understand the proper meanings of technology-related key terms, the California Northern District Court decided to hold an interpretation hearing.

An interpretation hearing, as the name suggests, is where both parties present their evidence and make statements and explanations about it.

The judge will make a decision about the legality of the patent case based on the explanations provided by both sides regarding patent terms.

For this reason, this hearing is particularly important, as the judge’s ruling on the interpretation could largely indicate the outcome of the patent infringement case.

Additionally, a jury will be present at this hearing but they will not judge the results of the debate between the two sides.

Because the interpretation of patent terminology is a legal issue that requires a judge’s decision, not a factual issue that requires a jury’s decision.

The California Northern District Federal Court, Dean’s first time wearing a dark suit.

Accompanied by the WSGR legal team and senior executives from Byte Software, he passed through the flashing lights of reporters at the courthouse entrance and entered the imposing Italian-style building.

Although it was not an official trial, the legal team from Byte Software still turned out in full force.

Following closely beside Dean was WSGR partner attorney Boris Feldman, along with two other lawyers, one from Byte Software’s legal department and one a distinguished professor from Stanford Law School.

Boris Feldman was responsible for the main debate, while the other attorneys assisted Dean in dealing with various questions.

For example, they used eye contact and almost imperceptible hand gestures to remind Dean to watch his language, preventing him from falling into the language traps set by the opposition.

Or when, after a long duel, they observed Dean’s performance declining or his being agitated, they took responsibility for interrupting in a timely manner and requesting a recess from the arbitrator.

Against opponents like AT&T and Bell, one cannot be too careful.

Also, because Byte Software came with the effect of public opinion justice, Stanford gratuitously dispatched a distinguished professor from the law school to help Byte Software handle the hearing.

In fact, the symbolic significance of this distinguished professor was greater, and the move was mainly to demonstrate Stanford’s support for their own student.

Of course, Byte Software did not refuse any help; Dean needed Stanford’s backing to garner public sympathy, and Stanford needed to showcase its learning culture, making it a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Like most courtrooms, the hearing halls in California are predominantly wooden in color.

Sitting at the very front of the main stage are the presiding judge and three associate judges in charge of this lawsuit, with a row of jurors behind them.

In front of the main stage, on either side, are representatives from AT&T and from Byte Software.

At the very back of the hall are silent members of parliament, assistants, and media from several Californian TV stations authorized to record the entire hearing, ready to note down at any moment.

Dozens of eyes, together with about a dozen cameras and digital cameras, were all focused on the representatives in the center of the hall.

Though the hearing had not yet begun, the somber and solemn atmosphere of the courtroom was already suffocating.

Even though Valentine and David were used to rough seas, being forcibly confined in such an air-tight throng of people still left them parched and thirsty.

However, the focus of attention was not on them, and not even on the AT&T team, less than two meters away from Byte Software.

Everyone—the judges in front, the jurors, the parliamentarians and reporters in the back, and the AT&T team across—were all scrutinizing the young man with brown hair.

He was too young. If one overlooked that handsome face, no one would associate him with a software company valued at seventy million US dollars.

This might also be the reason why Stanford was going out of its way to stand up for him now, acting as a bright, shiny signboard.

And what was Dean doing? He was sizing up the leader of the Bell team, or more precisely, Alex Howard, the manager of AT&T’s information department.

William Kennard did not attend this hearing, and with his status, he normally would not appear here.

Thus, Alex took up this responsibility, and he himself also had some understanding of network information technology.

However, at this moment, Alex felt extremely uncomfortable, already being very cautious due to the presence of the media’s cameras.

Should they catch any inappropriate behavior on his part, the reporters present would most likely magnify the fact.

And then, the next day, they would swarm over and start berating Bell and AT&T.

The young man who was supposed to be under the same pressure was staring at him expressionlessly at this time, as if in this hall, the only person on trial was Alex himself.

Just as his gaze shifted restlessly and he was about to protest, Judge William Swase, seated at the head of the presiding bench, gently pressed the electronic button beside him.

As a bell rang out, everyone in the hall subconsciously straightened their backs; the hearing had begun.

The gray-haired William Swase stood up and announced in an authoritative voice, "The outcome of this hearing’s debate does not represent the subsequent trial’s judgment.

But before we start the debate, please have the representatives from both sides swear to take responsibility for all testimonies and evidence presented in this hearing, without concealment or lies.

Otherwise, it will be considered as voluntarily giving up the right to debate, and you will be subject to legal and moral accountability."

"I swear!"

"I swear!"

The representatives of both sides stood up and took their oaths in turn, including Dean and Alex.

The courtroom hearing is different from those held in Congress. To listen to the testimonies from both sides and to be as neutral as possible, the judge will not ask leading questions.

The initial procedure is for the plaintiff—Bell, in this case—to make allegations, followed by the defense’s debate or explanation.

The statement from Bell’s side was handled by a lawyer from Cooley LLP, just as it was articulated in the original complaint, accusing Byte Company’s Teams software of infringing on Bell Labs’ ADPCM encoding technology patent.

"Mr. Dean Price, are you aware of the fact that Byte Company’s Teams software uses the patent technology of Bell Labs?" Judge William Swase asked Dean sternly.

Boris Feldman from WSGR raised his hand to stand and reply but was stopped by Judge William Swase. "Please let Mr. Dean Price answer this question."

Okay, the explanation just now was incorrect. Usually, the judge does not ask leading questions, except when related.

Faced with this opening intimidation, Dean stood up to answer calmly.

"Your Honor, esteemed members, if you are referring to the ADPCM encoding technology used in the international public standard G.722, then yes,

However, I must first clarify that Byte Company’s adoption of the G.722 standard was not because it includes ADPCM encoding technology or because the technology comes from Bell Labs.

Rather, it’s because it is an international public standard, we are acting within industry norms, and we have contributed to the promotion of standards that align with American interests."

"But the fact that the technology comes from Bell Labs stands, and Byte Company continued to sell the Teams software even after receiving our letter of legal notification.

This is contempt for the ’Patent Law’ and ’Intellectual Property Law,’" the lawyer from Bell’s side immediately stood up to retort.

"Your Honor," Boris Feldman stood to speak, "Here, I must reiterate the definition of a public standard, according to the documents of the International Telecommunication Union.

Any enterprise within a member country may use the G.722 standard to produce or manufacture relevant products that conform to the standard without compensation after obtaining authorization.

America is unquestionably a member country of the International Telecommunication Union, and Byte Software has also received authorization from it.

Here is our authorization document, as well as proof of payment for the authorization fees."

At Boris Feldman’s cue, several photocopies were presented to the judges on the presiding bench, including to those sitting opposite from Bell’s side.

Documentary evidence has always been an important presentation in hearings, and in legal terms, a receipt stamped with the seal of the International Telecommunication Union has legal effect on its own.

But Bell’s side was also prepared for this, "Your Honor, the G.722 standard promoted by the International Telecommunication Union is a recommendation, not a mandate.

This receipt at most proves that the International Telecommunication Union suggested this standard to Byte Company, which then adopted it.

But it still does not absolve Byte Company from infringing on a patent included in the standards that belongs to Bell.

As for the free use principle of public industry standards, we do not deny its existence.

However, G.722 targets the telecommunications industry, and Byte Company is clearly not part of that; it does not apply to the open and non-discriminatory principle."

After consulting for a while, the judges on the bench turned to ask Dean once again.

"Mr. Dean Price, your signature is on this receipt.

When you applied for the use of the standard from the International Telecommunication Union, did you clarify what it would be used for?

And did Byte Company continue to conduct the sales of Teams software even after receiving written notification from Bell’s side?"

Dean did not pay attention to the faint smiles on the faces of Bell’s side; he raised his own doubt in a slightly puzzled tone.

"Your Honor, esteemed members, haven’t we all overlooked something?"