Friday, October 9, 2026

As Huawei Trial Courtroom Closing Opposed by Inner City Press Cross on Stolen Patent



As Huawei Trial Courtroom Closing Opposed by Inner City Press Cross on Stolen Patent

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

EDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 23 – With the USA v. Huawei trial now underway in Federal court in Brooklyn, presiding Judge Ann Donnelly on September 8 instructed prospective jurors: "China and the Communist Party … are not on trial."

  The same was said, or claimed, in the Southern District of New York in the UN corruption trials of CCP-member Ng Lap Seng, and CCP-NGO boss Patrick Ho of the China Energy Fund Committee. Both were convicted. But is Huawei different?

On September 9 Inner City Press put out a 20 tweet thread of the opening arguments, on X and Bluesky.

September 9 extra on X for subscribers here and Substack here

  On September 16-17 Inner City Press published a book, Huawei on Trial in Brooklyn, Surveillance from Iran to the UN, here. It contains information on how Huawei enables surveillance by many UN states / the UN. In the White House on September 18 there was talk now minimizing spying.

On the afternoon of September 18, this: "on the government's motion to close the courtroom for three witnesses's testimony. The government's motion and all supporting and opposing briefing have been filed under seal. (See ECF Nos. 789, 812, 815, 862, 863.) The Court grants the government's motion. The closure of the courtroom will be tailored by providing access to redacted transcripts as soon as possible after the witnesses's testimony. Opinion setting forth the Courts reasoning in detail to follow. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 9/18/202."

  Inner City Press that night emailed opposition to the closure, along with a request that DOJ's motions for the closure be unsealed, now docketed here.

In the courtroom on September 23:

Thread: AUSA: The Government calls David Barker...What did you work on? Barker: A passive antenna that was 20 to 40% more efficient. AUSA: Did Huawei sign an NDA? Barker: Yes

 Barker: That is the slide deck I put together. Huawei's Dr Sean Ma had a lot of questions. AUSA: What's this? Barker: Huawei's patent application saying that Dr Ma invented it Defense: Objection! Judge: Overruled

Then, the cross:
Defense lawyer Brian Heberlig: Before your 2008 company retreat, would you say PUT [Per User Tilt] was a vague idea in your mind?

David Barker, former employee of Quintel Marketing: It was something that could be done. We hadn't given it a whole bunch of thought.
Heberlig: In the fall of 2009, you had no solution to locate users with the beam?
Barker: No, so we needed a company like Huawei.
Heberlig: You anticipated my next question. So you needed to collaborate with Huawei to figure that out?
Barker: Absolutely.
Heberlig: For the 30% improvement you projected, you needed to get the beam to the user?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: You're not an expert in beams?
Barker: No. I'm an expert in antennae.
Heberlig: To help realize the PUT concept, you needed an Original Equipment Manufacturer, like Huawei?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: To enable it?
Barker: These were two sides of the equation, ours and Huawei's.

Heberlig: You didn't attend the meeting personally?
Barker: No.
Heberlig: And Dr. Ma didn't attend personally either?
Barker: I don't recall.
Heberlig: Does GX 13301 refresh your recollection?
Barker (shown exhibit) It does.
Heberlig: He participated by telephone?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Despite not attending, you prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the meeting?
Barker: I did.
Heberlig: And would you describe that presentation as a very high-level overview of Quintel's technologies?
Barker: It was fairly high level. That's how we do it at a first meeting.
Heberlig: Didn't one of your colleagues describe it as a very high-level overview?
Barker: I don't recall.
Heberlig: Would you agree with that statement?
Barker: I think the meeting was pretty thorough. It wasn't five minutes, it was an hour.
Heberlig: The explanation was at a high level?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: PUT wasn't the focus?
Barker: It was an element.
Heberlig: In your 28-page document, the discussion of PUT began on page 21?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: The first 21 were on general Quintel technology?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: They were also valuable to customers?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: You viewed Huawei as a customer?
Barker: Or a partner.
Heberlig: They could be both?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Both were in play?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Throughout the presentation, you refer to PUT as a "concept"?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: That was how you characterized it at the time?
Barker: Yes.

Heberlig: Part of the presentation was focused on simulation data?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: A simulation is an imitation of the real world used to understand, test, and practice?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: For example, airline pilots use flight simulators?
Barker: For example.
Heberlig: And some simulators are better than others?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: If you play a computer game in your house, you'll get a less good simulation than if you go into an aviation training center and use their flight simulator with a real cockpit and handle?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Donnelly: Overruled.
Barker: I would assume so.
Heberlig: Would you agree that they don't help determine whether a technology is valuable in practice?
Barker: In the purest sense, I agree. You need know-how.

Heberlig: The goal in the basic simulation you conducted was to see if your idea had value?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: You didn't share it with Huawei?
Barker: No.
Heberlig: When you hired Robert Joyce to conduct a simulation, it was a step above?
Barker: Yes. He had more time for it than I did.
Heberlig: He was evaluating potential signal-strength gains?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Rather than real-world data, he randomly assigned user's' locations with the Monte Carlo Method?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: He didn't determine how to find users?
Barker: No.
Heberlig: So the benefits were more theoretical?
Barker: Yes.

Heberlig: You said Dr. Ma sent follow-up questions?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: They seemed like the right questions to understand the information?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: You've already seen GX 13322-R?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Question 4 is related to your other antenna technology, QTilt?
Barker: It could be QTilt or general.
Heberlig: A significant portion of your presentation was on QTilt?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Question 7 also could refer to QTilt?
Barker: QTilt or PUT.
Heberlig: You sent Dr. Ma a block diagram?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: Do you know if it was requested or voluntary?
Barker: I don't know.
Heberlig: It was just your best guess on possible implementation?
Barker: It was detailed enough.
Heberlig: You didn't know the details of Huawei's components?
Barker: No.

Heberlig: GX 13323-R-1- it's a Huawei joint agreement summary?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: This is three months before Quintel and Huawei signed a memorandum of understanding?
Barker: I believe so.
Heberlig: It's an early outline of how you might work together?
Barker: It's a Huawei internal view.
Heberlig: But it was sent to Quintel, correct?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: It wasn't an internal sensitive document?
Barker: I can't comment on that.
Heberlig: The sections on Quintel were a cut-and-paste job?
Barker: Yes.
Heberlig: When it says "Introducing Quintel's Technology", of course that's not just PUT?
Barker: Correct.
Heberlig: When it describes PUT as "Quintel and Huawei Joint Solutions", that's describing future collaboration?
Barker: It's framed as in the future.

Heberlig: When you were negotiating the memorandum of understanding, Quintel included as an objective Huawei running further simulations for PUT, even though Huawei initially thought that was beyond the scope?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Donnelly: Overruled.
Barker: I don't know.
Heberlig: Does DX 1501 refresh your recollection that Huawei thought it was beyond the scope?
Barker: Yes, Huawei said that.
Heberlig: I offer it into evidence.
AUSA: Objection! Hearsay!
Judge Donnelly: Overruled.
Heberlig: You received feedback that Huawei regarded Quintel's simulations as primitive?
AUSA: Objection! Hearsay!
Judge Donnelly: Do you remember?
Barker: No. Could you refresh my recollection?
Heberlig: I show you GX 13325- do you see that Robert Joyce's simulation was called "very primitive", without enough real-world data?
Barker: He used a flat-world simulation.
Heberlig: It's called "very primitive"?
Barker: By our Wireless VP.
Heberlig: Was he communicating the views of others?
Barker: He could have been.

Heberlig: Early in the development process, didn't Quintel conclude that PUT contained nothing substantially different from Quintel's public patents?
Barker: Could you repeat the question?
Heberlig: Didn't Quintel conclude that PUT wasn't different enough to merit a new patent application?
Barker: Possibly. It did contain new ideas on how to use QTilt.
Heberlig: They determined that application would have been denied?
Judge Donnelly: Sustained! Next question.
Heberlig: You spent about a quarter of your time working on PUT?
Barker: I can't recall.
Heberlig: Does GX 13629 refresh your recollection?
Barker: Yes. That was the rough percentage.

Heberlig: Do you agree it's possible to have multiple solutions to implement the same concept?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Donnelly: Overruled.
Barker: Can you explain?
Heberlig: By analogy, you could protect a room with a lock or with a security guard?
Barker: Indeed.
Heberlig: And there were multiple ways to solve the problem solved by the PUT concept?
Barker: Only one way with a passive antenna.
Heberlig: How about a virtual antenna?
Barker: I suppose you could connect it to a passive antenna.
Heberlig: So there are two different ways?
Barker: It's semantics. What PUT brought to the table was that it used a passive antenna.
Heberlig: But you never brought to the table a solution to locate users?
Barker: No.
Heberlig: No further questions.

Judge Donnelly: Any re-direct?
AUSA: Very briefly, your Honor.
Re-direct
AUSA: You were asked on cross about your wireless VP Joe Vani's account of Quintel's simulations as "primitive"?
Barker: Yes.
AUSA: Do you know with certainty that he was told that by Huawei?
Barker: No.
AUSA: You were also asked about your description of PUT as a "concept"?
Barker: Yes.
AUSA: Did you view that concept as proprietary?
Barker: Yes.
AUSA: That's why you wanted an NDA to protect it?
Barker: Yes.
AUSA: No further questions.

Judge Donnelly: Any re-cross, Mr. Heberlig?
Heberlig: No, your Honor. 
Judge: We'll break for the day. Jurors, I'll see you at 9:30 tomorrow.
[Jurors leave; 12:44 PM]


More/update on X for Subscribers here and Substack here

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Posted by at