Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 12
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Pa etof 12
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SE
`
` EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
` (REDACTED)
`(REDACTED)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 12
`
`Page 18
`·1· · · · · · · ·(The Reporter rebooted the attorneys'
`·2· ·realtime-display iPads, which had lost Internet
`·3· ·connectivity.)
`·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· 9:16, back on the
`·5· ·record.
`·6· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·7· · · · Q.· · ·Let's turn to paragraph 43 of your
`·8· ·declaration, please.· This paragraph talks about the
`·9· ·language in the patent embodied in.· Do you see
`10· ·that?
`11· · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`12· · · · Q.· · ·Is embodied in synonymous with
`13· ·referenced?
`14· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`15· · · · A.· · ·I don't think I would consider those
`16· ·terms generally synonyms.
`17· · · · Q.· · ·Would you consider embedded to be a
`18· ·synonym with referenced?
`19· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`20· · · · A.· · ·Embedded to be a synonym with
`21· ·referenced?· Like generally I wouldn't consider
`22· ·those two terms to be synonyms.· There may be some
`23· ·context where they have a similar meaning, but I
`24· ·think it would depend a lot on the context.· If we
`25· ·have a thesaurus, we could....
`
`Page 19
`·1· · · · Q.· · ·Okay, I want to turn now to your
`·2· ·infringement analysis.· Okay?· Did you perform any
`·3· ·infringement analysis regarding whether the SRX
`·4· ·infringes claim 9 of the '780 patent?
`·5· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·6· · · · A.· · ·So I'd say in the context of the
`·7· ·declaration for summary judgment, my recollection is
`·8· ·the SRX Gateway comes in as one of the possible
`·9· ·collectors of the ATP appliance.· I believe I
`10· ·mentioned that, for instance, at paragraph 51.
`11· ·I would have to look to see if there were other
`12· ·aspects of the SRX but that's one of the places
`13· ·I remember it coming into play in this analysis.
`14· · · · Q.· · ·Did you perform any analysis to
`15· ·determine whether the SRX alone infringes claim 9 of
`16· ·the '780 patent?
`17· · · · A.· · ·So my recollection is for the purpose of
`18· ·this declaration that the SRX was again one of the
`19· ·collectors.· Just to be clear, my understanding was
`20· ·that this was for the summary judgment and that
`21· ·depending on the outcome of this and the various
`22· ·legal issues that are associated with it, that I
`23· ·would have the ability later, again, depending on
`24· ·the outcome of this, to have a more detailed
`25· ·infringement report that could cover additional
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·scenarios as well.
`·2· · · · Q.· · ·So as of today, do you have an opinion
`·3· ·one way or another whether the SRX alone infringes
`·4· ·claim 9 of the '780 patent?
`·5· · · · A.· · ·The SRX alone?· So I'd have to go back
`·6· ·and look, but I can't recall that in the
`·7· ·declaration.· Again, I have some understanding or
`·8· ·thoughts outside the declaration but they haven't
`·9· ·been fully formed or put into the report because my
`10· ·understanding is, you know, the full report will
`11· ·have to come later after the summary judgment issues
`12· ·are decided.
`13· · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· So I'm just trying to get a
`14· ·sense, I just want to confirm:· At least insofar as
`15· ·your declaration in connection with the summary
`16· ·judgment motion, you are not offering an opinion
`17· ·that the SRX loan infringes claim 9 of the '780
`18· ·patent.· Is that fair?
`19· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`20· · · · A.· · ·My recollection is that here I'm focused
`21· ·on the SRX as it connects or interfaces with the ATP
`22· ·appliance for the purpose of this declaration.
`23· · · · Q.· · ·Do you know when the SRX first supported
`24· ·interfacing with the ATP appliance?
`25· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`
`Page 21
`·1· · · · A.· · ·Today I can't recall.· I'd have to go
`·2· ·back and check.
`·3· · · · Q.· · ·That's not something that you analyzed
`·4· ·in connection with your infringement analysis?
`·5· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·6· · · · A.· · ·I would say I probably did.· I just
`·7· ·can't remember it offhand.
`·8· · · · Q.· · ·Do you know if it was before or after
`·9· ·November of 2017?
`10· · · · A.· · ·Again, I can't recall a specific date,
`11· ·so I'd have to go back and look.· I just can't
`12· ·recall.
`13· · · · Q.· · ·Did you perform any analysis to
`14· ·determine whether Sky ATP infringes claim 9 of the
`15· ·'780 patent?
`16· · · · A.· · ·I don't believe I'm discussing Sky ATP
`17· ·in this declaration is my recollection.· Again, I
`18· ·understand that I may have a chance later to discuss
`19· ·Sky ATP depending on the outcomes of this part of
`20· ·the case.
`21· · · · Q.· · ·When did the '780 patent expire?
`22· · · · A.· · ·Can you provide me the '780 patent?
`23· · · · · · · ·(Deposition Exhibit 2329 marked for
`24· ·identification.)
`25· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 12
`
`Page 22
`·1· · · · Q.· · ·So the court reporter has handed you
`·2· ·Exhibit 2329, which is a copy of the '780 patent.
`·3· ·Does that refresh your recollection as to when the
`·4· ·'780 patent expired?
`·5· · · · A.· · ·No.· I was checking, but I don't recall
`·6· ·the expiration date.
`·7· · · · Q.· · ·When performing your infringement
`·8· ·analysis, did you limit your review to versions of
`·9· ·the ATP appliance product that were released before
`10· ·the '780 patent expired?
`11· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`12· · · · A.· · ·That's my recollection, that the
`13· ·functionalities I'm talking about existed I guess
`14· ·both before and after the expiration date.
`15· · · · Q.· · ·And what did you do to confirm that the
`16· ·functionalities that you're relying upon existed in
`17· ·the ATP appliance before the '780 patent expired?
`18· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`19· · · · A.· · ·I think I'd say generally speaking
`20· ·that's based on the material I had, the
`21· ·documentation, deposition testimony and so on.
`22· · · · Q.· · ·Did you confirm it in the source code?
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· · ·One sec.· (Pause)· Again, my
`25· ·recollection is that there was sufficient
`
`Page 23
`·1· ·information in the additional documentation and so
`·2· ·on.· I can't recall specifically dates associated
`·3· ·with the printed source code, so I'd have to go back
`·4· ·and check the dates, but I believe my recollection
`·5· ·from Rubin's report is that the source code is
`·6· ·consistent with everything I've described here.
`·7· · · · Q.· · ·Did you endeavor to rely on
`·8· ·documentation for the ATP appliance that predated
`·9· ·the expiration date of the patent?
`10· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`11· · · · A.· · ·I would say in general I've relied on
`12· ·all of the documentation.· I certainly relied on,
`13· ·tried to rely on things that would have been before
`14· ·as well as things that came after, with the
`15· ·understanding that there had been a change in this
`16· ·functionality, again, through the various
`17· ·documentation, which I think is pretty consistent on
`18· ·this point.
`19· · · · Q.· · ·Would you agree that a development
`20· ·document that postdates the expiration date of the
`21· ·'780 patent might not reflect the functionality of
`22· ·the ATP appliance during the relevant time period?
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· · ·I would say again in such situations,
`25· ·you look for consistency across the range of
`
`Page 24
`·1· ·documents, the deposition testimony, source code,
`·2· ·and all the materials.· But typically such documents
`·3· ·provide insight into the functioning of the system.
`·4· ·But as is the case for all documentation and
`·5· ·testimony and so on, you need to examine for
`·6· ·consistency.
`·7· · · · Q.· · ·Is there any documentation or deposition
`·8· ·testimony that you relied on to form your
`·9· ·infringement opinion that you didn't specifically
`10· ·cite in your declaration?
`11· · · · A.· · ·I would say that's certainly not the
`12· ·intention.· I can't recall any as I sit here now.
`13· · · · Q.· · ·Would you agree as a general matter that
`14· ·a product's source code shows how the product
`15· ·actually works?
`16· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`17· · · · A.· · ·Generally that is one of the places
`18· ·I would look to understand how a product functions,
`19· ·yes.
`20· · · · Q.· · ·Would you agree as a general matter that
`21· ·it's important to review the source code when you
`22· ·perform an infringement analysis?
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· · ·I would say that can be one of the
`25· ·useful materials to examine.· It's certainly not the
`
`Page 25
`·1· ·only one that can be examined, depends on the
`·2· ·context, but generally it's useful to look at the
`·3· ·source code.
`·4· · · · Q.· · ·I think we went over this at your last
`·5· ·deposition, but you haven't actually reviewed the
`·6· ·ATP appliance source code on the review computer.
`·7· ·Correct?
`·8· · · · A.· · ·Yes, my recollection is because of
`·9· ·scheduling reasons, I wasn't able to get out to see
`10· ·it, although we've tried recently.· But, again, in
`11· ·this declaration I'm responding in large part to
`12· ·points raised by Dr. Rubin, and Dr. Rubin's report
`13· ·laid out a useful framework or, you know, base, so
`14· ·I was able to respond, I think, effectively based on
`15· ·the printouts, the documentation, and so on.
`16· · · · Q.· · ·And just to be clear, you didn't attempt
`17· ·to go review the source code while you were
`18· ·preparing your declaration for claim 9 of the '780
`19· ·patent.· Correct?
`20· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`21· · · · A.· · ·I think I would state it differently
`22· ·that for various scheduling reasons, I don't think
`23· ·it worked out.
`24· · · · Q.· · ·You don't cite any source code in your
`25· ·declaration.· Correct?
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 12
`
`Page 26
`·1· · · · A.· · ·I'd have to go back through and check
`·2· ·but that I believe may be correct.
`·3· · · · Q.· · ·Did you identify any hashing function in
`·4· ·the ATP appliance code?
`·5· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·6· · · · A.· · ·I mean, I think I identified it by way
`·7· ·of documentation and so on, that being in the code.
`·8· ·There's discussion of in fact multiple hash
`·9· ·functions that are used in conjunction with the ATP
`10· ·appliance.
`11· · · · Q.· · ·You haven't actually identified the
`12· ·source code module that performs those hashing
`13· ·functions in the ATP appliance code.· Correct?
`14· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`15· · · · A.· · ·I mean, if you're stating did I like
`16· ·cite them by line number, I don't believe I have.
`17· ·But, on the other hand, the hash functions that are
`18· ·being used as I discuss in my report are sort of the
`19· ·standard hash functions, including things such as
`20· ·sha1, and there are references to them within the
`21· ·various documentation and so on.
`22· · · · Q.· · ·Do you know which component of the ATP
`23· ·appliance performs those hashing functions?
`24· · · · A.· · ·I would have to go back and check, but
`25· ·my recollection from one of the depositions is it's
`
`Page 27
`·1· ·one of, at least in some cases it's sort of the
`·2· ·entry point for the ATP appliance.· Again, I'd have
`·3· ·to go back and check.· I think it may be referred to
`·4· ·as Kuchabara in some cases.
`·5· · · · Q.· · ·Your understanding is that there's a
`·6· ·Kuchabara module on the ATP appliance?
`·7· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·8· · · · A.· · ·I would have to go back and recall if
`·9· ·that's what it was called in the deposition
`10· ·testimony.· It referred to it as, you know, sort
`11· ·of -- I recall the testimony discussing it as sort
`12· ·of being the entry point or the sort of first stage
`13· ·in the ATP appliance before further analysis is
`14· ·done.
`15· · · · Q.· · ·And what deposition are you referring
`16· ·to?
`17· · · · A.· · ·I'd have to go back and check.· I don't
`18· ·remember the names related to depositions.
`19· · · · Q.· · ·Is it cited in your declaration?
`20· · · · A.· · ·I don't know.· I can look through and
`21· ·check.
`22· · · · Q.· · ·And just I'm honestly confused because
`23· ·there haven't been any depositions of any fact
`24· ·witnesses on ATP appliance.· I'm just trying to
`25· ·figure out who you're referring to.
`
`Page 28
`·1· · · · A.· · ·Well, so my recollection is there was
`·2· ·discussion of a hashing module related to Kuchabara
`·3· ·and that some form of that was included or ported
`·4· ·over or, you know, added to the ATP appliance.
`·5· ·Again, I would have to go back and look over the
`·6· ·depositions.· Again, I think what I cite is the
`·7· ·documentation which discusses at various places the
`·8· ·use of sha1 and other hash functions in like the ATP
`·9· ·appliance guide, I believe some other documents, and
`10· ·my recollection also -- perhaps you could pass me
`11· ·the Rubin report -- is that it was -- Yeah, if you'd
`12· ·pass me the Rubin report, I don't recall it being a
`13· ·point of distinction or the suggestion that the
`14· ·appliance itself did not hash the objects, so....
`15· · · · Q.· · ·Have you ever seen the source code
`16· ·whether on a computer or in a printout form from the
`17· ·ATP appliance that's responsible for performing the
`18· ·hash functions that you talk about in your report?
`19· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`20· · · · A.· · ·I don't recall specifically.
`21· · · · Q.· · ·Now, did you identify any function in
`22· ·the ATP appliance source code that fetches software
`23· ·components?
`24· · · · A.· · ·(Pause)· So I don't believe I specify
`25· ·like filenames and line numbers in the declaration,
`
`Page 29
`·1· ·and the source code would correspond to the pieces
`·2· ·that relate to the various documentation that I cite
`·3· ·describing the fetching functionalities starting at,
`·4· ·for example, paragraph 59.
`·5· · · · Q.· · ·Have you ever seen the source code,
`·6· ·whether on a computer or in printout form, from the
`·7· ·ATP appliance that is responsible for the alleged
`·8· ·fetching function that you identify in your report?
`·9· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`10· · · · A.· · ·I can't recall specific code aspects as
`11· ·I sit here.· If I had the printouts, I could again
`12· ·look through them and see if I can find specific
`13· ·references.
`14· · · · Q.· · ·But you definitely didn't cite them in
`15· ·your report.· Correct?
`16· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`17· · · · A.· · ·I don't recall code citations in the
`18· ·report.· Again, I think that the documentation and
`19· ·so on speaks for itself with regard to responding to
`20· ·aspects of Dr. Rubin's report.
`21· · · · Q.· · ·I want to step back a moment and just
`22· ·make sure that I fully understand your infringement
`23· ·theory.· So in your infringement theory, the
`24· ·communications engine is the collector.· Correct?
`25· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 5 of 12
`
`Page 30
`
`·1· · · · A.· · ·Yes, I would say the collectors
`·2· ·correspond to the communication engines that obtain
`·3· ·downloadables.
`·4· · · · Q.· · ·And in your infringement theory, you've
`·5· ·identified the SmartCore as the ID generator.
`·6· ·Correct?
`·7· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·8· · · · A.· · ·Yes, I would say it's typically referred
`·9· ·to as the SmartCore.· That is what I refer to in the
`10· ·report.· You know, it's meant to correspond to that
`11· ·part of the component that does the ID generation.
`12· · · · Q.· · ·Sorry.· I'm just not sure I understand
`13· ·your answer.· You said it's meant to correspond to
`14· ·that part of the component that does the ID
`15· ·generation.· Do you mean that part of the SmartCore
`16· ·that does the ID generation?
`17· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`18· · · · A.· · ·So I think what I would say is what
`19· ·I've found in general in coding documentation is
`20· ·that people are sometimes fuzzy on, you know, what
`21· ·they say corresponds exactly to one component or
`22· ·another.· So I believe in the references typically
`23· ·it says that these actions take place in the
`24· ·SmartCore, but I wouldn't want to somehow limit
`25· ·myself if someone said, aha, it's actually like this
`
`Page 32
`
`·1· ·different than your previous question.
`·2· · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· So I'm trying to figure out
`·3· ·whether your infringement opinion covers both of
`·4· ·those situations or just one of them and, if just
`·5· ·one of them, which one?
`·6· · · · A.· · ·So if I recall, my understanding is that
`·7· ·-- Well, with respect to this claim element, it's
`·8· ·possible that both of those would correspond to the
`·9· ·claim element.· But when we're looking at other
`10· ·claim elements, I'm focused on the case where the
`11· ·script code is within the document or within the
`12· ·HTML.
`13· · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· So your opinion on the HTML
`14· ·example is that an HTML file that has a script
`15· ·that's embedded in the file meets the limitation of
`16· ·a downloadable that includes one or more references
`17· ·to software components required to be executed by
`18· ·the downloadable?
`19· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`20· · · · A.· · ·I think if I understood your question
`21· ·correctly, I think that's correct.· But, yes, if you
`22· ·had an HTML that had one or more script components,
`23· ·the script included that would correspond to a
`24· ·downloadable, I guess that meets the claim language,
`25· ·heh heh, that I think you were reciting.
`
`Page 31
`·1· ·little piece over here which we've named something
`·2· ·that looks different than the SmartCore.· My
`·3· ·understanding is it's typically referred to as the
`·4· ·SmartCore.
`·5· · · · Q.· · ·Now, in paragraph 54 you provide some
`·6· ·examples of downloadables that would satisfy claim
`·7· ·element 9(a).· Correct?
`·8· · · · A.· · ·That appears correct.
`·9· · · · Q.· · ·One of the examples you point to is an
`10· ·HTML file that includes a tag to a script.· Correct?
`11· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`12· · · · A.· · ·That would be one possible example, yes.
`13· · · · Q.· · ·Now, in your HTML example, are the tags
`14· ·embedded within the HTML or are they just
`15· ·referenced?
`16· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`17· · · · A.· · ·I think I'm not clear on your question.
`18· · · · Q.· · ·So you understand that in an HTML file,
`19· ·a script could be embedded in the HTML file or there
`20· ·could be a reference to a script that's external to
`21· ·the HTML file.· Correct?
`22· · · · A.· · ·Yes, I understand that.
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.· Sorry.
`24· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sorry.
`25· · · · A.· · ·Yes, I understand that.· That's slightly
`
`Page 33
`·1· · · · Q.· · ·Yeah, so I'm just trying to confirm that
`·2· ·it was your understanding that when the script is
`·3· ·actually embedded in the HTML file, that meets the
`·4· ·requirement that the downloadable include one or
`·5· ·more references to software components required to
`·6· ·be executed by the downloadable?
`·7· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·8· · · · A.· · ·So, as I discussed, the reference then
`·9· ·is given for instance by the tags that denote or
`10· ·describe or give reference to that what follows will
`11· ·be a code component.
`12· · · · Q.· · ·When the reference -- Strike that.
`13· · · · · · · ·When the script is embedded in the HTML
`14· ·file, how does it get fetched?
`15· · · · A.· · ·So I believe that's discussed for
`16· ·instance in paragraph 59, that there are various
`17· ·ways that can be fetched depending on how things are
`18· ·transmitted from the collector to the ATP appliance.
`19· · · · Q.· · ·Okay, so let's maybe just walk through
`20· ·this example.· So the ATP appliance receives an HTML
`21· ·file that has a script embedded within the file.
`22· ·Are you with me?
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· · ·At some point in the process, sure.
`25· · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· When does the fetching of that
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 6 of 12
`
`Page 38
`·1· · · · Q.· · ·And PDF documents also can have either a
`·2· ·software component or script embedded within the
`·3· ·document or contain a link to that component.
`·4· ·Correct?
`·5· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·6· · · · A.· · ·I think that's correct.· I have to
`·7· ·remember if PDF specifically, if I count that as
`·8· ·linking, but I think that's correct.
`·9· · · · Q.· · ·And does your infringement opinion apply
`10· ·only to situations where the PDF has the software
`11· ·component embedded within the document or does it
`12· ·also encompass situations where the PDF document
`13· ·might contain a link to the software component?
`14· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`15· · · · A.· · ·Again, so I think in this declaration
`16· ·I'm focused on the first case, where the script code
`17· ·is included within.· I do think that it is another
`18· ·infringing scenario when it has a link, but if I
`19· ·recall, that was something that came up in some of
`20· ·the claim 1 discussion that the judge had a
`21· ·different interpretation of some of the issues with
`22· ·the claim construction.· So I think here I'm
`23· ·limiting myself solely to the one case where the
`24· ·code is included within the PDF, but like I wouldn't
`25· ·want to say that I don't think the other case is not
`
`Page 39
`
`·1· ·an infringing scenario.
`·2· · · · Q.· · ·I understand.
`·3· · · · A.· · ·Right, so....
`·4· · · · Q.· · ·For purposes of --
`·5· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Counsel, please let him
`·6· ·finish his answer.
`·7· · · · A.· · ·So for the purposes of the declaration,
`·8· ·I believe I've focused specifically on that, the
`·9· ·case where the code is included.· But again I think,
`10· ·just as I was saying, I believe other cases also
`11· ·could be an infringing scenario.
`12· · · · Q.· · ·The third example you identify is a JAR
`13· ·file.· Correct?
`14· · · · A.· · ·Yes, although there are sort of subcases
`15· ·with respect to the JAR file.
`16· · · · Q.· · ·So in the JAR file example, is the JAR
`17· ·file itself considered the downloadable or is the
`18· ·main class file contained within the JAR file, the
`19· ·downloadable?
`20· · · · A.· · ·So each of those situations would
`21· ·correspond to infringing scenarios.
`22· · · · Q.· · ·Okay, so let's start with the scenario
`23· ·where the JAR file itself is considered the
`24· ·downloadable.· Okay?
`25· · · · A.· · ·Okay.
`
`Page 40
`
`·1· · · · Q.· · ·How do you execute a JAR file?
`·2· · · · A.· · ·It depends on the context.· In some
`·3· ·cases JAR files can be executed by clicking on them
`·4· ·after they've been downloaded.· In some cases a
`·5· ·component such as a browser could invoke the JAR
`·6· ·file depending on the setup or setting.
`·7· · · · Q.· · ·Could you provide me with an example of
`·8· ·how a JAR file would contain a reference to a
`·9· ·software component that's required to execute the
`10· ·JAR file?
`11· · · · A.· · ·So the way I would describe it is that
`12· ·in a JAR file you can have multiple class files,
`13· ·including the main class file that sort of starts or
`14· ·is the starting point for the code, and one class
`15· ·file can call upon functionality that appears in
`16· ·another class file.· And if it does so, then that
`17· ·additional class file I guess is a component or a
`18· ·referenced component that would need to be there for
`19· ·the program to run.
`20· · · · Q.· · ·It would need to be there for the main
`21· ·class file to run?
`22· · · · A.· · ·For the main --
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· · ·To run successfully, yes.· I mean,
`25· ·otherwise, if it can't find the necessary function,
`
`Page 41
`·1· ·that would cause a break or a halt or a crash or
`·2· ·some other sort of problem, depending on the
`·3· ·context.
`·4· · · · Q.· · ·So that makes sense to me for the
`·5· ·scenario where the class file is the downloadable,
`·6· ·but I'm trying to figure out for the scenario where
`·7· ·the JAR file itself you're considering the
`·8· ·downloadable.· I'm trying to figure out for that how
`·9· ·that JAR file contains a reference to a software
`10· ·component that's required to execute the JAR file as
`11· ·opposed to execute the class file contained within
`12· ·the JAR file.
`13· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`14· · · · A.· · ·I think I'm really not clear on your
`15· ·question, but I would say to the extent that I
`16· ·understand the question, it's just that the JAR file
`17· ·is the downloadable that contains multiple software
`18· ·components that are required in order for that
`19· ·downloadable to run or execute that'd have to be
`20· ·obtained and fetched as required by the claim
`21· ·elements.
`22· · · · Q.· · ·What is the function of a JAR file?
`23· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· · ·I'm really not clear on that question or
`25· ·what the meaning of that question is.
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 7 of 12
`
`Page 42
`
`·1· · · · Q.· · ·So what is a JAR file?
`·2· · · · A.· · ·A JAR file is generally a Java applet or
`·3· ·application or a program of some form in a
`·4· ·particular format.· It uses sort of what's referred
`·5· ·to as a zip format to collect, I guess, necessary
`·6· ·files and information.
`·7· · · · Q.· · ·Sorry.· So is it fair to say that a JAR
`·8· ·file is sort of like a zip file that is specific to
`·9· ·Java?
`10· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`11· · · · A.· · ·I would say that's typically how it's
`12· ·used.· I mean, I imagine it could be used in other
`13· ·ways or in other settings, but that would be a
`14· ·typical way in which it's used.
`15· · · · Q.· · ·So the JAR file often contains an applet
`16· ·along with the classes that are required to execute
`17· ·the applet?
`18· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`19· · · · A.· · ·I would say generally, yes, though it
`20· ·may contain other necessary information as well or
`21· ·other additional resources and so on besides the
`22· ·code itself.
`23· · · · Q.· · ·And it's your position that one would
`24· ·execute both the JAR file itself as well as the Java
`25· ·applet that is contained within the JAR file?· Those
`
`Page 44
`·1· ·figure out which one or ones we were talking about.
`·2· · · · Q.· · ·So I want the answer for both, but we
`·3· ·can start with:· In the example where the JAR file
`·4· ·itself is the downloadable, is it your opinion that
`·5· ·the software components are fetched when the class
`·6· ·files are exposed or extracted from the JAR file?
`·7· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·8· · · · A.· · ·So I think there again I would say
`·9· ·they're fetched.· You can think of it in two ways.
`10· ·One is simply the fetching, I think, as described in
`11· ·paragraph 59 where the SmartCore retrieves the
`12· ·downloadables from the collectors, but also one
`13· ·could also view the fetching, I think you used the
`14· ·term exposes -- right? -- that when one is doing the
`15· ·hash, obtaining that information in order to perform
`16· ·the hashing.
`17· · · · Q.· · ·Is it your understanding that the JAR
`18· ·file is exposed or extracted before it's hashed in
`19· ·the ATP appliance?
`20· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`21· · · · A.· · ·I mean, I think I would say it's
`22· ·exposed.· I don't believe that all the files are
`23· ·necessarily decompressed before the hashing.· That's
`24· ·not my recollection, but....· I don't think that was
`25· ·a factor in my infringement scenario.
`
`Page 43
`
`·1· ·are two separate things?
`·2· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·3· · · · A.· · ·I think I'm not clear on your question.
`·4· · · · Q.· · ·I'm just trying to -- Strike that.
`·5· · · · · · · ·Can you explain for me the difference
`·6· ·between executing the JAR file and executing the
`·7· ·applet or class files that are contained within the
`·8· ·JAR file?· Is there any distinction?
`·9· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`10· · · · A.· · ·So I think with reference to the claim
`11· ·here or claim language, one would consider in this
`12· ·scenario that we're talking about the JAR file to be
`13· ·the downloadable.· The downloadable includes
`14· ·references to software components which would
`15· ·include class files contained or associated with
`16· ·that downloadable.
`17· · · · Q.· · ·With regard to the JAR example, is it
`18· ·your opinion that the software components are
`19· ·fetched when the class files are exposed or
`20· ·extracted from the JAR file?
`21· · · · A.· · ·So sorry.· Again, which scenario now are
`22· ·we talking about?· Are we still on this scenario?
`23· · · · Q.· · ·The JAR scenario.
`24· · · · A.· · ·So I think as I said, there are two
`25· ·scenarios in the JAR scenario and I just want to
`
`Page 45
`·1· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Counsel, we've been going a
`·2· ·little over an hour, so whenever --
`·3· · · · · · · ·MS. CARSON:· Sure.· I'll finish up this
`·4· ·line of questioning, then we can take a break.
`·5· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·6· · · · Q.· · ·What is the difference between exposing
`·7· ·the files and I think you use decompressing them?
`·8· · · · A.· · ·So I understood exposing.· I sort of
`·9· ·didn't -- I think that was the term you used, just
`10· ·generally having the information available.· Whether
`11· ·that would be in decompressed or compressed form I
`12· ·don't think matters or I wasn't distinguishing those
`13· ·when you were using the term "exposing."
`14· · · · Q.· · ·I think you used the term "exposing" in
`15· ·your report, which is where I got that.
`16· · · · A.· · ·Oh, okay.· If you could point me to
`17· ·that, that would be helpful.
`18· · · · · · · ·MS. CARSON:· Why don't we actually take
`19· ·a break and then when we come back, I'll have it.
`20· ·Okay?
`21· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Ten minutes after
`22· ·10:00, going off the record, end of disk number 1.
`23· · · · · · · ·(Short recess taken.)
`24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· 10:23, back on the
`25· ·record with disk number 2.
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 417-2 Filed 04/05/19 Page 8 of 12
`
`Page 46
`
`·1· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·2· · · · Q.· · ·Before the break we were talking about
`·3· ·JAR files and I want to point you to paragraph 54
`·4· ·towards the end.· And in that paragraph starting
`·5· ·around line 14, you state "The JAR file includes
`·6· ·multiple class files which when retrieved can cause
`·7· ·multiple class files to be exposed from a single
`·8· ·file so that they can be retrieved to build the Java
`·9· ·applet."· Do you see that?
`10· · · · A.· · ·Yes.
`11· · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· So I was trying to get
`12· ·clarification about whether you're saying here that
`13· ·the retrieval or fetching of these components occurs
`14· ·when it's exposed?
`15· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`16· · · · A.· · ·No, I don't believe that that is --
`17· ·I think this is just a description of the
`18· ·functionality of how Java files look or, sorry, JAR
`19· ·files look or behave.· In particular, this at least
`20· ·discussion is in reference to 9(a), which is even
`21· ·before, if I'm remembering right, the fetching step,
`22· ·so this is just discussing that there are multiple
`23· ·components.
`24· · · · Q.· · ·Okay.· So in your opinion the fetching
`25· ·step is satisfied when the compressed JAR file is
`
`Page 48
`·1· ·hypothetical or other scenarios where one could put
`·2· ·decompression as part of the fetching step, but I
`·3· ·don't think it's necessary for the fetching step.
`·4· · · · Q.· · ·And you're not relying on that in your
`·5· ·infringement opinion to satisfy the fetching step?
`·6· · · · · · · ·MS. HEDVAT:· Objection, form.
`·7· · · · A.· · ·I don't recall discussing decompression
`·8· ·as being part of the requirement and I don't believe
`·9· ·it's required for part of the fetching step.
`10· · · · Q.· · ·When you use the word decompression, is
`11· ·there any difference between decompressing a JAR
`12· ·file and extracting the files contained within a JAR
`13· ·file?
`14· · · · A.· · ·I would say that would depend on the
`15· ·scenario or the context.
`16· · · · Q.· · ·Could you provide an example of how that
`17· ·would depend on the scenario or the context?
`18· · · · A.· · ·I mean, hypothetically it would just
`19· ·depend on what you're