Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39228 Page 1 of 180
`
` 388
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 17CV183-CAB-BGS
` )
` vs. ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
` )
`ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O.,) THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2020
` )
` Defendants. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reporter's Transcript of Jury Trial Day 3, Volume 3
`Pages 388-567
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P r o c e e d i n g s r e p o r t e d b y s t e n o g r a p h y , t r a n s c r i p t p r o d u c e d b y
`c o m p u t e r a s s i s t e d s o f t w a r e
`
`M a u r a l e e R a m i r e z , R P R , C S R N o . 1 1 6 7 4
` F e d e r a l O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
`o r d e r t r a n s c r i p t @ g m a i l . c o m
`
`
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
` 388
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 17CV183-CAB-BGS
` )
` vs. ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
` )
`ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O.,) THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2020
` )
` Defendants. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reporter's Transcript of Jury Trial Day 3, Volume 3
`Pages 388-567
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P r o c e e d i n g s r e p o r t e d b y s t e n o g r a p h y , t r a n s c r i p t p r o d u c e d b y
`c o m p u t e r a s s i s t e d s o f t w a r e
`
`M a u r a l e e R a m i r e z , R P R , C S R N o . 1 1 6 7 4
` F e d e r a l O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
`o r d e r t r a n s c r i p t @ g m a i l . c o m
`
`
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39229 Page 2 of 180
`
` 389
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For The Plaintiff: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
` Paul Andre
` James Hannah
` Lisa Kobialka
` Kristopher Kaskins
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
` Cristina Lynn Martinez
` 1177 Avenue of the Americas
` New York, New York 10036
`
`
`
`For the Defendants: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
` Nicola A. Pisano
` Scott A. Penner
` Regis Worley
` 12255 El Camino Real, Suite 100
` San Diego, California 92130.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39230 Page 3 of 180
`
` 390
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`San Diego, California; Thursday, March 12, 2020; 8:30 a.m.
`(Case called)
`(Appearances stated)
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, before we get started, I would
`like to do a housekeeping matter with claims we are going to be
`dismissing with prejudice, if it's okay to do it now.
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. ANDRE: So for the '844 patent, we will continue
`to assert claims, 7 and 15. We'll be dismissing claims 11 and
`16 with prejudice. For the '086 patent, we'll be asserting in
`this case, claims 24 and 42. We'll be dismissing with
`prejudice claims 1, 2, 9 and 10. For the '780 patent, we'll
`retain claims 9 and 13. We'll dismiss with prejudice claim 18.
`For the '621 patent, we want to assert in this case, claims 1,
`6, 7 and 10. We'll dismiss with prejudice claims 5, 11, 13 and
`14. And for the '755 patent, we'll be asserting in this trial,
`claims 3, 5 and 6. And we'll dismiss with prejudice, claims 7
`and 8. We're doing this in good faith to streamline the case
`in order to be able get within the time limits we've been
`placed with. And we appreciate the Court's indulgence.
`THE COURT: Thank you. Anything?
`MR. PISANO: Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you.
`THE COURT: All right. Then the Court will make that
`notation as set forth, the claims that you've indicated are
`dismissed with prejudice. In light of dismissal with prejudice
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39231 Page 4 of 180
`
` 391
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`of claims in the patents that have expired, the defendants no
`longer have a reasonable apprehension of being sued on them
`again in the future since any products that you could have
`asserted against them are currently on the market and have been
`on the market now since the expiration. So your dec relief
`action for invalidity is now dismissed for lack of subject
`matter jurisdiction since there is no longer a case in
`controversy. So I expect that might result in you streamlining
`some of your invalidity case going forward. All right. Great.
`Now I've got your nightly filing, but I understand you
`may have resolved some of these issues.
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, the deposition designations
`will not be going forward until next week. I think we can
`probably work through most of them. We'll change the
`designations. And to the extent we can't, we'll bring the
`witnesses live next week. If we can't reach accommodations --
`it was one-or-two-minute clips of deposition. We tried for
`time expediency because it doesn't makes sense to bring a
`witness live for one-and-a-half minutes of deposition, but if
`that's what the defense wants, that's what they'll get.
`The only thing left on your schedule is the
`Mitzenmacher exhibits.
`THE COURT: Right. I have your representation that
`you understand that if he wants to use exhibits that are the
`result of testing on current products, you all need to lay a
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39232 Page 5 of 180
`
` 392
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`foundation, not just to have him say oh, yeah I understand
`these things were at the infringement time, but actually how he
`knows that.
`MR. HANNAH: Absolutely.
`THE COURT: And I'll allow the testing.
`MR. HANNAH: Thank you.
`MR. PENNER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Anything else?
`MR. PENNER: Actually, there was one issue with one of
`the slides to Dr. Mitzenmacher's presentations as well, Your
`Honor. Slides 56 and 57 related to hashing.
`THE COURT: So the purpose of this is what? I mean,
`it's a fact, I guess, yes, a hash can be built from multiple
`hashes. You can assemble a final hash. But in this case, that
`doesn't really comply with the Court's claim construction. So
`is it just explanatory?
`MR. HANNAH: It's explanatory explaining the hashes.
`This is actually relevant. Their products do do hashes of
`multiple hashes and then has a final hash. He's not talking
`about claim construction or anything like that. He's giving a
`background of how hashes are formed. We'll lay foundation for
`it. He's the expert in hashing and how these things work.
`It's just a demonstrative to demonstrate how hashing works and
`explain the concept to the jury.
`MR. PENNER: It seems -- I mean, building hash with
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39233 Page 6 of 180
`
` 393
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`hash seems designed to prejudice the jury since the Court's
`claim construction expressly forbids that as being part of the
`methodology by which they can prove infringement. So it seems
`it's designed to confuse the jury and doesn't offer them any
`benefit.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not going to exclude it, but if it's
`contrary to the Court's claim construction, the Court will be
`inclined to get a request from counsel for some sort of
`instruction to the jury that they should disregard that for
`purposes of construing how the infringement operates in this
`case.
`
`MR. PENNER: And I may make that objection at the
`time, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. PENNER: Thank you.
`THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
`MR. ANDRE: Nothing from the plaintiff, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Current events of last night and the
`closing of any travel from Europe to the United States for the
`next 30 days, does that affect any of your witnesses now?
`MR. PENNER: At this point in time, your Honor, in
`light of the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action, it
`does not.
`THE COURT: Okay. Good. Then let's get the jury in.
`They should all be here.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39234 Page 7 of 180
`
` 394
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(Pause in the proceedings)
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. I trust you're
`all feeling well.
`Dr. Cole, you can have a seat. I remind you, sir, you
`are still under oath.
`We are going to continue this morning now with the
`cross-examination of Dr. Cole by ESET.
`CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Good morning, Dr. Cole. My name is Nic Pisano. So, Dr.
`Cole, have you ever --
`By the way, this is okay? You can hear me?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. PISANO: Okay. Good.
`THE COURT: She'll let you know.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Dr. Cole, have you ever coded anti-malware software?
`A
`I'm sorry. I didn't hear the first part of that question.
`Q
`Sir, have you ever coded anti-malware software?
`A
`I haven't directly coded it from scratch, but while I was
`CTO of McAfee, I was involved in reviewing the code, analyzing
`the code, and modifying portions of the code.
`Q
`When were you the CTO of McAfee?
`A
`I believe that was 2009 to 2011.
`Q
`Thank you. Dr. Cole, the claims of the '844 patent use the
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39235 Page 8 of 180
`
` 395
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`term "Downloadable," right?
`A
`That is correct.
`Q
`And the Court has construed a Downloadable as -- let's see,
`perhaps -- Mr. Jay, can you bring up the demonstrative number
`1, slide 1.
`So this is claim 1, sir, correct? Claims 1 and 15 of the
`'844 patent?
`A
`That looks to be correct.
`Q
`Okay. And for the definition in claim 1, you have linking
`by -- the claim requires linking by the inspector. The first
`Downloadable.
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, just an objection to this
`demonstrative. It's not set out properly. The three elements
`in claim 1 as written in the patent and 2 in claim 15, and he's
`kind of rewritten them to be 2 and 4.
`THE COURT: I'm sorry?
`MR. PISANO: Your Honor, let's skip that now.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Let me just ask you, Dr. Cole, does the Court's instruction
`of the term "Downloadable" include the word "small".
`A
`I believe that to be correct.
`Q
`Now you were deposed in this action, correct?
`A
`That is correct.
`Q
`And in your deposition, you are unable to give an exact
`size of what -- exact size of a file that would constitute
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39236 Page 9 of 180
`
` 396
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`small; isn't that correct, sir?
`A
`I wasn't able to give an exact number because the
`definition of small is an executable that doesn't require
`installation when it runs on your system, and I believe I did
`give that during my deposition.
`Q
`Okay. So in your deposition, you were asked how small does
`it have to be before it reaches the level that is now within
`the ambit of the claim construction for the '844 patent, right,
`sir?
`A
`Can I get a copy of the deposition transcript if you're
`going to refer to that? I don't have that memorized.
`Q
`I'm going to show it to you in a minute, but I'm just
`asking you: Do you recall what you said -- what you just told
`the jury right now is what you recall having told your examiner
`during your deposition, that it depends because it's an
`executable file? There's no definition? Excuse me. What was
`your testimony just now?
`A
`I believe there was about four or five pages of it. So I
`want to make sure we're not taking it out of content, but a
`small on Downloadable, someone skilled in the art is going to
`deem that as a Downloadable that doesn't require installation.
`So if you go to a website, it's going to run without
`installation. And this is in my depo where I compare it to
`something like Word that does require installation where you
`have to install it, go next, next, next. And Word would not be
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39237 Page 10 of 180
`
` 397
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`a small executable. But something that doesn't require
`installation would be a small executable.
`Q
`So, Mr. Jay, could you bring up the -- his deposition
`testimony at 168, 17 to 25?
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, can I approach with a copy of
`his transcript so he can actually put it in context instead of
`taking the clips out of order.
`MR. PISANO: Your Honor, I'm going to present his
`testimony to him right now. It's on the monitor.
`THE COURT: It's fine. He can proceed this way.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`So on the monitor, could you take a look at your testimony
`here? Was this your testimony read at deposition?
`A
`This is part of my testimony. And I believe the context of
`this is they were trying to ask me for an exact number or size
`of what a small executable is. And as I illustrated, the
`definition is based on whether it's installed or not, not an on
`an exact number.
`MR. PISANO: Your Honor, I would like to publish this
`for the jury, please.
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Dr. Cole, when you were asked that how small does an
`executable have to be before it reaches the level now within
`the ambit of the claim construction of the '844 patent, you
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39238 Page 11 of 180
`
` 398
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`didn't say anything about installation, did you? In fact, you
`said: It's one of those things where you can tell something
`really large, you can tell something small, but it doesn't give
`you an exact number.
`And then you testified: You would have to look at the
`scenario to see if it fits under the context of the
`Downloadable. Do you see that?
`A
`I do see this. But, once again, this is a small subset. if
`you look at entire section --
`MR. PISANO: Yeah. You will.
`THE WITNESS: And I do talk about what I just said.
`You have to be careful not taking things out of context.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`We're going to be very careful to do that, sir. I'm going
`to show you all your other definitions, and you point out to me
`where you talk about installations in there. So let's go to
`the clip at 169, 1115. Put that up for our purposes?
`THE COURT: You can put it up. It's his deposition.
`MR. PISANO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Dr. Cole, you were asked in what context -- in the previous
`clip, you said you have to look at the scenario to see if it
`fits under the context of Downloadable.
`And then this question was: What context would I have to
`be looking at in order to know if it can be used?
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39239 Page 12 of 180
`
` 399
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`And your answer, sir, was: Just on what you're downloading
`what is the size relative to other things that are being
`downloaded.
`Right? That's what you said?
`In this one particular question, that is what I said. But,
`A
`once again, I just want to caveat, it's part of four or five
`pages in which the context is really based on whether you
`install it or not is the criteria for small.
`Q
`I see. That is now your criteria for small, sitting here
`in this courtroom, is it depends on what you're installing; is
`that correct, sir?
`A
`I do not believe that's what I said. If you have an
`executable that doesn't require installation -- so like if you
`go to a website and the executable runs on your web page,
`there's no installation, that would be considered small. If
`it's something that requires installation, like Word or a
`program we have to click next, next, next, that would not be
`considered small.
`Q
`So, Dr. Cole, when did you come to this realization that
`the size of the Downloadable, whether it's small or not depends
`on installation? Because as I said, we'll go through your
`clips and we'll see what you had to say in your deposition.
`Wasn't it true, sir, that you weren't able to provide any
`type of metric that would allow a person of skill in the art to
`know how small -- or compare the relative size of a file to
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39240 Page 13 of 180
`
` 400
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`determine if it meets the definition of small?
`A
`I do not agree with that.
`Q
`Okay.
`A
`A lot of the focus of the deposition was trying to pinpoint
`an exact number, which as stated, isn't the right criteria
`that's used in determining small.
`Q
`Let's bring up deposition clip number 3 at 11 to 20. That
`can go right to the jury. So the question was: You had thrown
`out some ranges, right?
`And the question was: If it's -- between 40 megs and a
`couple of gigs is the range you've just given me; is that
`right?
`And your answer was: Well, like I said, it's relative.
`Give me some files and we can look at them to see small, but
`it's typically something that is not very large, that small
`megs. It's not going to be an exact number, as you said here
`today, but you can go one meg over and, boom, it's no longer
`small. It's just malware that's typically downloaded that's
`not super large like multiple gigs.
`And there, you didn't say anything about installation
`either, right?
`A
`Once again, if you look the at the questioning, the
`questioning I'm having in the depo is stalking specific
`numbers. So this is the context during deposition, you need to
`make sure you always answer that question. I'm being asked a
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39241 Page 14 of 180
`
` 401
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`specific number. But as you can see in my answer, it's
`consistent with what I said this morning. It's not going to be
`an exact. It's whether it requires installation or not, and
`typically small would run in realtime, like embedded in a
`website.
`Q
`So are you aware of any metrics provided in the claims of
`the '844 patent or the specification itself that would tell one
`of skill in the art how to apply your relative size analysis,
`or your installation analysis, if you'd like?
`A
`In going through the patent and reading, we focused on the
`claims of the patent, but if you look at the patent, there's
`introductory, background, detail description. There's a lot of
`other information in there. If you read that, it's clear when
`they say "Downloadable," what they're referring to is content
`that's embedded in website and content that doesn't require
`installation.
`So one of the things we use is the concept of a POSITA,
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art. So someone who is skilled
`in the art of cyber security reading the patent, they would
`understand that's what they're referring to as a Downloadable.
`Q
`So, Dr. Cole, you've just thrown out a whole lot of
`concepts that are legal concepts. You're not a patent lawyer,
`are you?
`A
`I'm not a patent lawyer.
`Q
`But you do believe you understand the patent law with
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39242 Page 15 of 180
`
` 402
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`respect to a person of skill in the art?
`A
`I believe that I am a person skilled in the art. And I was
`informed by counsel that when I'm reading the patent, I should
`use it from a perspective of somebody skilled in the art, like
`myself.
`Q
`So you also read the prosecution history for the patent,
`right?
`A
`Yes, I did.
`Q
`As part of your review to understand what the patent
`describes, right?
`A
`Yes.
`Q
`Good. We're going to get back to that. But, first, let's
`get back to small. So your idea of what is small today is that
`it depends on what you're installing. Now would that
`installation -- would that size change as a function of time,
`or would it be the same now in 2020 as it was when the patent
`was filed in 1997?
`A
`Just one clarification. You keep saying that I'm saying it
`depends on what's being installed, but I don't believe that's
`what I said. I think that's mischaracterizing. What I'm
`saying is, small executable is something that doesn't require
`installation compared to large executables that do require
`installation. But in response to your question, I do not
`believe that would change. A small executable today, five
`years ago, ten years ago would be an executable that doesn't
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39243 Page 16 of 180
`
` 403
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`require installation when it runs on your computer.
`Q
`Okay. So let's put up deposition clip 169, 16 to 24.
`There you were asked the question, would it -- would the size--
`would "small" change based on what was given -- the year it was
`given that this relative size of files -- excuse me.
`Would the change -- would that change be based on the year
`it was given, the relative size of the files have they changed
`over the course of 20 years of downloads? That was the
`question. Has the size changed as to what you would think is
`small; has it changed over 20 years of downloads?
`And what your testimony was: Once again, you would have to
`ask the Court. They came up with the claims construction. I'm
`just using their definition of small executable. So depending
`upon the speed of the computers, I guess small could
`potentially change.
`So did small change to your understanding with time, or has
`it been fixed?
`A
`So my definition of small that I use both in the depo and
`now doesn't change, and that's a small executable that doesn't
`require installation.
`During the depo, the focus was a lot on this number. They
`wanted to pinpoint me, was it 20 meg? Was it 30 meg? They
`wanted a specific number. And they're focusing on a number,
`asking me could that number, the size of the file, whether it's
`20 or 30 meg, change. And that's what I'm referring to, but
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39244 Page 17 of 180
`
` 404
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`the number isn't my definition. My definition is whether it
`requires installation.
`Q
`Okay. So if I'm the manufacturer of the product and I sell
`you a product, I don't know what you're going to download,
`right? Wouldn't that be true? If I say you can download an
`executable and you're saying you can download it and install
`something, are you saying that the -- whether the executable is
`small or not depends on what the customer downloads?
`A
`No. It's based on the content. So if anyone is building a
`product today that's going to filter on web content, they would
`know that web content that's going to be embedded in a web page
`that you would download from the web, they're going to know
`that doesn't require installation, and they're going to know
`that that's a small executable versus whether you're going to
`go down and download a full application like Word or Excel,
`they would clearly know that that requires installation, and
`that would not be considered a small executable.
`Q
`So doesn't the size download that you're going to install,
`isn't that determined by the speed of your computer, sir, and
`how fast your internet connection is?
`A
`If you're back to size, yes, the size depends on the
`computer download. But, once again, that's not the definition
`of small executable.
`Q
`So to you, size doesn't matter; is that right?
`A
`With small executable, we're using whether it requires
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39245 Page 18 of 180
`
` 405
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`installation or not, so the size or number, that doesn't matter
`in determining small.
`Q
`Hmm. Okay. So what effect does the speed of the computer
`have on the size of whether you considered a file as being
`small within the context of the '844 patent?
`A
`I did not utilize the speed of the computer on determining
`whether something is small. Once again, my definition of small
`is an executable typically embedded in web content that doesn't
`require installation when it runs on the client computer.
`Q
`It doesn't require installation? Is that your testimony?
`A
`Correct.
`Q
`Oh, okay. But you're pretty sure that the word "install"
`or "installation" is somewhere within the context of the '844
`patent; is that right?
`A
`If you read the patent, it talks about Downloadables being
`executables that are embedded in web content, that are embedded
`in components. And, once again, as someone skilled in the art,
`you would recognize that those components that are referred in
`the '844 do not require installation in order to run on the
`computer.
`Q
`But isn't this Downloadable supposed to be executable or
`interpretable?
`A
`That is correct.
`Q
`Hmm. Okay. So let's see. So you do not believe that
`small changes based upon the year in which the patent is being
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39246 Page 19 of 180
`
` 406
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`asserted, right?
`A
`That is correct.
`Q
`Let's bring up depo clip 176 to -70. There you, again,
`said: I didn't say that. You said: The construction will
`stay the same. That the construction -- a small executable,
`what is considered small might change, but that doesn't change
`the claimed construction.
`So do you have an opinion as to whether in the context of
`the Court's construction that word "small" changes with time?
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, could he see the question?
`THE WITNESS: I'm trying to read the question. An
`answer without a question is a little hard.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`I'm just focusing on your answer that said the
`construction--
`THE COURT: All right. Counsel, why don't we -- it's
`on the screen. Let him read it.
`MR. PISANO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE WITNESS: I believe you need to look at the
`question where it's asking: Is it your understanding that the
`construction of the term is allowed to change based upon the
`year. I respond: I didn't say that. The construction will
`stay the same.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Right.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39247 Page 20 of 180
`
` 407
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Which is consistent with what we were talking about this
`A
`morning.
`Q
`Right.
`A
`That's the construction of small executable.
`Q
`But small might change. That's what you said, right?
`A
`The reason I keep asking for the deposition transcript is
`because in context, this is the section where they're still
`talking about pinning me down to an exact number. So when I'm
`going in and saying that small might change and referring to
`that exact number, whether it's 20 meg or 30 meg, on what they
`keep trying to pin me down on.
`Q
`Dr. Cole, your definition of small executable, some things
`might be small -- some executables are covered and others
`aren't; is that right? Because you're not willing to give me a
`definition of small. So some are, some aren't? Are all
`executables that you download small?
`MR. ANDRE: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative. He
`did give a definition of small.
`THE COURT: Sustained. It was compound.
`MR. PISANO: My apologies.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`Dr. Cole, under your definition of small, does any
`Downloadable constitute a small Downloadable?
`A
`That's a circular question because you're saying is any
`small Downloadable, but the Court's construction of
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39248 Page 21 of 180
`
` 408
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Downloadable is small, so I'm --
`Q
`Right. But -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm trying to find
`out how large is small. Can you give me a number for how large
`small is?
`A
`As I said multiple times, the definition of small is not
`based on a number. It's based on whether it requires
`installation or not, not all executables are going to be
`Downloadables because there could be some large executables and
`those are going to be Downloadables. But based on the Court's
`claim construction, any executable that is small that doesn't
`require installation, which from an expert is a very clear,
`concise definition is going to fit the definition of
`Downloadable.
`Q
`So, Dr. Cole, for the Downloadables that are executable
`that can you download, how large can it be and still be small?
`A
`Once again, you want to make the definition of small based
`on a number. And it's not based on a number. It's whether it
`requires installation. So we're not going to say if 30 meg is
`small, 50 is large. We're going look and say does it require
`installation, and if it requires installation, it's large and
`it's not a Downloadable like Word, which I do cover in my
`deposition; or if it doesn't requires installation, then it's
`small, but we're not using an exact number as a definition.
`Q
`Well, Dr. Cole, at your deposition, you did actually give a
`number for what you would not consider small, right? You said
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39249 Page 22 of 180
`
` 409
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`40 megs?
`A
`Once, again, can I see the context of the deposition
`transcript?
`Q
`Sure. Let's put up 173, 7 to 10. The question was: What
`is a reasonable size? And the answer was: It could be a few
`megs, it could be 20 megs, it could be 40 megs, like I said,
`something that's not multiple gigs or really large.
`So you, at least, agree that small is not more than 40
`megs?
`A
`I believe in looking at this, you're miscategorizing my
`testimony. I'm saying it could be. It could be a few megs, it
`could be 20 megs. It's applying -- once again, I'm at a little
`bit of a disadvantage because I don't have the full deposition
`transcript. If you read all the pages together, you would see
`that they're trying to pin down to a number when the definition
`isn't based on number. It's based on whether it requires
`installation.
`Q
`Okay. Let's put up slide number 6 in the demonstratives.
`MR. PISANO: Any objections, Counsel?
`MR. ANDRE: I have no objection to slide number 6.
`MR. PISANO: Your Honor, I would like to publish that
`for the jury.
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`BY MR. PISANO:
`Q
`I haven't heard you give me a number for how large is too
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39250 Page 23 of 180
`
` 410
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`large to be small. But let's take a quick walk down memory
`lane here. Back in 1996, most computers would have been
`running Windows 95, right?
`A
`If you represent -- I don't remember the exact year or so.
`There are different Windows operating systems. But that sounds
`about right and that does bring back good old memories of
`programming.
`Q
`Okay. I'll represent to you that it was released in August
`1995. Do you recall what the average size of a hard drive of a
`new computer was back in 1996?
`A
`I do not recall offhand.
`Q
`Does about 2 gigabytes sound right to you?
`A
`That could be -- that could be relative. Once again, I
`have worked in the field for a long time, so remembering my
`hard drive back in '96, I couldn't recall for that, but if we
`want to say 2 gig, that seems okay.
`Q
`In the demonstrative, there is a picture of something
`called a floppy drive. You remember those, 3 and a half inch
`floppy drives?
`A
`Yes, I do.
`Q
`Generally, those held about 1.44 megabytes, right?
`A
`That I do know and do remember, yes.
`Q
`Being a expert in cyber security, as you are, you would
`recall back in 1996, the newest computer modems that were
`available to the public employed the V34 standard, which was
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 805 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.39251 Page 24 of 180
`
` 411
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`33.6 kilobits per second, right?
`A
`Once again, if you represent. I don't remember the exact
`speed of the modems. I know they weren't super fast in '96,
`but I don't remember the exact speeds.
`Q
`Okay. Nowadays, you would agree that advertised download
`speeds for broadband modems are 200 megabits per second, right?
`A
`That sounds about reasonable.
`Q
`So if you divide 200 megabits by 33.6 kilobits per second,
`download speeds today are about 6,000 times faster than they
`were back in 1996, right?
`A
`I will trust your math. Just don't tell me kids I can't do
`math on the fly. I don't let them use calculators. So I would
`need paper and pencil. But I trust that math is correct.
`Q
`Okay. So, Dr. Cole, would you agree at least in the
`context of t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
