Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-11 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-11 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 6
`
`10/8/2019
`
`Network-1 Technologies, v. Google LLC and Youtube LLC
`Confidential
`
`Patrick Breslin
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`-----------------------------x
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,:
` :
` Plaintiff, :
` : Civil Action Nos.
` vs. :
` : 1:14-cv-09558
`GOOGLE, INC., and :
`YOUTUBE, LLC, : 1:14-cv-2396
` :
` Defendants. :
`-----------------------------x
`
` Washington, D.C.
`
` Tuesday, October 8, 2019
`
` ** CONFIDENTIAL **
`
`VIDEOTAPED Deposition of:
` PATRICK BRESLIN,
`the witness, was called for examination by counsel
`for the Plaintiff, pursuant to notice, commencing
`at 8:59 a.m., at the law offices of Williams &
`Connolly LLP, 712 Twelfth Street, NW, Washington,
`D.C., before Dawn A. Jaques, CSR, CLR, and Notary
`Public in and for the District of Columbia.
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-11 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 6
`
`10/8/2019
`
`Network-1 Technologies, v. Google LLC and Youtube LLC
`Confidential
`
`Patrick Breslin
`
`Page 142
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`project.
` BY MR. KROEGER:
` Q And was the server code kept
`proprietary? Strike that.
` Was the server code ever revealed
`publicly to your knowledge?
` A Not to my knowledge.
` Q Do you still have a copy of the server
`code?
` A I don't, not that I know of, but I
`think that it exists.
` Q Do you know if Sean Ward would have a
`copy of the server code?
` A Yeah, I think Sean would.
` Q So if we go back to Exhibit 5 --
`Exhibit 6 for a second, the Milestones and Goals
`Projections document.
` A Yes.
` Q It's fair to say you don't know
`exactly when this document was generated, correct?
` A Well, I have a good -- better sense
`now that it was generated probably in September of
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-11 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 6
`
`10/8/2019
`
`Network-1 Technologies, v. Google LLC and Youtube LLC
`Confidential
`
`Patrick Breslin
`
`Page 159
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q So let's turn to the second page,
`which has the Bates stamp number TRM_201.
` A Mm-hmm.
` Q And this is an email from Sean Ward to
`you, correct?
` A Yeah, I'm the direct recipient there,
`yep.
` Q So if you look in the email about --
`about three sentences in, there's one that starts,
`"We do NOT," and "not" is in all caps.
` Do you see that?
` A Yeah.
` Q So Mr. Ward says, "We do NOT want to
`get into a public examination of the exact scaling
`coefficients of our system (in part because I
`haven't computed them yet, and won't have time to
`formally for a while), and also because that
`brings us into a disclosure level that I'm not
`comfortable with." Do you see that?
` A Yeah.
` Q Do you know why Mr. Ward was not
`comfortable -- one, didn't want to make this
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-11 Filed 11/11/20 Page 5 of 6
`
`10/8/2019
`
`Network-1 Technologies, v. Google LLC and Youtube LLC
`Confidential
`
`Patrick Breslin
`
`Page 160
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`information public?
` A Yeah, because it's proprietary. I
`mean, he describes below too, "HOW we scale is an
`important secret sauce."
` Q And he actually uses those words,
`right, "secret sauce"?
` A Yeah.
` Q And so it's fair to say this
`information was never made public, correct?
` MR. DANG: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Not -- no -- yes. Say
`it -- maybe you should ask it again.
` BY MR. KROEGER:
` Q Was the information ever made public?
` MR. DANG: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: When you say "the
`information," what information?
` BY MR. KROEGER:
` Q The secret sauce about how the system
`scales.
` A So my answer is yes, it was never made
`public.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-11 Filed 11/11/20 Page 6 of 6
`
`10/8/2019
`
`Network-1 Technologies, v. Google LLC and Youtube LLC
`Confidential
`
`Patrick Breslin
`
`Page 165
`
`CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
` I, DAWN A. JAQUES, a Notary Public in and for
`the District of Columbia, before whom the foregoing
`deposition was taken, do hereby certify that witness
`whose testimony appears in the foregoing pages was
`duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness
`was taken by me in shorthand at the time and place
`mentioned in the caption hereof and thereafter
`reduced to typewriting under my supervision; that
`said deposition is a true record of the testimony
`given by said witness; that I am neither counsel
`for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties
`to the action in which this deposition is taken;
`and, further, that I am not a relative or employee
`of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
`thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in
`the outcome of the actions.
`
`__________________________
`Dawn A. Jaques, CSR, CLR
`Notary Public in and for
`District of Columbia
`
`My commission expires:
`January 14, 2020
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
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
