Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 279
`
`Exhibit 1
`(Partially Redacted)
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 279
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against -
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC and YOUTUBE, LLC
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`14 Civ. 2396 (PGG)
`
`14 Civ. 9558 (PGG)
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEY’S EYES
`ONLY
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. TREVOR DARRELL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 279
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`III.
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF INVALIDITY
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B. Presumption of Validity
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`E. Written Description and Enablement
`
`F. Patentable Subject Matter
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Internet and Content Distribution
`
`B. Media Content Recognition/Identification
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Extracting features from audio
`
`Extracting features from images and video
`
`Comparison of query fingerprints to reference fingerprints
`
`Faster search algorithms
`
`VIII.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`IX.
`
`THE PRIOR ART SYSTEMS OVER WHICH THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ARE INVALID
`
`1
`
`4
`
`6
`
`6
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`12
`
`13
`
`13
`
`14
`
`14
`
`26
`
`28
`
`36
`
`44
`
`48
`
`57
`
`
`64
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 279
`
`
`
`A. Clango
`
`B. FreeAmp
`
`X.
`
`THE INVALIDITY OF THE ’988 PATENT
`
`A. Anticipation of Claim 17
`
`I.
`
`Anticipation by Clango
`
`i. A method for associating an electronic work with an action,
`the electronic work comprising at least one of audio and
`video, the method comprising
`
`ii. electronically extracting features from the electronic work
`
`iii. electronically determining an identification of the electronic
`work based on the extracted features
`
`iv. wherein the identification is based on a non-exhaustive
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`v. electronically determining an action based on the
`identification of the electronic work and electronically
`performing the action
`
`vi. wherein the non-exhaustive search is sublinear
`
`vii. Clango Summary
`
`B. Obviousness of Claim 17
`
`I.
`
`FreeAmp
`
`i. A method for associating an electronic work with an action,
`the electronic work comprising at least one of audio and
`video, the method comprising
`
`ii. electronically extracting features from the electronic work
`
`iii. electronically determining an identification of the electronic
`work based on the extracted features
`
`iv. wherein the identification is based on a non-exhaustive
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`64
`
`76
`
`88
`
`88
`
`89
`
`
`
`90
`
`93
`
`
`99
`
`
`102
`
`
`
`118
`
`121
`
`123
`
`124
`
`124
`
`
`
`124
`
`129
`
`
`134
`
`
`137
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 5 of 279
`
`
`
`v. electronically determining an action based on the
`identification of the electronic work and electronically
`performing the action.
`
`vi. wherein the non-exhaustive search is sublinear
`
`vii. Obviousness of Claim 17 over FreeAmp
`
`II.
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Arya
`
`i. The Arya paper suggests a non-exhaustive, sublinear search
`to identify a neighbor
`
`ii. A POSA would have been motivated to combine Arya with
`FreeAmp, with a reasonable expectation of success
`
`III.
`
`Chen in combination with one of Clango or Arya
`
`i. A method for associating an electronic work with an action,
`the electronic work comprising at least one of audio and
`video, the method comprising
`
`ii. electronically extracting features from the electronic work
`
`iii. electronically determining an identification of the electronic
`work based on the extracted features
`
`iv. wherein the identification is based on a non-exhaustive
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`v. electronically determining an action based on the
`identification of the electronic work and electronically
`performing the action
`
`vi. wherein the non-exhaustive search is sublinear
`
`vii. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of
`success
`
`C. Claim 17 is Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter
`
`XI.
`
`THE INVALIDITY OF THE ’237 PATENT
`
`A. Obviousness of Claim 33
`
`I.
`
`Clango
`
`
`
`147
`
`151
`
`154
`
`154
`
`
`155
`
`
`160
`
`170
`
`
`
`170
`
`172
`
`
`174
`
`
`175
`
`
`
`177
`
`179
`
`179
`
`182
`
`186
`
`186
`
`187
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 6 of 279
`
`
`
`i. ​A computer-implemented method
`ii. obtaining, by a computer system including at least one
`computer, media work extracted features that were extracted
`from a media work
`
`iii. the media work uploaded from a client device
`
`iv. determining, by the computer system, an identification of the
`media work using the media work extracted features to
`perform a sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search of
`reference extracted features of reference identified media
`works
`
`v. determining, by the computer system, an action based on the
`determined identification of the media work
`
`vi. Obviousness of Claim 33 over Clango
`
`II.
`
`FreeAmp
`i. ​A computer-implemented method
`ii. obtaining, by a computer system including at least one
`computer, media work extracted features that were extracted
`from a media work
`
`iii. the media work uploaded from a client device
`
`iv. determining, by the computer system, an identification of the
`media work using the media work extracted features to
`perform a sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search of
`reference extracted features of reference identified media
`works
`
`v. determining, by the computer system, an action based on the
`determined identification of the media work
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`vi. Obviousness of Claim 33 over FreeAmp
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Arya
`
`Chen in combination with one of Clango or Arya
`i. ​A computer-implemented method
`
`187
`
`
`
`189
`
`190
`
`
`
`
`
`190
`
`
`192
`
`192
`
`195
`
`195
`
`
`
`197
`
`198
`
`
`
`
`
`198
`
`
`199
`
`200
`
`201
`
`204
`
`204
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 7 of 279
`
`
`
`ii. obtaining, by a computer system including at least one
`computer, media work extracted features that were extracted
`from a media work
`
`iii. the media work uploaded from a client device
`
`iv. determining, by the computer system, an identification of the
`media work using the media work extracted features to
`perform a sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search of
`reference extracted features of reference identified media
`works
`
`v. determining, by the computer system, an action based on the
`determined identification of the media work
`
`vi. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success
`
`B. Obviousness of Claim 34
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Clango
`
`FreeAmp
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Chen
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Arya
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Arya and Chen
`
`Chen in combination with one of Clango or Arya
`
`C. Obviousness of Claim 35
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Clango
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Chen
`
`FreeAmp in combination with Arya and Chen
`
`Chen in combination with one of Clango or Arya
`
`D. Claims 33, 34, and 35 are Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter
`
`XII.
`
`THE INVALIDITY OF THE ’464 PATENT
`
`A. Obviousness of Claim 1
`
`
`
`205
`
`205
`
`
`
`
`
`206
`
`
`208
`
`208
`
`209
`
`209
`
`212
`
`218
`
`221
`
`223
`
`226
`
`227
`
`227
`
`228
`
`230
`
`231
`
`232
`
`234
`
`234
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 8 of 279
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`i. ​A method comprising: receiving, by a computer system
`including at least one computer, a first electronic media work
`ii. ​correlating, by the computer system using a non-exhaustive,
`near neighbor search, the first electronic media work with an
`electronic media work identifier
`iii. ​storing, by the computer system, correlation information
`associating the first electronic media work and the electronic
`media work identifier
`iv. ​accessing, by the computer system, associated information
`related to an action to be performed in association with one or
`more electronic media works corresponding to the electronic
`media work identifier
`v. ​generating, by the computer system, a tag associated with the
`first electronic media work
`vi. ​providing, from the computer system to a user electronic
`device, the first electronic media work and the associated tag
`vii. ​obtaining, by the computer system from the user electronic
`device, a request related to the associated tag
`viii. ​generating, using the computer system, machine-readable
`instructions based upon the associated information to be used
`in performing, at the user electronic device, the action
`ix. ​ providing, from the computer system to the user electronic
`device, the machine-readable instructions to perform the
`action in response to the request
`x. ​ Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`B. Obviousness of Claim 8
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`236
`
`
`236
`
`
`
`237
`
`
`
`238
`
`
`
`
`240
`
`
`242
`
`
`244
`
`
`245
`
`
`
`246
`
`
`
`248
`
`249
`
`250
`
`251
`
`251
`
`252
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 9 of 279
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness of Claim 10
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`D. Obviousness of Claim 16
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`E. Obviousness of Claim 18
`
`I.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`i. ​A method comprising: ​receiving, by a computer system
`including at least one computer, associated information
`related to an action to be performed in association with a first
`electronic media work identifier
`ii. ​receiving, by the computer system, a first electronic media
`work
`iii. ​correlating, by the computer system using a non-exhaustive,
`near neighbor search, the first electronic media work with the
`first electronic media work identifier
`iv. ​storing, by the computer system, correlation information
`associating the first electronic media work and the first
`electronic media work identifier
`v. ​generating, by the computer system, a tag associated with the
`first electronic media work
`vi. ​providing, from the computer system to a first user electronic
`device, the first electronic media work and the tag
`vii. ​receiving, at the computer system, a request generated at the
`first user electronic device and related to the tag
`viii. ​generating, using the computer system, machine-readable
`instructions based upon the associated information to be used
`in performing, at a user electronic device, the action
`
`252
`
`253
`
`253
`
`254
`
`254
`
`255
`
`255
`
`257
`
`
`
`
`257
`
`
`258
`
`
`
`259
`
`
`
`259
`
`
`259
`
`
`260
`
`
`260
`
`
`
`260
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 10 of 279
`
`
`
`ix. ​ providing, from the computer system to the first user
`electronic device, the machine-readable instructions to
`perform the action in response to the request
`x. ​ Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`II.
`
`F. Obviousness of Claim 25
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`G. Obviousness of Claim 27
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`H. Obviousness of Claim 33
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Chen in combination with Clango
`
`Chen in combination with Arya
`
`I. Anticipation and Obviousness of All Asserted Claims of the ’464
`Patent
`
`J. Invalidity of All Asserted Claims of the ’464 Patent for Inadequate
`Written Description
`
`XIII.
`
`
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
`
`
`
`
`
`261
`
`261
`
`261
`
`262
`
`262
`
`263
`
`263
`
`263
`
`264
`
`264
`
`265
`
`265
`
`
`266
`
`
`266
`
`269
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 11 of 279
`
`
`
`
`I.​ ​INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`
`I, Dr. Trevor Darrell, submit this report on behalf of Defendants Google LLC and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YouTube, LLC, in the above-captioned action, to provide the information required by Rule
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`A. Background
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert in the above-captioned action to study
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and to provide my professional opinions with respect to certain issues related to the following
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,010,988 (“the ’988 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,205,237 (“the ’237
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 (“the ’464 Patent”), each with “Ingemar J. Cox” listed as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the named inventor (collectively, “asserted Patents” or “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have been asked for purposes of this report to provide my opinions regarding the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have also been asked to provide a tutorial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`state of the art prior to September 14, 2000.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`regarding identification, retrieval, matching, monitoring and analysis of similarity between
`
`
`
`
`
`media content, my opinions regarding the scope and content of the prior art as of September 14,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2000 and forward, my opinions regarding the experience and education of a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`skill in the art to which the Patents-in-Suit are directed, and my opinions regarding the validity of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unless otherwise stated, I have assumed for the purposes of this report that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are entitled to a priority date of September 14, 2000. That
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`said, as I will discuss below, many of the prior art references underlying my opinions were made,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`published, or publicly used significantly before that date, and therefore certain of my opinions
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 12 of 279
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`remain applicable even if the priority date of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit is as early
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as July 17, 2000.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that the Court held a hearing on November 21, 2019, regarding the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction of certain terms used in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit, but has not yet issued a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`decision. I understand that the terms before the Court are “non-exhaustive search,” as used in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’988 and ’464 Patents; “correlation information,” as used in the ’464 Patent; and “extracted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`features” or “extracting features,” as used in the ’988 and ’237 Patents. For the “non-exhaustive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`search” and “correlation information” terms, I have assumed for the purposes of my analysis that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Court adopts Network-1’s construction of these terms. For the “extracted features” term, I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`similarly assume that Network-1’s construction is adopted by the Court, but my analysis is
`
`
`
`
`
`equally applicable in the event that Defendants’ construction is adopted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`I may testify regarding the opinions expressed in this report and the bases for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`those opinions. I may also testify regarding the background of the technology and industries at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I may develop demonstrative exhibits to aid in my testimony at trial, and may show
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`documents, code, running software and other materials referred to in this report. I reserve the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`right to supplement this report, if necessary or appropriate, including after the Court’s claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction decision. In addition, if additional information that may be relevant to my opinions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comes to light, or is discovered or produced by the parties near or after the date this report is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signed, I reserve the right
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to supplement my opinions. Further, I may offer opinions at
`
`
`
`
`
`deposition or trial that are not disclosed in this report, but are related to the subjects of my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opinions or my expertise and that are responsive to opinions in the reports or testimony of any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 13 of 279
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`witness that occurs near or after my report is signed or my deposition is taken. Further, I reserve
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the right to expand upon the opinions reflected in this report.
`
`B. Summary of Opinions
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In my professional opinion, based on the materials referenced in this report and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`my training and experience, all of the asserted claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provide a brief, non-limiting summary of those opinions here.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patents-in-Suit do not disclose any inventive technical advances over the
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`prior art. Rather, the three basic steps contemplated by each of the Patents-in-Suit​—extracting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`features from a media work, conducting an efficient search of those features against a reference
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`database, and performing an action based upon that search—were known, individually and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`collectively, before the date the provisional application for the Patents-in-Suit was filed. These
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steps had been disclosed and discussed at length in the existing pattern recognition literature and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`textbooks at that time, as well as incorporated into working systems that were in public use at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that time. Based on this wealth of existing knowledge, there was nothing novel about the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purported inventions claimed in the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, Dr. Ingemar Cox acknowledged at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`his deposition that he invented no novel methods of performing any of these basic steps of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As discussed in detail below,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by the conception and reduction to practice of two media content
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recognition systems, as well as the public use of those systems, optionally when combined with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`existing content
`
`
`
`recognition and search literature.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`That
`
`
`
`is,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the asserted claims of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patents-in-Suit are anticipated or rendered obvious by the conception and reduction to practice of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 14 of 279
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Clango audio identification system and the FreeAmp audio identification system, each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`occurring before the date of the provisional application for the Patents-in-Suit, or earlier.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, each of these systems was in public use at that time, and that public use also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`invalidates the claims. The asserted claims are also rendered obvious by the combination of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aspects of these systems—Clango and FreeAmp—with one or more prior art publications or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In general, these systems and literature encompassed the basic steps outlined above of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`extracting features, searching those features efficiently, and performing an action. The asserted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims, at most, add only minor variations to these basic steps, and would have been obvious to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POSA in light of these content recognition systems and/or literature.
`
`10. Moreover,
`
`the asserted claims are also invalid for additional reasons.
`
`
`
`
`
`For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`example, several of the asserted claims are directed to mere abstract ideas, and lack sufficient
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventive concepts that might convert them into something other than a patent on that abstract
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`idea.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, the subject matter of certain claim limitations are not disclosed within the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification of the Patents-in-Suit, and it cannot be said that Dr. Ingemar Cox was in possession
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of those aspects of the purported inventions.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, all asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid, and each for several
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`different reasons.
`
`II.​ ​QUALIFICATIONS
`
`12.
`
`
`I have been a Professor-in-residence at the University of California, Berkeley in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department since 2011. Currently, I serve as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Director of Berkeley’s DeepDrive (BDD) Industrial Consortia, co-Director of the Berkeley
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) lab, and Faculty Director of Partners for Advanced
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 15 of 279
`
`
`
`Transportation Technology (PATH).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From 2008 to 2014, I led the Vision Group at the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley. Prior to my current appointment at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Berkeley, I was a Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from 1999-2008,
`
`where I directed the Vision Interface Group.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As set forth more fully in my CV, attached as Appendix A, I have been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`researching and/or teaching in the area of computer science, with a particular focus on computer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vision, content recognition, machine learning, and perception-based human-computer interfaces,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for over 30 years.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I received my B.S.E. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1988 and my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`M.S. from MIT in 1991. I obtained my Ph.D., also from MIT, in 1996. From 1996-1999, I was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a member of the Research Staff at Interval Research Corp. specializing in computer vision, and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`visiting researcher (in 1994) and instructor (in 1997) at Stanford University.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have published over 270 articles, papers, book chapters, and technical reports in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the areas of computer vision, image processing, and content recognition. I have also served as an
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`editor for a number of computer science publications, including Artificial Intelligence Journal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have personally
`
`
`
`and IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supervised 20 M.S. students and 18 Ph.D. students at MIT and at Berkeley. Among the courses I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have taught to undergraduate and graduate students are Computer Vision, Object and Activity
`
`
`
`
`
`Recognition, and a seminar on Deep Learning.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have been heavily involved in multiple industry conferences throughout my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`career. For example, I have served as an Area Chair and a Program Chair for the Conference on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), and have served as a chair for several other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conferences, including the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV, Area Chair)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 16 of 279
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV, Area Chair). In addition, I have been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a member of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Information Science
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Technology Advisory Study Group (ISAT) since 2003, where I have consulted the
`
`
`
`
`
`Department of Defense on research projects in multiple areas including integrated circuits,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`persistent surveillance, and pattern recognition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have reviewed grant proposals for various programs within the National Science
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Foundation since 2002, including the Human-Computer Interaction and Information Technology
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Research programs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I am also a member of IEEE, the Association for Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM) and the Computer Vision Foundation (CVF).
`
`17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I am a listed inventor on nine issued U.S. Patents in the area of computer vision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and content recognition, including, for example, a patent with a priority date years earlier than
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Patents-in-Suit (1997) covering an image recognition system that identified and tracked
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`human faces by their content (U.S. Patent No. 6,445,810).
`
`18.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have served as a consultant in the area of content recognition for a number of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`startup and established companies, including Pinterest, Nexar (as Chief Scientist), IQ Engines
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(acquired by Yahoo), and BotSquare/Flutter (acquired by Google). I also have previously served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a consulting and/or testifying expert witness in a number of patent infringement cases, as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`described more fully in my CV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III.​ ​COMPENSATION
`
`
`19. My compensation rate for this case is $550 per hour, plus reimbursement for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the outcome of this case and my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonably incurred expenses.
`
`
`
`
`
`I have no interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compensation is not dependent upon its outcome.
`
`IV.​ ​MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234-3 Filed 11/11/20 Page 17 of 279
`
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I reviewed and considered in forming my opinions in this Report the materials
`
`cited herein and listed in Appendix B.
`
`
`
`V.​ ​LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELATED TO INVALIDITY
`21.
`
`Counsel for Google has informed me of the following legal standards relevant to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this report. I am not an attorney, and I am relying only on instructions from Google’s attorneys
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for my understanding of these legal standards.
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that issues of claim construction and invalidity are evaluated from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”).
`
`23.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`analyzes the prior art without the benefit of hindsight. A person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presumed to be one who thinks along the lines of conventional wisdom in the art, but also is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presumed to have knowledge of all references that are sufficiently related to one another and to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the pertinent art and to have knowledge of all arts reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`
`that the claimed invention addresses.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that factors considered in determining the level of ordinary skill at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the time of a given patented invention include (1) the type of problems encountered in the art; (2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the educational level of active workers in the field;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; and (5) the sophistication of the technology. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`