`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`________________________________
`
` APPLE INC., )
`
` PETITIONER, )
`
` vs. ) No. CBM2013-00023
`
` SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) CMB2013-00020
`
` PATENT OWNER. )
`
`________________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN SNELL
`
` Thursday, March 6, 2014
`
` Reported By:
`
` KATHLEEN WILKINS, CSR #10068, RPR-RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`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
`
`Apple Exhibit 4165
`Apple v. SightSound Technologies
`CBM2013-00020
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`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
`
` INDEX
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
` PAGE
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. BATCHELDER .................7
`
` AFTERNOON SESSION ...........................124
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
` EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1 United States Patent Number ......7
`
` 5,191,573
`
` Exhibit 2 United States Patent Number ......7
`
` 5,966,440
`
` Exhibit 3 Document entitled, ..............16
`
` "Declaration of John Snell
`
` In Support of Patent Owner
`
` SightSound Technologies,
`
` LLC's Response to Petition"
`
` Exhibit 4 Document entitled, ..............25
`
` "Plaintiff SightSound
`
` Technologies, LLC's, Expert
`
` Report of John Snell On
`
` Validity"
`
` Exhibit 5 Document Bates stamped ..........66
`
` 00001 through 00235
`
` ///
`
` ///
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
`
` EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 6 Document Bates stamped ..........78
`
` 00001 through 000323
`
` Exhibit 7 Letter dated November 30, .......85
`
` 1993, from Ansel M.
`
` Schwartz to Arthur R. Hair,
`
` Bates stamped STI 011642
`
` through STI 011648
`
` Exhibit 8 Document entitled, "Patent ......93
`
` Owner's Response to the
`
` Petition"
`
` Exhibit 9 Screenshots of SightSound ......124
`
` Technologies web site
`
` Exhibit 10 Screenshots of SightSound ......148
`
` Technologies web site
`
` Exhibit 11 Screenshots ....................152
`
` Exhibit 12 Screenshots ....................176
`
` Exhibit 13 Screenshots ....................186
`
` Exhibit 14 Screenshots ....................198
`
` Exhibit 15 PowerPoint presentation ........230
`
` entitled, "Technology
`
` Tutorial"
`
` ///
`
` ///
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
`
` EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 16 Document entitled, "The ........257
`
` MIT Press"
`
`Page 4
`
` QUESTION WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
` PAGE LINE
`
` 102 21
`
` 219 21
`
`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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN SNELL
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, March
`
` 6, 2014, commencing at the hour of 9:15 a.m.
`
` thereof, at ARNOLD & PORTER, Three Embarcadero
`
` Center, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California,
`
` before me, Kathleen A. Wilkins,
`
` RPR-RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR, a Certified Shorthand
`
` Reporter, in and for the State of California,
`
` personally appeared JOHN SNELL, a witness in the
`
` above-entitled court and cause, who, being by me
`
` first duly sworn, was thereupon examined as a
`
` witness in said action.
`
`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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
` For the Petitioner:
`
` ROPES & GRAY
`
` BY: JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQ.
`
` LAUREN ROBINSON, ESQ.
`
` 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`
` East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`
` Telephone: (650) 617-4000
`
` James.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`
` For the Patent Owner:
`
` ARNOLD & PORTER
`
` BY: JENNIFER A. SKLENAR, ESQ.
`
` 777 South Figueroa Street
`
` Los Angeles, California 90017-5844
`
` Telephone: (213) 243-4027
`
` E-mail: Jennifer.sklenar@aporter.com
`
`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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`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
`
` March 6, 2014 9:15 A.M.
`
`Page 7
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JOHN SNELL,
`
` having been sworn,
`
` was examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. BATCHELDER
`
` (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 1 and
`
` Exhibit 2 were marked for identification.)
`
` BY MR. BATCHELDER:
`
` Q. Would you please state your full name
`
` and home address for the record?
`
` A. John M. Snell, PO Box 337, San Geronimo,
`
` California 94963.
`
` Q. And where are you currently employed?
`
` A. I've been self-employed as a consultant
`
` and expert witness, for a number of years as a
`
` consultant since, geesh, the late '80s. So it's
`
` been over 20 years.
`
` Q. Is that your only employment?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. What's the name of the firm?
`
` A. Timbre Engineering.
`
` Q. Timbre?
`
` A. Timbre.
`
` Q. Spell it, please.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`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. T like Tom, I, M like Mary, B like boy,
`
` R, E.
`
` Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Roughly how many times?
`
` A. I'm sorry. I'm having a little --
`
` Q. Roughly how many times?
`
` A. I think this is probably my sixth
`
` deposition.
`
` Q. Sixth?
`
` A. I think so.
`
` Q. What did you do to prepare for this
`
` deposition today?
`
` MS. SKLENAR: I'm just going to caution
`
` the witness not to reveal any attorney-client
`
` privileged information.
`
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
` I read through the patent, patents, and
`
` looked at the exhibits.
`
` BY MR. BATCHELDER:
`
` Q. Anything else?
`
` A. I met with the attorneys in the last few
`
` days, yesterday. But other than that, that's it.
`
` Q. You said you met with the attorneys the
`
` last few days. Was it -- was it more than
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` yesterday?
`
` A. Well, I came in late -- what is today?
`
` Thursday? Late in the day. I hadn't met Jennifer
`
` yet, so ...
`
` Actually, I hadn't met either one. I
`
` hadn't met two of the attorneys before, so I met
`
` them and we got acquainted, and then came back the
`
` next day for a full day.
`
` Q. So which attorneys did you meet with to
`
` prepare for this deposition?
`
` A. I think -- am I allowed to answer that?
`
` MS. SKLENAR: You may answer the names,
`
` yes.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay. Jennifer, and Tracy
`
` Lane.
`
` BY MR. BATCHELDER:
`
` Q. And who else?
`
` A. That's the only attorneys I've met in
`
` this -- what do you call this -- proceeding.
`
` Q. And by Jennifer, you're referring to
`
` Ms. Sklenar sitting next to you?
`
` A. Yes. Exactly.
`
` Q. Is Ms. Sklenar representing you today in
`
` this proceeding?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. If there's any question that I ask you
`
` along the way today that confuses you in any way,
`
`Page 10
`
` would you please let me know?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Thank you.
`
` I don't know whether you've been
`
` informed of this, but in these proceedings, once a
`
` deposition begins, you are not to communicate with
`
` your counsel about the subject matter of the
`
` deposition. Do you understand that rule?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And will you abide by it?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I see that you brought some documents
`
` with you today that are in front of you. Would
`
` you tell me what they are, please.
`
` A. The '573 patent and the '440 patent, and
`
` the exhibits related to those, and my declaration.
`
` Q. What do you mean, "the exhibits related
`
` to those"?
`
` A. Well, my declaration references a bunch
`
` of exhibits. Actually, there's two declarations,
`
` one for each patent. And the declarations have
`
` references, and so they reference the exhibits in
`
` these binders.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. So other than the two patents and
`
` your two declarations in these proceedings and the
`
` exhibits to those declarations, do you have any
`
` other documents in front of you today?
`
` A. That's all I'm aware of that's in these
`
` binders. I confess I didn't go through these in
`
` detail this morning, but they were waiting for me.
`
` That's what I asked for, was just the exhibits
`
` and -- and I know my declaration and patents
`
` because I just -- I found them here, so I have
`
` them in front of me.
`
` Q. Do any of the documents that are in
`
` front of you have any handwriting on them?
`
` A. These -- the patents in my declarations,
`
` I believe, have no handwriting. I haven't put any
`
` handwriting on them. I think there is handwriting
`
` in one exhibit. Not handwriting but a -- maybe a
`
` correction. There was one exhibit number that was
`
` incorrect. I'm sure we'll get to it at some
`
` point.
`
` Actually, that may be in my declaration.
`
` I don't know if Tracy logged that. There's one
`
` correction to an exhibit number. It was a typo.
`
` And I'm sure we'll get to that at some point.
`
` Q. Well, now that we're on it, why don't
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` you let me know what it is.
`
` A. Okay. On page 35 of my
`
` '573 declaration, about middle of the page,
`
` there's an Exhibit 4113. That exhibit should be
`
` 4108. These lines aren't numbered, but it's a
`
` little -- a little past the middle of the page.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. And the correct exhibit number should be
`
` 4108. I believe that that's probably reflected in
`
` the '440 declaration, too. Should I check that,
`
` too?
`
` Q. That's okay.
`
` But other than that handwriting, is
`
` there any other handwriting in the documents that
`
` are in front of you?
`
` A. No. To my knowledge, that's the only
`
` thing.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: All right. I'm going
`
` to ask the court reporter to mark as official
`
` exhibits to this deposition along the way certain
`
` documents, and I'm going to hand you those as we
`
` go. It's important that you not walk away with
`
` them at the end of the day, because the court
`
` reporter is very possessive about such things.
`
` Q. So I'm going to hand you right now
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
` Exhibits 1 and 2.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Exhibit 1 is U.S. patent number
`
` 5,191,573.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. I'm going to refer to that
`
` today as the '573 patent.
`
` Do you understand that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And Exhibit 2 is U.S. patent number
`
` 5,966,440.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I'm going to refer to that today as the
`
` '440 or '440 patent.
`
` A. That's fine.
`
` Q. I'm also going to refer to those two
`
` patents collectively as "the challenged patents."
`
` Does that make sense?
`
` A. That's fine.
`
` Q. I'll also refer to -- I'll use the term
`
` "the challenged claims." And by that I mean to
`
` refer to the seven claims that are challenged in
`
` these proceedings.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 14
`
` Do you understand that terminology?
`
` A. I understand that terminology.
`
` Q. And so just to be clear, by "the
`
` challenged claims," I'm referring to claims 1, 2,
`
` 4, and 5 of the '573 patent, and claims 1, 64, and
`
` 95 of the '440 patent.
`
` Is that clear?
`
` A. That's clear.
`
` Q. Also refer to the term "priority date"
`
` in this deposition today. And by "priority date,"
`
` I mean June 13th, 1988.
`
` Is that clear?
`
` A. That's clear.
`
` Q. All right. I also will ask some
`
` questions about what a person of ordinary skill in
`
` the art would have understood. And when I ask
`
` those kinds of questions, just to be clear about
`
` the time frame, I'm referring to the time frame
`
` just before that priority date.
`
` Does that make sense?
`
` A. That makes sense.
`
` Q. Also, we'll use the word
`
` "communication," or "communications," forms of
`
` that word, "communicating." And by those terms, I
`
` mean to refer to communications in the broadest
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` sense, whether oral, written, electronic, or
`
` otherwise.
`
` Is that clear?
`
` A. Are you referring to these -- to our
`
` communication here, or are you referring to
`
` electronic data transfer of audio and video?
`
` Q. No. When I use the term
`
` "communications," I'm talking about communications
`
` that you may have had or that you may be aware of
`
` with other people or entities.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. As opposed to the patent contents?
`
` Q. Right.
`
` A. Okay. I'm clear.
`
` Q. Also, as you know, there are district
`
` court proceedings between Apple and SightSound in
`
` front of Judge Ambrose in the Western District of
`
` Pennsylvania, correct.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I'll refer to those as the district
`
` court proceedings, okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And I'll refer to these patent office
`
` proceedings as the CBM proceedings, CBM standing
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00015
`
`
`
`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
`
` for covered business method patent proceedings.
`
`Page 16
`
` Does that make sense?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Are you set with that?
`
` A. Yeah, that's fine.
`
` I should mention to both you and the
`
` court recorder that if I fail to speak loud enough
`
` or distinctly enough, please don't hesitate to ask
`
` me to speak more clearly or loudly. I spend too
`
` much time in an office by myself, so when I'm out
`
` talking to people, sometimes I forget how to talk.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Mark that next, please.
`
` (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 3 was
`
` marked for identification.)
`
` BY MR. BATCHELDER:
`
` Q. I had marked as Exhibit 3 your
`
` declaration in this CBM proceeding directed to the
`
` '573 patent.
`
` Do you recognize it as such?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Within Exhibit 3, if you could turn to
`
` page 10. See in about the middle of the page
`
` there's a Roman numeral 2 titled "Materials
`
` Reviewed."
`
` Do you see that?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`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. Yes.
`
` Q. What is that section?
`
` A. It's the section of the materials that I
`
` looked at and considered in providing my opinions
`
` in the declaration.
`
` Q. So to be clear, the Materials Reviewed
`
` section in Exhibit 3 is a complete list of the
`
` materials you reviewed in connection with
`
` formulating your opinions in the CBM proceedings
`
` in connection with the '573 patent?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. In connection with formulating your
`
` opinions in these proceedings regarding the
`
` '573 patent, did you read or --
`
` A. You know, I should say that I believe
`
` that what is here is the same as the set of
`
` exhibits that I have in my binders. I -- I -- it
`
` would take awhile -- if this is the same thing as
`
` the set of exhibits that I referenced in my
`
` declaration and that Apple has provided in this
`
` proceeding, then yes, the answer is yes.
`
` Q. I don't understand what qualification
`
` you're imposing.
`
` A. I believe this is the same thing. Yes.
`
` The answer is yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
` Q. In connection with you formulating your
`
` opinions in these proceedings directed to the
`
` '573 patent, did you review and consider the
`
` district court claim construction order?
`
` A. Well, I believe it was adopted by the
`
` patent board in this proceeding, that the claim
`
` construction was, I believe, just adopted, or at
`
` least it was accepted as a starting point. My
`
` understanding is they'll do their own claim
`
` construction or challenge -- do their own analysis
`
` of claim construction. But I did look at the
`
` claim construction in the district proceeding.
`
` Q. So you did consult that in connection
`
` with these CBM proceedings?
`
` A. In connection with? I'm sorry.
`
` Q. With these CBM proceedings.
`
` A. Yes. Yes.
`
` Q. Is there a reason you didn't list it in
`
` section II, "Materials Reviewed" in your
`
` declaration?
`
` A. I thought it was in here. I'm sorry. I
`
` thought claim construction was here.
`
` Q. Well, correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps
`
` it is.
`
` A. It should -- claim construction should
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` be in here. And I believe I referred to it in
`
` the -- in the -- for the -- in the declaration.
`
` Q. It looks like the second to the last
`
` bullet in the list in Roman Numeral II is order of
`
` claim construction dated 2/13/13.
`
` A. That's it. I think I provided a chart
`
` of the claim construction in here, if I remember
`
` right. Should I point to that?
`
` Q. I believe you're referring to what's on
`
` page 21?
`
` A. Exactly. That's what I -- that's what I
`
` assumed was being used in these proceedings, or at
`
` least a starting point. My understanding is this
`
` is -- that the patent board will form their own
`
` opinions and do their own analysis. But my
`
` understanding is this is at least the starting
`
` point of claim construction for these proceedings.
`
` Q. Given that understanding, why did you
`
` review the district court Markman opinion in
`
` connection with these proceedings as opposed to
`
` confining that to the district court proceedings?
`
` A. Well, to understand the interpretation,
`
` to understand the meaning and the reasoning behind
`
` it. So there are two sides that have different
`
` perspectives on interpretation, and -- actually, I
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
` should look at the exhibit.
`
` I looked at a claim construction
`
` analysis, and I thought that's -- maybe it was for
`
` this proceeding. I don't know whether it was for
`
` the previous one or for this one. I'll have to go
`
` back and look at the exhibit.
`
` Q. What exhibit are you referencing?
`
` A. On page 14, it says, "Order reference
`
` claim construction dated 2/13/13 in the matter of
`
` SightSound text." I assume that's for the
`
` previous. Is that for this or the previous?
`
` Q. I don't know what you mean by "the
`
` previous."
`
` A. The district court.
`
` Q. I assume that that is referring to the
`
` district court proceeding?
`
` A. I did too. That's why I answered it
`
` that way. But -- okay.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Anyway, I did review that.
`
` Q. Okay. So I just want to make sure the
`
` record is clear on this. You did, in connection
`
` with these CBM proceedings, review the district
`
` court's claim construction order?
`
` A. Yes. Yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00020
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` Q. And my question is, why did you do that?
`
` A. To understand their reasoning.
`
` Q. And why was that relevant to these CBM
`
` proceedings?
`
` A. Well, as an engineer, I do -- I always
`
` analyze rather than just taking what I'm given. I
`
` want to understand the reasoning behind things.
`
` It helps me understand the broader picture.
`
` Q. In connection with these CBM
`
` proceedings, did you also review the district
`
` court Markman order in the previous litigation
`
` between SightSound and N2K?
`
` A. Not for these proceedings.
`
` Q. Why not?
`
` A. Because that -- I already had it here in
`
` the -- the order for claim construction. For this
`
` proceeding, though, it wasn't necessary.
`
` I already -- I had the results of that
`
` in the order, the claim construction dated 2/13
`
` from the district court. So that had already
`
` adopted our -- or taken into account the
`
` information from the N2K proceedings. At least
`
` that's my understanding.
`
` Q. Is it your understanding that those
`
` Markman orders were -- the rulings were identical
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00021
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
` as between the N2K proceeding and the
`
` Apple/SightSound proceeding?
`
` A. I don't remember whether they are
`
` identical or not.
`
` (Reporter clarification.)
`
` BY MR. BATCHELDER:
`
` Q. As to Exhibit 3 to this deposition,
`
` which, again, is your declaration in these CBM
`
` proceedings in connection with the '573 patent,
`
` who drafted that declaration?
`
` A. Well, this went back and forth. I wrote
`
` the material in here. I consulted with the
`
` attorneys, and they had feedback and drafts were
`
` exchanged. There was definitely interaction
`
` between me and Arnold & Porter. And in the end, I
`
` signed it. I take responsibility for it. I
`
` believe this is correct and true and a good
`
` analysis of the material I reviewed.
`
` Q. Do you think it's fair to say that you
`
` drafted it?
`
` A. I think it's fair to say that it was a
`
` combination of my analysis of exhibits and them
`
` asking me questions about the material, and drafts
`
` went back and forth.
`
` Q. Is that a question that you can answer
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00022
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` yes or no? Again, the question being, is it fair
`
` to say that you drafted Exhibit 3?
`
` A. Well, I'm trying to be careful about
`
` what's privileged information here. So I'm not an
`
` attorney, so I don't know whether this is
`
` privileged or not.
`
` Q. I'm just asking that yes-or-no question.
`
` I'm not calling for attorney-client privileged
`
` information.
`
` A. Okay. Well, I -- I wrote a large part
`
` of the material in here, and I take responsibility
`
` for what's here. I spent a lot of hours editing
`
` and correcting and stating what I thought the
`
` facts were and my analysis, and -- both in writing
`
` and drafts and by phone.
`
` Q. You also submitted a declaration in
`
` these CBM proceedings directed to the '440 patent,
`
` correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is your answer the same as to whether
`
` you drafted that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Are you aware of any mistakes in
`
` Exhibit 3?
`
` A. Just the one correction I mentioned on
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00023
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`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 exhibit number, which is 4108 exhibit instead
`
` of -- I'd have to ask to go back if we want to
`
` correct that on the '440. It's the same paragraph
`
` in '440. We kept paragraph numbers the same to
`
` make it easy to ...
`
` Q. You say that was on page 31; is that
`
` right?
`
` A. Let me just check. No.
`
` Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at your
`
` exhibit, and I have a copy of the same thing. Of
`
` course, your exhibit doesn't have it marked.
`
` Page 35. And it's paragraph 50. Can I
`
` give you the paragraph number and correction in
`
` the '440 patent, as long as we're at this and get
`
` it corrected in both places so we don't --
`
` Q. That's fine.
`
` A. Okay. In the '440 declaration that I
`
` provided, on page 37, the fourth line from the top
`
` says, "Described in Exhibit 4316." It should be
`
` "described in Exhibit 4311."
`
` Q. Okay. And in Exhibit 3, where is the
`
` correction?
`
` A. That's the '573. That's page 35. This
`
` is paragraph 50, and it's the middle of the page.
`
` And on page 35 of the '573 declaration by myself,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00024
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`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 line reads, "Described in Exhibit 4113.
`
` Second Exhibit 4114 suggests connecting record."
`
` That line should be changed to "Described in
`
` Exhibit 4108." The rest of the line is correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
`
` (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 4 was
`
` marked for identification.)
`
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
` MS. SKLENAR: Counsel, you gave me a
`
` copy of 3 but not 4.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Oh, I'm sorry.
`
` MS. SKLENAR: Thank you very much.
`
` BY MR. BATCHELDER:
`
` Q. All right. I've had marked as Exhibit 4
`
` a redacted copy of what's titled "Plaintiff
`
` SightSound Technologies, LLC's expert report of
`
` John Snell on validity."
`
` I should note on page 16, there's the
`
` redaction that SightSound provided of the only
`
` confidential information that it had identified in
`
` this document. So this is a public document.
`
` First of all, do you recognize
`
` Exhibit 4?
`
` A. I do recognize it.
`
` Q. What do you recognize it to be?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00025
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`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. It's a report that I wrote on validity
`
` not quite a year ago. Well, probably about a year
`
` ago. I think it's dated June 13th, but, of
`
` course, it takes several months to put one of
`
` these together and do the analysis. So about a
`
` year ago.
`
` Q. If I could ask you to turn within
`
` Exhibit 4 to page 10.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. And if you'd leave that open in front of
`
` you but also turn back to Exhibit 3 to page 21 we
`
` were looking at a moment ago.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. You'll see in Exhibit 3, page 21,
`
` there's -- there are seven claim terms that you
`
` say you understand the board has adopted in
`
` connection with the '573 patent.
`
` Do I have that right?
`
` A. On page 21?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. And then --
`
` A. Well, again, that was their starting
`
` point is my understanding. I -- again, I'm not an
`
` attorney, but my understanding is that this is
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00026
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` where -- where the patent board starts, and they
`
` can make their own analysis or adjustments to
`
` claim construction. Please correct me if I'm
`
` wrong.
`
` Q. I'm just trying to get at what you've
`
` said here in your declaration. So on page 20 of
`
` Exhibit 3, paragraph 29 begins, "I understand that
`
` the board has adopted the following
`
` interpretations of terms in the '573 patent."
`
` Have I read that correctly?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And then you set forth a table with
`
` seven terms, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Then leaving that open but turning to
`
` Exhibit 4 on page 10, you refer to the district
`
` court constructions in the district court
`
` proceedings between Apple and SightSound, and you
`
` set forth a table there on page 10 and 11.
`
` Do you see those terms?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And so the question is, for a term that
`
` appears in the table that you have on pages 10 and
`
` 11 of Exhibit 4 but does not appear on the claim
`
` construction table that you have in Exhibit 3,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00027
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` page 21, did you apply the claim construction of
`
` the district court in connection with these
`
` proceedings?
`
` A. Well, again, the claim construction I
`
` applied was the one on page 21 of Exhibit 3.
`
` Q. Okay. And -- and if there was a term
`
` that came up in your analysis that is construed by
`
` the district court as reflected on pages 10 and 11
`
` of Exhibit 4 but was not construed by the patent
`
` office in connection with these CBM proceedings,
`
` did you apply the district court claim
`
` construction to such a term or some other
`
` construction?
`
` A. I haven't looked at this in about a
`
` year, so I -- I wasn't applying anything from this
`
` proceeding or from this report.
`
` They are very similar. I'm sure you're
`
` aware of that. No. I used -- I used the table as
`
` provided on page 21.
`
` Q. In your last answer, you said, "I wasn't
`
` applying anything from this proceeding or from
`
` this report."
`
` I take it you mean to refer to the claim
`
` constructions that are in Exhibit 4 on pages 10
`
` and 11?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00028
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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. Yes.
`
` Q. If that's the case, then why did you
`
` read the district court claim construction order
`
` in connection with these CBM proceedings to
`
` prepare to render your opinions here?
`
` A. To understand the reasoning behind the
`
` claim constructions for these proceedings. I -- I
`
` think it's just basically to doing this kind of
`
` work, is you -- you analyze the material that's
`
` presented to you for the proceeding.
`
` Q. Were you assuming, then, that the patent
`
` office's reasoning for its claim constructions
`
` were based on or derived from the district court
`
` reasoning?
`
` A. I didn't make an assumption. I just
`
` wanted to see what their -- what their analysis,
`
` what their reasoning was.
`
` Q. If I could ask you to turn within
`
` Exhibit 3 to page 64, paragraph 89. Are you
`
` there?
`
` Are you there, sir?
`
` A. I'm getting there.
`
` Okay.
`
` Q. The first sentence of Exhibit 3,
`
` paragraph 89 says,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC
`866 4 Team GE
`
`Page 00029
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` "I believe the ITMS practices
`
` the claimed invention, and, in
`
` fact, embodies and is coextensive
`
` with the