UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 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 4366
`Apple v. SightSound Technologies
`CBM2013-00023
`Page 00001
`
`
`
` 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 4366
`Apple v. SightSound Technologies
`CBM2013-00023
`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 claims of the patents."
`
`
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
