`EXHIBIT 2376
`CBM2013-00023 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`In The Matter Of:
`
`APPLE INC.
`v.
` SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - Vol. 1
`April 3, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 000002
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ---o0o---
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. NO. CBM2013-00020
` CBM2013-00023
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`__________________________ /
`
` DEPOSITION OF
`
` JOHN KELLY, Ph.D.
`
` ___________________________
`
` Thursday, April 3, 2014
`
`REPORTED BY: RACHEL FERRIER, CSR 6948
`
` (SF-001620)
`
`
`
`PAGE 000003
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`
`Mr. Marsh 4, 102, 150
`
`Ms. Robinson 144
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`
`NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1 Plaintiff SightSound
` Technologies, LLC’s Expert
` Report of Dr. J. Douglas
` Tygar Regarding Infringement 17
`
`Exhibit 2 Ex Parte Reexamination
` Communication Transmittal Form 84
`
`Exhibit 3 East Search History (Prior Art) 84
`
`Exhibit 4 Errata for Ex. 4420 and
` Errata for Ex. 4262 144
`
`Exhibit 5 Expert Report of Dr. John
` P. J. Kelly Regarding
` Non-Infringement of United
` States Patent Nos. 5,191,573
` and 5,966,44 145
`
`Exhibit 6 AES, an Audio Engineering
` Society, Article Presented
` at the 83rd Convention 1987
` October 16-19 New York 147
`
` ---o0o---
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000004
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 3
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to the laws
`
`governing the taking and use of depositions, on
`
`Thursday, April 3, 2014, commencing at 7:33 a.m.
`
`thereof, at Ropes & Gray, 1900 University Avenue, 6th
`
`Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94303, before me, RACHEL FERRIER, a
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter, personally appeared JOHN
`
`KELLY, Ph.D., called as a witness by the Patent Owner,
`
`who, being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon
`
`examined as a witness in said action.
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`For Petitioner APPLE INC.:
`
` ROPES & GRAY LLP
` BY: LAUREN N. ROBINSON, Attorney at Law
` 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
` East Palo Alto, CA 94303
` Telephone: 650.617.4000
` Email: lauren.robinson@ropesgray.com
`
`For Patent Owner SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC:
`
` ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
` BY: DAVID R. MARSH, Ph.D., Attorney at Law
` WILLIAM LOUDEN, Attorney at Law
` 555 12th Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20004
` Telephone: 202.942.5068
` Email: David.Marsh@aporter.com
` William.Louden@aporter.com
`
` ---o0o---
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000005
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 4
`
` PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
`
` THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
`
` 7:33 a.m.
`
` ---o0o---
`
` JOHN KELLY, Ph.D.
`
` ____________________________________
`
` called as a witness, having been first duly
`
` sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`
` ---o0o---
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Dr. Kelly, you are -- you understand you are
`
`testifying under oath just as if you were in a court of
`
`law?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q I will ask you questions and your answers are
`
`being recorded by the court reporter. If you don't
`
`understand my questions, please let me know and I will
`
`explain or rephrase them. If you answer the question, I
`
`will assume that you understood me.
`
` If at any time you need a break, just let me
`
`know and we can take one. I just ask that we do not
`
`take a break while a question is pending.
`
` Is there any reason today you cannot give your
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000006
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 5
`
`best testimony?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Are you sick or under the influence of any
`
`medication?
`
` A I'm not.
`
` Q You have given two declarations in support of
`
`Apple's reply; is that correct?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` MR. MARSH: I would like to give the witness
`
`his two declarations. One is Exhibit 4262, and that's
`
`in CBM2013-0020, and one is Exhibit 4420, and that is in
`
`CBM2013-0023.
`
` If it's okay with counsel, can we use the
`
`exhibit numbers that are on the materials rather than
`
`re-exhibit numbering them for the deposition?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: That's fine.
`
` Do you want one of these to be the stamped
`
`copy? because I have two of each. Is one of these for
`
`the witness?
`
` MR. MARSH: One is for the witness.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Do the two declarations that I've just handed
`
`to you contain all of your relevant testimony in support
`
`of Apple's reply brief?
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000007
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 6
`
` A These are the two declarations that I
`
`submitted. They do set forth my opinions. There are
`
`many places in these declarations where I refer to the
`
`earlier declarations, and so those would be -- would
`
`form the opinions too, but directed to the specific
`
`reply issues, I believe that they are covered in these
`
`two declarations.
`
` Q Do these two declarations, in combination with
`
`the declarations you previously -- have previously been
`
`filed by you in these proceedings, constitute all of
`
`your relevant testimony in the two CBMs?
`
` A Well, I gave a deposition in December of last
`
`year, so I would include that testimony and --
`
`presumably we will be spending the day together -- I
`
`would include what I say today, but I don't have any
`
`other declarations that I'm planning -- or I have that I
`
`was expecting to submit at this time.
`
` Q Beyond what you discussed in your prior answer,
`
`is there any other material or testimony -- strike that
`
`question.
`
` Let's turn to paragraph 2 of the declarations
`
`that we have just handed to you of the '573 and the '440
`
`declarations and the same exhibits numbers that I
`
`provided before, which are Exhibits 4420 and 4262.
`
` In paragraph 2, you list the materials that you
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000008
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 7
`
`used in preparing the opinions provided in your
`
`declarations; is that correct?
`
` A Yes. As paragraph 2 in each case says, I've
`
`considered the following materials in preparing the
`
`opinions, and that is the list in paragraph 2.
`
` Q Have you considered any other materials in
`
`preparing your opinions?
`
` A I don't think so. My intent here was to be
`
`comprehensive.
`
` Q In preparing your opinions, you did not rely on
`
`any other materials as far as you can recollect?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q Approximately how much time did you spend
`
`preparing your declaration?
`
` A This declaration? When you say --
`
` Q Correct, the current declarations, the current
`
`second declarations.
`
` A I can't give you a number of hours, but I spent
`
`a significant amount of time in March leading up to the
`
`day that I signed this on the 21st of March, multiple
`
`days.
`
` Q Approximately how much time have you spent
`
`preparing for this deposition?
`
` A Two days or so.
`
` Q Did you meet with anybody in preparation for
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000009
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 8
`
`this deposition?
`
` A Yes, I did.
`
` Q Who did you meet with?
`
` A I met with my colleague, Dr. Trial, and I met
`
`with Ms. Robinson, and I also met with Ms. Fukuda.
`
` Q When did you meet with Ms. Robinson and
`
`Ms. Fukuda?
`
` A Yesterday.
`
` Q Have you read any additional papers in this
`
`proceeding after your declaration was signed?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: So I'm going to caution the
`
`witness not to reveal the content of materials that
`
`might have been reviewed with your attorneys. Other
`
`than that, you can answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.
`
` MR. MARSH: Sure.
`
` Q Have you read any additional papers in this
`
`proceeding after your declaration was signed?
`
` A Well, yes.
`
` Q What -- without revealing the contents of those
`
`papers, what type of papers did you review?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: I'm still going to object to the
`
`question because I think that gets to the content.
`
` MR. MARSH: The question says without -- and
`
`just a little bit -- the rules are not very strict on
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000010
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 9
`
`how we can object, and you are going a little bit over
`
`the line there.
`
` Q So you may answer that one.
`
` A I'm not sure what you mean by -- you mean give
`
`you -- say the name of the document, but without telling
`
`you what's in it? Is that what -- is that your
`
`question?
`
` Q My question goes to the categories of the
`
`documents.
`
` An example of a category would be Markman
`
`documents or technical documents or attorney work
`
`product. Those are categories of types of documents,
`
`whatever would be a descriptive of such documents.
`
` A Well, one, the document that I'm thinking of
`
`is -- I don't know how to characterize it other than
`
`saying it's an expert report.
`
` Q Did you review an expert report offered by an
`
`expert called Tygar?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Have you -- I might come back to it.
`
` A And to be clear about that, you are talking
`
`about -- I mean, I don't know. I don't recall if I've
`
`ever seen an expert report by Tygar, but in terms of
`
`this reply, I have not.
`
` Q Thank you.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000011
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 10
`
` You are still the president of the Kelly
`
`Technology Group?
`
` A I am.
`
` Q Was -- anyone, in addition to Dr. Trial, assist
`
`you in preparation of your declarations?
`
` A No, I don't believe so.
`
` Q Have you been --
`
` A And, again, let me be just very careful about
`
`this answer, as there are parts of these second
`
`declarations that have come from earlier reports served
`
`in the District Court litigation, and there were other
`
`people assisting me in that litigation, but in terms of
`
`preparing what's in front of us now, Dr. Trial was the
`
`only one.
`
` Q In the District Court proceedings, were the
`
`people assisting you on the declaration also employees
`
`of Kelly Technology Group?
`
` A Assisting me on the expert reports that I --
`
` Q On those reports.
`
` A Correct; they were.
`
` Q You are familiar with the associated District
`
`Court litigation between Apple and SightSound; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A Yes, I am.
`
` Q You served as Apple's expert in that District
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000012
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 11
`
`Court litigation; is that correct?
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q You provided testimony in that District Court
`
`litigation; is that correct?
`
` A I -- yes. I was deposed, yes.
`
` Q Is it correct that part of your testimony
`
`focused on the non-infringement positions of Apple?
`
` A Well, I would say no, and just to clarify, I
`
`may have a different understanding of testimony than you
`
`do.
`
` Q Have you provided either written or verbal
`
`testimony either for a declaration or for a
`
`cross-examination or an examination focused on whether
`
`Apple's products, methods infringe either the '573 or
`
`the '440 patent that are at issue in these CBMs?
`
` A In the District Court litigation?
`
` Q Correct.
`
` A I don't believe so. I did serve an expert
`
`report on those issues.
`
` Q Maybe there's a confusion here.
`
` When the question stated: "Have you provided
`
`written or verbal testimony either for a declaration or
`
`for a cross-examination or examination focused on
`
`whether Apple's products, methods infringe either the
`
`'573 or the '440 patent that are at issue in these
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000013
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 12
`
`CBMs?" does -- I intended the question to include expert
`
`reports. You mention in your answer that you did serve
`
`an expert report.
`
` Did you serve an expert report in the
`
`associated District Court litigation?
`
` A I did.
`
` Q Thank you for the clarification.
`
` Did you rely on any of your expert report on
`
`infringement in coming to your conclusions in your reply
`
`declarations or your second declarations that are the
`
`Exhibits 4262, 4420 that you have in front of you?
`
` A No, I didn't.
`
` Q In providing the declarations with Exhibit
`
`Nos. 4262 and 4420, did you rely on any confidential
`
`Apple information in rendering your opinions?
`
` A No, I didn't. And I should be -- I want to be
`
`clear about this, about these answers. Some of this
`
`language has been taken from the expert report on
`
`infringement issues, but that was for efficiency and my
`
`convenience. I did not rely on any confidential
`
`information to form these opinions.
`
` Q I want to focus a little bit on what you mean
`
`by "these opinions."
`
` The -- the paragraphs that you utilized in both
`
`the District Court litigation and these proceedings
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000014
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`before the Patent Office have not relied on confidential
`
`information; is that correct?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The paragraphs that I have set
`
`forth in these declarations in the CBM proceedings have
`
`not relied on confidential information, and, again, we
`
`are talking about Apple confidential information. There
`
`is a figure in these declarations that I understand to
`
`be SightSound's confidential information. Putting that
`
`aside, we are talking now about non-infringement
`
`opinions that I've set forth here. The ones in the --
`
`in the declarations do not rely on any confidential
`
`information.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q The current two declarations, Exhibit 4262 and
`
`Exhibit 4420, rely entirely on the information listed in
`
`paragraph 2 of the two declarations; is that correct?
`
` A That and my own knowledge and experience gained
`
`through years of examining iTunes and using and
`
`analyzing iPods and that type of thing. Being an owner
`
`of many generations of iPods, having used probably every
`
`iTunes client and so on, I would include that as what I
`
`relied on.
`
` Q Okay. Do business plans often evolve after the
`
`filing of the patent?
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000015
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 14
`
` A I'm sorry.
`
` Q Can business plans evolve after the filing of a
`
`patent application?
`
` A Can they evolve?
`
` Q Yes.
`
` A Well, I don't see why not. I haven't really
`
`thought about that. I'm sure that most documents evolve
`
`over time.
`
` Q Are you an inventor?
`
` A I have invented. I don't consider myself
`
`particularly an inventor. I'm a computer scientist, but
`
`in the process I have certainly developed all sorts of
`
`software and hardware.
`
` Q Can inventors consider new ways to practice
`
`their patented invention?
`
` A I don't know.
`
` Q Do you consider yourself an expert in the
`
`provision of financial services?
`
` A I'm a -- I'm a computer scientist. I have
`
`worked in financial systems, computer science aspects of
`
`that, many times, and that's where my expertise is.
`
` Q Do you have an accounting background?
`
` A No, I don't. An accounting degree or the like,
`
`I do not.
`
` Q Do you have any experience with payment systems
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000016
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`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
`
`beyond testifying on payment systems?
`
` A Yes, I do.
`
` Q What is that experience?
`
` A I have worked for Citibank. I have worked for
`
`Visa. I have worked for a number of systems that were
`
`put in place for financial processing, including
`
`payments and inventory control and the like.
`
` Q Do you have any marketing experience?
`
` A Well, I don't consider myself an expert in the
`
`area of marketing. I have, from time to time, been
`
`involved in marketing activities.
`
` Q Do you have any business experience related to
`
`the implementation of a business method?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I understand that the term
`
`"business method" has a legal significance, so I'm not
`
`entirely sure how to answer that question.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q You may answer the question using the normal
`
`term, the normal usage of the term "business method."
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what that normal
`
`usage is.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q What is your understanding of the term
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000017
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
`"business method"?
`
` A I'm not sure I have an understanding. I
`
`understand that it is a term that has a legal
`
`significance, particularly in proceedings such as this,
`
`and whether or not a business method is covered by
`
`certain statutes, but that's the kind of limit of my
`
`understanding.
`
` Q Do you understand the difference between a
`
`method claim and an apparatus claim?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Could you explain the difference between a
`
`method claim and an apparatus claim?
`
` A Sure. An apparatus claim is a -- well, let's
`
`start with the -- a claim is a collection of words that
`
`sets forth what the inventor believes they have that's
`
`new. And it's meant to define the invention in legal
`
`terms. That can be set forth as a device or some
`
`physical entity, a machine, an apparatus. And if it's
`
`set forth as an apparatus, then there will be certain
`
`elements that describe parts of the apparatus.
`
` On the other hand, if it's a method claim, it
`
`will set forth various steps that, when collected
`
`together, define the invention.
`
` MR. MARSH: I would like to hand to you an
`
`exhibit that doesn't have an exhibit number yet in the
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000018
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 17
`
`proceedings, and we have labeled it Exhibit 1.
`
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification by the
`
` Court Reporter.)
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Are you familiar with this document?
`
` A Well, there was a time when I had reviewed this
`
`document two years ago or so, but I'm no longer familiar
`
`with the document.
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Counsel, can I just jump in and
`
`note that this looks like it's a different version than
`
`was produced yesterday. It looks like it still tax on
`
`the exhibits, and I believe the versions that were
`
`produced yesterday stop at page 143. We can -- if you
`
`want, we can go off the record and just figure it out.
`
` MR. MARSH: Let's stop, because it was our
`
`intention to give what -- off the record.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q The previous -- just to put this back in
`
`context, the previous question was: "Are you familiar
`
`with this document?" And your answer was: "Well, there
`
`was a time when I had reviewed this document two years
`
`ago or so, but I'm no longer familiar with the
`
`document."
`
` Without re-reviewing the document, do you have
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000019
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 18
`
`any recollections of what this document contains today?
`
` A I should also make one clarification to the
`
`last answer, if I may, and, you know, I notice this is a
`
`redacted document, and what I reviewed two years ago was
`
`not redacted. I know that this regard -- this, on its
`
`face, is Dr. Tygar's expert report regarding
`
`infringement issues. That's all I recall about the
`
`report. There's 143 pages, and I don't really remember
`
`much of anything that's in it.
`
` Q Do you recall Dr. Tygar's conclusion with
`
`respect to this report, global conclusion?
`
` A Well, not specifically, but certainly I
`
`understand that SightSound alleges that Apple fringes
`
`their patents, and Dr. Tygar's expert report supports
`
`that allegation, but precisely what he said or what
`
`claims he was talking about or what patents, I would
`
`have to look through the report again to verify.
`
` Q Just to confirm, you didn't look at the Tygar
`
`report in preparation of any of your declarations in
`
`this proceeding?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q Do you recollect whether you agreed with any
`
`parts or disagreed with any parts of Dr. Tygar's report?
`
` A Well, I served a -- I served a rebuttal report
`
`to Dr. Tygar's in which I set forth my opinions with
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000020
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 19
`
`respect to the infringement issues, and my conclusion
`
`was that Apple did not infringe the SightSound's
`
`patents, so clearly there is a disagreement between the
`
`two of us.
`
` Q Do you recollect whether Dr. Tygar's report
`
`referenced internal Apple information?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, as I sit here, I don't
`
`recall, but I can see that there are major chunks of
`
`this report that had been redacted, and it says here
`
`AEO, source code, attorneys' eyes only, source code, so
`
`I'm assuming that that's Apple's source code; although,
`
`I don't really recollect one way or the other.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Before being retained by Apple in the District
`
`Court litigation, were you aware of CompuSonics?
`
` A I don't remember.
`
` Q Do you recollect whether you are aware of any
`
`of the devices that CompuSonics produced prior to being
`
`retained by Apple in the District Court litigation?
`
` A No, I don't remember.
`
` Q Is it correct that in all four of your
`
`declarations in these two proceedings, in the two count
`
`CBM proceedings, include opinions regarding CompuSonics;
`
`is that correct?
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000021
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 20
`
` A Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q Are the opinions that you provide on
`
`CompuSonics' products and activities based solely on
`
`materials that were provided to you in combination with
`
`your general knowledge?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: In the CBM proceedings -- I'm --
`
`maybe I need you to please repeat the question.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Are the opinions that you provide on
`
`CompuSonics' products and activities based solely on
`
`materials that were provided to you in the CBM
`
`proceedings in combination with your understanding of
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` And also objection to the extent if it does get
`
`into anything that happened during the District Court
`
`litigation, don't answer that.
`
` MR. MARSH: That's an impermissible objection.
`
`You know that, and we have really got to keep it to the
`
`grounds of what the PTO does, because I've asked you
`
`before, I would like to just -- you get to object to
`
`privilege. You get to object to form, and that's it,
`
`and there is no objection to excluding something that
`
`happened in the District Court litigation.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000022
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 21
`
` MS. ROBINSON: In that case, I will object to
`
`form and privilege.
`
` MR. MARSH: Can you explain the privilege?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Well, okay. So first of all, I
`
`understand that the parties have an expert discovery
`
`agreement in this matter, in the CBM matter, where
`
`communications with the experts is not to be disclosed;
`
`is that correct, in your understanding?
`
` MR. MARSH: I'm not asking, nor did my question
`
`ask Mr. Kelly to provide any privileged information.
`
`Mr. Kelly should answer without providing privileged
`
`information. There is no privileged information in my
`
`question.
`
` MS. ROBINSON: I object because you are asking
`
`about documents being provided to him, and I just want
`
`to make sure we are not getting into the substance of
`
`communications between Dr. Kelly and the attorneys,
`
`whether that's in the CBM proceeding or the District
`
`Court.
`
` MR. MARSH: Let's go back to my question.
`
` Q Are the opinions that you provide on
`
`CompuSonics' products and activities based solely on
`
`materials that were provided to you in the CBM
`
`proceedings in combination with your understanding of
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know?
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000023
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 22
`
` I'm not asking what materials. I'm asking
`
`specifically the -- what you are basing your opinion on
`
`and what that universe is. That is a perfectly
`
`permissible question. Please answer.
`
` A I believe that in the CBM proceedings, I set
`
`forth all of the -- all of the materials that I was
`
`relying on, which would be the documents, and what I
`
`believe one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand and based on my own -- in part on my own
`
`education and experience.
`
` Q Is it correct that you had no independent
`
`knowledge of CompuSonics' activities and products prior
`
`to the District Court litigation?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: If you are talking about the
`
`CompuSonics specifically, I just don't recall one way or
`
`the other.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Is there anything that would help you recall
`
`one way or the other?
`
` A Yes. Looking at the CompuSonics materials,
`
`determining -- trying to remember whether -- when I
`
`first saw them and taking some time to think back to
`
`where I was and what I was doing in the relevant time
`
`frame. I mean, that would be -- that would be what I
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000024
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 23
`
`would do to start the process. I'm not sure what --
`
`where that would lead and what other things I think of
`
`doing along the way, but that's how I think I would
`
`start.
`
` Q When preparing and providing your declarations
`
`in this proceeding, did you rely on any personal
`
`knowledge of CompuSonics' products or materials that was
`
`not derived from the materials you reviewed and noted in
`
`your declarations?
`
` A One more time, please.
`
` Q When preparing and providing your declarations
`
`for this proceeding, did you rely on any personal
`
`knowledge of CompuSonics' products or materials?
`
` A I'm sorry. That's the question?
`
` Q That's the question.
`
` A Okay. I don't believe so. I relied on my
`
`personal knowledge of the systems, what were available,
`
`what I believe one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand, but as for CompuSonics, I think I set forth,
`
`in the declarations, everything that I was relying on.
`
` Q Is it correct that you relied on Mr. Schwartz's
`
`declaration and testimony with respect to at least some
`
`of the CompuSonics exhibits?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what that means.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000025
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 24
`
`I'm not sure I understand your question.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q In your declarations, is it correct that you
`
`commented on certain exhibits that provided information
`
`about CompuSonics?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I certainly cited to CompuSonics'
`
`documents, exhibits in this collection of declarations.
`
`That is true.
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Is it your understanding that the CompuSonics
`
`documents that you cited to were provided to you for
`
`this proceeding?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I was given certain CompuSonics
`
`documents in these proceedings, in the District Court
`
`litigation and in the CBM proceedings and --
`
`BY MR. MARSH:
`
` Q Okay. In all four of your declarations in
`
`these two proceedings, you use the term "CompuSonics
`
`system," with "system" lowercase; is that correct?
`
` A I'm not sure. The '440 reply declaration,
`
`Exhibit 4420, the second declaration on paragraph 83 --
`
`I mean, it's the CompuSonics System with a capital "S"
`
`for System. I certainly have talked about the
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000026
`
`JOHN KELLY, Ph.D. - 4/3/2014
`
`Page 25
`
`CompuSonics System. I can't say --
`
` Q In your -- in your prior deposition in this
`
`matter, you describe the CompuSonics System as follows:
`
` Well, the CompuSonics System, as I have
`
` described it, is not just a diagram, it's --
`
` it's -- it's a list of publications, the actual
`
` hardware of the sales demonstrations,
`
` everything.
`
` Is that still your understanding today?
`
` MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, my understanding hasn't
`
`ch