`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
` _______________
`
` GOOGLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` V.
`
` SMARTFLASH LLC,
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _______________
`
` Case CBM2015-00129
`
` Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
` Case CBM2015-00126
`
` Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
` DEPOSITION OF JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, Ph.D.
`
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
`
` TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016,
`
` 9:02 A.M.
`
`Job No. 101438
`
`Pages 1 - 209
`
`Reported by: Anne M. Torreano, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR
`
`Smart(cid:71)lash - Exhibit 2105
`Apple v. Smart(cid:71)lash
`CBM2015-00131
`
`1
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
` Deposition of JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, Ph.D.,
`
`held at the offices of:
`
`2
`
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`
` 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
` San Francisco, California 94111
`
` (415)875-6600
`
` Pursuant to Notice, before Anne M. Torreano,
`
`California Certified Shorthand Reporter #10520,
`
`Registered Professional Reporter, California Certified
`
`Realtime Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY
`
` BY: MICHAEL R. CASEY, Ph.D.
`
` 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`
` McLean, Virginia 22102
`
` (571) 765-7700
`
` mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`
` BY: KEVIN SMITH
`
` 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
` San Francisco, California 94111
`
` (415) 875-6600
`
` kevinsmith@quinnemanuel.com
`
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`
` BY: ADAM BOTZENHART
`
` 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
` San Francisco, California 94111
`
` (415) 875-6600
`
` adambotzenhart@quinnemanuel.com
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`3
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
` EXAMINATION INDEX
`
`4
`
`JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, Ph.D. PAGE
`
` BY MR. CASEY 5
`
`
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS REFERRED TO
`
`EXHIBIT 1001 ('221 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1001 ('317 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1002 ('221 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1002 ('317 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1004 ('221 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1006 ('221 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1007 ('221 patent)
`
`EXHIBIT 1011 ('221 patent)
`
`
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
` TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016; 9:02 A.M.
`
` JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR, Ph.D.,
`
` having been duly sworn to tell the truth,
`
`5
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. CASEY:
`
` Q. State your name for the record.
`
` A. My name is Justin, J-u-s-t-i-n, Douglas,
`
`D-o-u-g-l-a-s, Tygar, T-y-g-a-r.
`
` Q. And your address?
`
` A. 1285 Alvarado, A-L-V-A-R-A-D-O, Road,
`
`Berkeley, California 94705.
`
` Q. Have you ever testified before?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. When?
`
` A. I've testified a number of times.
`
` Q. Can you give me a -- have you ever testified
`
`before the Patent Office, in a proceeding before the
`
`Patent Office?
`
` A. Yes, I have.
`
` Q. And can you recall any of those proceedings?
`
` A. I'm not sure I can remember all of them. I
`
`think I've testified in between five to ten AIA
`
`proceedings.
`
` Q. Okay. Can you recall any of the other AIA
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`6
`
`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
`
`proceedings you testified in?
`
` A. One was a proceeding involving Moneycat vs.
`
`eBay and PayPal, I think were the defendants. Another
`
`one in which I testified -- I'm trying to remember the
`
`name of the parent company. It's the parent company
`
`of RSA Corporation. Another involved a gaming
`
`company. I'm sorry. I don't remember the specific
`
`parties involved.
`
` Q. That's fine. In the other proceedings, what
`
`were the -- strike that.
`
` Before we transition to the AIA cases, have
`
`you ever testified before the Board of Patent Appeals
`
`and Interferences back before it changed its name?
`
` A. I'm not sure, because I don't know how the
`
`Patent and Trademark Office organizes things. I know
`
`that I, at various times, prepared declarations when a
`
`patent was being challenged, and -- but I don't know
`
`whether those were being heard by a patent examiner or
`
`by a board within the Patent and Trademark Office. I
`
`just don't remember.
`
` Q. That's fine.
`
` Have you ever testified -- do you recall if
`
`you ever testified in a patent interference case,
`
`where two parties were trying to determine who
`
`invented first?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`6
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`7
`
`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. I don't remember that as I sit here, no.
`
` Q. Okay. And you're not a lawyer; correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Did you intend any of your opinions in either
`
`of your declarations for CBM 2015-000126 and -0129 to
`
`be considered legal opinions?
`
` A. So absolutely not. And just to clarify, as I
`
`understand it, those are the declarations for the '221
`
`and the '317 patent.
`
` Q. They are, and I will give you copies.
`
` A. Great.
`
` Q. I notice that you brought a folder with you.
`
` Can you tell me what the folder is?
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. I don't want to worry about --
`
` A. Absolutely.
`
` Q. -- having extra exhibits we don't need to, so
`
`I'll hand you things as I think we need them.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` I have a copy of the '221 patent. I have a
`
`copy of my declaration regarding the '221 patent, and
`
`I have a copy of the Board's institution decision for
`
`the '221 patent. I have a copy of the '317 patent. I
`
`have a copy of my declaration in the '317 patent, and
`
`I have a copy of the Board's institution decision for
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`7
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`the '317 patent.
`
` I have a copy of my c.v. as it was presented
`
`as an exhibit to my declaration, and I have a copy of
`
`the district court's claim construction order by
`
`Judge -- excuse me, signed by Judge Nicole Mitchell.
`
` Q. So is there a way that you would like me to
`
`refer to the two separate proceedings? I can do it by
`
`patent number or I can do it by CBM number. Is there
`
`a way that's easier for you?
`
` A. Patent number, if you don't mind, please.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. Despite the fact that you
`
`already have these, I'm going to -- you can use
`
`whichever one you prefer, but this is Exhibit 1002 for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221, which is double-sided to be
`
`very Californian.
`
` Oh, actually, this one's not. Huh. I don't
`
`know.
`
` And so I think you already have a copy.
`
`You're welcome to use either the copy that I've handed
`
`you or your own copy. I assume that none of the
`
`documents in front of you that you brought with you
`
`have been marked?
`
` A. That's a correct assumption.
`
` Q. And then in addition, I'm going to hand you
`
`Exhibit 1002 from -- which is your declaration for
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`8
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317.
`
` Give one to your counsel and make sure it's
`
`9
`
`okay to hand it to you.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. Okay. When were you retained by counsel for
`
`Google? Do you know?
`
` A. I don't recall the exact date. I think I
`
`signed the declarations in May, so it would have been
`
`before then. My best recollection as I sit here now
`
`is early in 2014. Sorry. No, I misspoke. Early in
`
`2015. That's right.
`
` Q. Okay. And what did counsel ask you to do
`
`when you were retained?
`
` A. They asked me to -- broadly speaking, they
`
`asked me to look at and analyze -- I can't recall
`
`exactly how many patents I looked at. I think there
`
`might have been five in total, to look at them and
`
`analyze them and form an opinion as to issues of
`
`validity.
`
` Q. Okay. And so you were asked as part of that
`
`to look at the issue of whether the claims of the '221
`
`patent or certain claims of the '221 patent were
`
`directed towards statutory matter; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes, and also the '317 patent.
`
` Q. And is it your understanding that statutory
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`9
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`10
`
`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
`
`subject matter is a technical question or legal
`
`question?
`
` A. Well, I think ultimately the question is a
`
`legal one, but I think it's informed by technical
`
`issues.
`
` Q. Which portions of the analysis under 101 do
`
`you consider to be legal issues versus technical
`
`issues?
`
` A. So there's a couple points that come up. If
`
`you -- first of all, the first step in analyzing
`
`claims I think is claim construction. And claim
`
`construction is -- for patents that are rooted in
`
`technology is a technical question. So I believe that
`
`engineering expertise has a role to play in informing
`
`claim construction.
`
` Then my understanding is that in 2014 the
`
`Supreme Court ruled on a decision called, by short,
`
`Alice, and in that decision they made a two-step
`
`analysis for analyzing eligible subject matter. The
`
`first step is to determine whether or not a patent is
`
`directed towards an abstract idea. And if it is
`
`directed towards an abstract idea, then the second
`
`test is -- the second part of the test is to determine
`
`whether or not there is an inventive concept that's
`
`significantly more than an abstract idea.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`10
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
` So I think that in some cases a technical
`
`perspective can help inform the legal decision of
`
`whether a concept is an abstract concept or not, and
`
`furthermore, I think that a technical perspective can
`
`help inform the question of whether or not a patent or
`
`a patent claim discloses significantly more than an
`
`abstract idea.
`
` Q. Okay. And so is it fair to say that the
`
`question of whether or not a claim is directed towards
`
`an abstract idea is ultimately a legal conclusion? Is
`
`that your understanding?
`
` A. So when you say "ultimately," there's an
`
`ambiguity because we could talk about whether it is
`
`one ultimately in terms of an issue of jurisprudence
`
`or ultimately in, you know, the judgment of history.
`
`If we're talking in the context of jurisprudence, my
`
`understanding is it is ultimately, in AIA proceedings,
`
`the Board that makes the initial decision as to
`
`whether or not a claim is an abstract idea or not, and
`
`then that potentially can be appealed to the Federal
`
`Circuit Appeals Court.
`
` And in the case of court proceedings, that
`
`would be a district court that makes that decision.
`
`So ultimately that decision is made -- is made by a
`
`legal body. So ultimately in terms of jurisprudence,
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`11
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`12
`
`I would say it's a legal decision, but it's informed
`
`by technology.
`
` Q. In forming your opinions in this case, did
`
`you look at any Supreme Court decisions?
`
` A. Well, I've read, as just an interested
`
`citizen over time, Supreme Court decisions. As you
`
`know, they're easily available on the web.
`
` At the time that Alice was decided, it
`
`received a great deal of publicity in the general
`
`media, and I remember going and reading -- I think
`
`Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, and I think
`
`there was a concurring opinion from Justice Sotomayor.
`
`I remember reading those opinions.
`
` But in the context of this particular one, I
`
`did not go back and re-read those. And to be fair,
`
`when I read those decisions, I read them as an
`
`interested citizen, not in any sort of professional
`
`capacity.
`
` Q. In forming your opinion in this case, did you
`
`look at any Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
`
`decisions?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. In doing your work in this case, did you
`
`apply your methodology to any other patents as a test
`
`of your methodology?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`12
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
` A. Do you mean other than the five patents that
`
`13
`
`I wrote declarations on?
`
` Q. Correct.
`
` A. No, in the course of doing this work, I only
`
`looked at these five patents.
`
` Q. Prior to preparing your declarations, how
`
`many patents had you analyzed under 35 USC 101 to
`
`determine if they were directed towards statutory
`
`subject matter?
`
` A. I don't remember. I have done it before. I
`
`don't remember the number.
`
` Q. More than five? Less than five?
`
` A. I really don't remember. You know, the --
`
`it's -- it's over a period of time. And moreover,
`
`it's often the case that there are multiple issues
`
`that arise. For example, sometimes there's issues --
`
`I believe they're called 102 and 103, issues of
`
`anticipation and obviousness. So I really can't give
`
`you an estimate. I would not say it was a huge
`
`number, but I have done it before.
`
` Q. In doing your work in this case, did you
`
`apply your methodology to determine statutory subject
`
`matter under 101 to any other patents for which there
`
`was a federal circuit decision on the issue?
`
` A. I don't understand the question.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`13
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`14
`
`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. Did you apply your methodology on what was an
`
`abstract idea to a patent where the federal circuit
`
`also performed an analysis to determine whether or not
`
`the federal circuit thought something was an abstract
`
`idea?
`
` A. Well, I know that some cases that I've been
`
`involved with have been reviewed by the federal
`
`circuit, but I believe that was -- I believe in the --
`
`I believe the decisions I've seen were pre Alice, and
`
`as I sit here now post Alice, I am not aware of -- I
`
`mean, there may have been, but I'm not aware of any
`
`review of a 101 analysis by -- by the appeals court or
`
`of -- that analyzed -- that reviewed my analysis.
`
` No, I'm not aware of that.
`
` Q. So you didn't, for example, to test your
`
`methodology, read a patent that had a decision without
`
`reading the decision, determine for yourself whether
`
`or not you thought that the patent in front of you was
`
`an abstract idea or was statutory subject matter for
`
`some other reason, and then cross-checked it with what
`
`the federal circuit said about the same case?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. So did you apply -- so then it's safe to say
`
`you didn't apply your methodology to the patent at
`
`issue in the case of DDR Holdings?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`14
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
` A. That's right. I saw that in the institution
`
`decisions that -- that they discuss DDR Holdings,
`
`and -- but I did not apply my method at the time that
`
`I -- or afterwards, frankly, to DDR Holdings.
`
` Q. So you don't know, for example, what your
`
`false-positive rate would be for analyzing patents
`
`under 101, given the methodology that you've used?
`
` MR. SMITH: Objection. Ambiguous, vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, to measure
`
`false-positive, one has to have ground truth, and I am
`
`not aware of any generally accepted ground truth of --
`
`or these sorts of questions. Courts can differ in
`
`their opinion.
`
`BY MR. CASEY:
`
` Q. Similarly, you don't know what your
`
`false-negative rate would be for analyzing patents
`
`under 101, given the methodology that you've used?
`
` MR. SMITH: Objection. Ambiguous.
`
` MR. CASEY: Just so you know, Counsel --
`
`maybe you haven't done PTAB depositions -- you're
`
`allowed to say "objection." One of the things that
`
`the Patent Office rules will not let you say is
`
`"ambiguous."
`
` MR. SMITH: Is that right?
`
` MR. CASEY: Yeah. Just so you know.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`15
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`16
`
` MR. SMITH: Can you check that for me under
`
`the PTAB --
`
` When I think the objection is that it's
`
`ambiguous, what would you like me to say? "Form"?
`
` MR. CASEY: That's the problem, is that the
`
`Patent Office rule is that you cannot state an
`
`objection which hints at an answer. So you can say
`
`"objection" and that's it.
`
` MR. SMITH: Well, I don't think that's
`
`actually the rule, but I'll check it on the break.
`
`But until then I will say "objection," and can we just
`
`agree that that preserves any objection to form?
`
` MR. CASEY: Yes.
`
` MR. SMITH: Okay. Then that's what I will
`
`do.
`
` THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question,
`
`please?
`
`BY MR. CASEY:
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` You don't know what your false-negative rate
`
`would be for analyzing patents under 101 given the
`
`methodology that you've used; correct?
`
` A. Once again, to define false-negative as to
`
`define false-positive, one needs ground truth, and I'm
`
`not aware of any generally accepted ground truth for
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`16
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`101 questions.
`
` Q. So is it fair to say that the opinions in
`
`your declarations for the '221 patent and the '317
`
`patent are based not on a scientific method but on
`
`your belief in how the claims would be held as to
`
`validity under 101?
`
` A. No, that's not fair.
`
` Q. If your opinions are not based on ground
`
`truth, how are they the subject of scientific
`
`certainty?
`
` A. My opinions are based on many decades of
`
`having worked in the field of being aware -- closely
`
`aware of what was being done, what was generally
`
`known, what people of ordinary skill in the art knew
`
`at the time of the patents. It is -- it is based on
`
`understanding the technology described.
`
` You seem to assume that scientific method is
`
`equivalent to absolute certainty of truth, but in
`
`fact, that's not the way that science works. Many
`
`examples can be given, but for example, the switch
`
`from the ptolemaic model of the universe to the
`
`Copernican model of the universe or from Newtonian
`
`physics to Einsteinian physics are both examples of
`
`how scientific method is constantly improving.
`
` I know of no scientist who would say credibly
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`17
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`that he or she was certain that his or her scientific
`
`theories were absolutely true. It seems to me that
`
`that sort of certainty is reserved for theology rather
`
`than science.
`
` It's also the case that, you know, I remember
`
`when -- I believe when Chief Justice Roberts was
`
`having his nomination hearings before the Senate, he
`
`analogized role of a judge to a baseball umpire. And
`
`I think we can say that some umpire decisions are
`
`fairly close, we're not sure that was a ball or a
`
`strike, but many of them are quite clear. In this
`
`case, I have to say that it wasn't a close call.
`
` Q. So what, in your decades of experience in the
`
`computer field, enables you to opine with certainty as
`
`to the judicial question of what is an abstract idea?
`
` What factors did you look at that helped you
`
`to ascertain that the claims in the '221 patent were
`
`directed towards an abstract idea?
`
` A. So I summarize -- I summarize that in the
`
`paragraphs 56 through 66 of my '221 declaration, and I
`
`can find the corresponding sections, if you wish, in
`
`my '317 declaration.
`
` First of all, I notice -- I noted that the
`
`computer hardware that was recited was all generic and
`
`conventional. My experience in the field enables me
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`18
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`to say with certainty that the computer -- the
`
`computer hardware recited in claim 3 is generic and
`
`conventional.
`
` I then referred to a well-known paper in --
`
`by Alan Turing which describes the notion of an
`
`abstract computer processor. I pointed out that the
`
`data carrier, which is discussed, which is mentioned
`
`as being, for example, a standard smart card, is a
`
`generic hardware device that was known in the prior
`
`art. I have been on scientific conference committees
`
`and written papers about smart cards, so I feel
`
`qualified to say that.
`
` Then I pointed out that the processor and the
`
`interfaces that were recited in the '221 patent
`
`specification are also generic hardware components
`
`that were well known in the prior art. So I work in
`
`the field, and so I feel I'm qualified to make that
`
`statement.
`
` I then pointed out that the functions pointed
`
`out by the code -- right now I'm talking about '221,
`
`so we're talking about claim 3 of '221. So the
`
`functions recited as reading, forwarding, receiving
`
`retrieving, writing and outputting, that they can be
`
`performed without a computer. I pointed out that
`
`performing these functions with a computer is routine
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`19
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`and conventional, that reading data from a data
`
`carrier, a standard smart card, forwarding data,
`
`receiving data, retrieving data, writing data, and
`
`outputting data are all generic, conventional, routine
`
`computer functions that were well known in the prior
`
`art.
`
` And I refer to, you know, work at the dawn of
`
`computer science that was done by Charles Babbage, but
`
`certainly the notion that arose in the '60s during the
`
`ARPANET project, which later became the Internet. And
`
`then I point out that claim 3 is -- does not recite
`
`the use of generic computer hardware and functions to
`
`override some routine or conventional sequence of
`
`events. So having worked in the field, I feel
`
`qualified to opine on routine and conventional
`
`sequence events.
`
` So that is how I applied my expertise to
`
`reach the conclusions that I did.
`
` Q. So, Dr. Tygar, as I understood your
`
`testimony, you essentially talked about two different
`
`things: One is the abstract idea, and the other is
`
`whether or not there were other features that were
`
`part of the claim that even if the claim was directed
`
`to an abstract idea may or may not have affected
`
`whether or not the claim was directed towards
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`20
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`statutory subject matter.
`
` Is that a fair summary of that long answer
`
`you just gave me?
`
` MR. SMITH: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question,
`
`please?
`
` RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS:
`
` "Q. So, Dr. Tygar, as I understood your
`
` testimony, you essentially talked about two
`
` different things: One is the abstract idea,
`
` and the other is whether or not there were
`
` other features that were part of the claim
`
` that even if the claim was directed to an
`
` abstract idea may or may not have affected
`
` whether or not the claim was directed towards
`
` statutory subject matter.
`
` "Is that a fair summary of that long
`
` answer you just gave me?"
`
` THE WITNESS: Can I ask you to break down
`
`that question, please?
`
`BY MR. CASEY:
`
` Q. Sure. There's a distinction between whether
`
`or not something is an abstract idea -- strike that.
`
` There's a distinction between whether a claim
`
`is directed to an abstract idea and whether a claim,
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`21
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`if directed to an abstract idea, may nonetheless be
`
`statutory subject matter because of other factors;
`
`right?
`
` MR. SMITH: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not a lawyer, but
`
`that's my understanding.
`
`BY MR. CASEY:
`
` Q. Okay. And right now I'm -- my original
`
`question before you gave me the long answer was how do
`
`you know that claim 3 is directed to the abstract idea
`
`of controlling access based on payment?
`
` Just focusing on how do we know it's an
`
`abstract idea, what were the factors that you looked
`
`at in determining -- not the second part of the test,
`
`the Alice test, which is if it is an abstract idea,
`
`then do all these other things, but how did -- what
`
`factors did you look at in coming to the conclusion
`
`that claim 3 of the '221 patent is directed to the
`
`abstract idea of controlling access based on payment?
`
` A. So if we use the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, claim 3, which is dependent on claim
`
`1, so I'm also including the text of claim 1 in there,
`
`it recites code to read payment data, forward payment
`
`data to a payment validation system, receive payment
`
`validation from the payment validation system --
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`22
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
`sorry, I misspoke. Receive payment validation data
`
`from the payment validation system, and retrieve data
`
`once validation of payment for that data has been
`
`received.
`
` So that's the abstract idea of controlling
`
`access based on payment. That's a -- that's -- that
`
`idea of getting payment information, checking whether
`
`the payment is valid, and then retrieving that payment
`
`information and providing access, that's -- that's --
`
`it's actually an ancient idea, and it's an abstract
`
`idea.
`
` We can see that it's abstract. There's no --
`
`there's nothing in that claim that is reciting
`
`something concrete.
`
` Q. I'm going to hand you what's previously been
`
`marked as Exhibit 101. This is the '221 patent. I
`
`know you already have a copy.
`
` A. Thank you.
`
` Q. And so if I could ask you to turn to claim 3.
`
` A. Excuse me. Oh, right. The patent itself. I
`
`understand. Thank you.
`
` Q. Okay. Actually, before we turn to the
`
`patent, let me ask you what structures are required
`
`for the abstract idea of controlling access based on
`
`payment?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`23
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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
`
` A. I don't recall that being an area -- a
`
`question that I considered in my analysis.
`
` Q. Okay. What steps are required for the
`
`abstract idea of controlling access based on payment?
`
` A. Well, to be fair, there are -- there's more
`
`than one way to do it.
`
` Q. Okay. So if there's more than one way to do
`
`it, how do you know -- strike that.
`
` In preparing your declaration, what steps did
`
`you consider to be required for the abstract idea of
`
`controlling access based on payment?
`
` A. I don't recall that being part of the
`
`analysis that I performed.
`
` Q. If you look at claim 3 for me, the '221
`
`patent, claim 3, as you mentioned, depends on claim 1,
`
`claim 1 recites a data access terminal.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. So among the elements in the data access
`
`terminal are program, store, storing code
`
`implementable by a processor.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And a processor coupled to the first
`
`interface, to the data carrier interface, and to the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`24
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`program store for implementing the stored code.
`
`25
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. So is a program store and a processor
`
`necessary structure required to implement the abstract
`
`idea of controlling access based on payment?
`
` A. Well, if you're doing it by computer, most
`
`certainly. If you're not doing it by computer -- or
`
`rather I should say if you're doing it by computer, as
`
`I sit here now, I can't imagine any other way of doing
`
`it without a processor and a program store.
`
` If you're doing it by another method that
`
`doesn't involve a computer, you still have some agent
`
`that's making the decision about whether to allow
`
`access or not, and that agent has some set of rules
`
`which are analogous.
`
` So as I sit here now, I can't imagine another
`
`way of doing it without a processor or, if not a
`
`machine, an agent, and without a program to control
`
`the processor or if, again, it's not running on a
`
`machine, a set of rules.
`
` Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that a data
`
`access terminal with at least a processor and a
`
`program store is a physical thing that you could
`
`build?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.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
`
`25
`
`
`
`Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 19, 2016
`
`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. Yes.
`
` Q. So when you say claim 3 is directed to the
`
`abstract idea of controlling access based on payment,
`
`you don't mean that claim 3 describes a mental
`
`process, do you?
`
` A. Well, mental implies that it's -- that it's
`
`conceived by a sentient being. There can be a set of
`
`rules that are executed by a machine. The actual
`
`components that are listed here, while they are
`
`physical components, they're just routine,
`
`conventional, generic components. There's -- so to
`
`the extent that an inventive concept exists here, it
`
`would be in the process that was performed or perhaps
`
`in something more that would have to appear in the
`
`claim.
`
` Q. Okay. You've jumped to step 2 again, and I'm
`
`trying to stick, if we can, with step 1 of trying to
`
`figure out how you know that claim 3 is directed to an
`
`abstract idea.
`
` And so