UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`—--o0o---
`
`YODLEE,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`No. 14—1445—PLS—CJB
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DONALD BOYS
`
`TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`
`YODLEE 2003
`PLAID V. YODLEE, ET. AL.
`CBM2016-00037
`
`
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`—--o0o---
`
`YODLEE,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`No. 14—1445—PLS—CJB
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DONALD BOYS
`
`TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`
`YODLEE 2003
`PLAID V. YODLEE, ET. AL.
`CBM2016-00037
`
`
`
`Page 103
`
`The date last modified is 8/16/2000.
`
`Do
`
`you know whether that's a correct date as to when
`
`this document was stored in your systems?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I do not.
`
`This is a copy of a -- at least maybe a
`
`screen capture of the PCT application that was filed
`
`by Verticalone Corporation, correct?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`It seems to be.
`
`Do you know whether or not this document
`
`was in your files on August 16th, 2000?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I don't.
`
`And the folder path in the metadata, it
`
`says "Case 3902."
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Folder path. Folder path.
`
`I do see that.
`
`Do you know if Case 3902 is the case
`
`number for the ‘O77 patent?
`
`A
`
`That's one of our matter numbers, and I
`
`think it may very well have been the matter number
`
`that resulted in the '077 patent.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So this document is in the file for the
`
`'077 patent but not submitted to the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office; is that correct?
`
`A
`
`I don't know that it was or wasn't.
`
`I
`
`don't remember.
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`2
`
`
`
`Q
`
`Well, we haven't seen anything in the file
`
`history that shows that it was submitted to the
`
`patent office, correct?
`
`Page 104
`
`Then it very likely was not.
`
`So do you know why it was not submitted?
`
`This document?
`
`Yes.
`
`I don't know why.
`
`A
`
`Q A Q
`
`A
`
`MR. BUROKER: And then show you this.
`
`(Defendant's Exhibit 11 marked
`
`for identification.)
`
`BY MR. BUROKER:
`
`Q
`
`So what I've marked as Exhibit 11 is a
`
`document that's bearing Bates Number CCPA 917
`
`through -928.
`
`And it's got a title, "Summarizing the Web
`
`with Auto Log—in," by inventors P. Venkat Rangan,
`
`Sam Inala, and Schwark Satyavolu, May 12th, 1999.
`
`Do you recognize this document?
`
`A
`
`I have seen it in review in the last few
`
`days, but --
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`What do you believe this document to be?
`
`I believe it to be at least one of the
`
`documents that may have been submitted to me as
`
`disclosure for preparing the 3902, what eventually
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`3
`
`
`
`was the ‘O77 patent.
`
`Q
`
`So does this help confirm that 3902 is
`
`your case number for the ‘O77 patent?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I think it does.
`
`And the substance of the description here,
`
`"Summarizing the Web with Auto Log—in," that
`
`corresponds to your recollection of what's in the
`
`‘O77 patent?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`The general nature of the patent, yes.
`
`And it was submitted, at least according
`
`to this document, May 12th, 1999, and the ‘O77 was
`
`filed June 1, 1999; is that correct?
`
`A
`
`Well, I'd have to check to be sure, but I
`
`think you're probably correct. Filing date was --
`
`is on the patent.
`
`Q
`
`Which you've got; that's Exhibit 9, if you
`
`want to look at it.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`No, that's okay.
`
`Take your word for it.
`
`Is three weeks a reasonable —— strike
`
`Does three weeks seem like a turnaround
`
`time that you would have been able to employ from
`
`the time you received the document to filing an
`
`application?
`
`A
`
`I think you're making an assumption,
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 106
`
`actually,
`
`in the question that this was the first
`
`document or my first knowledge of the technology.
`
`I'm not sure that's the case.
`
`Q
`
`So this could have been a subsequent
`
`A
`
`From them, it could have been, yes.
`
`I
`
`certainly didn't draft this.
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`So this is client—written work product?
`
`Yes,
`
`I believe it is.
`
`Do you know why the last two pages have
`
`the redactions on them?
`
`If you go to the very
`
`bottom, it says "redacted."
`
`A
`
`I really don't know why.
`
`I can only
`
`surmise, speculate.
`
`I know why things are redacted
`
`because they're privileged.
`
`MR. BUROKER: We'll
`
`take that up with
`
`counsel.
`
`I don't believe there's a privilege log
`
`entry for this date, but maybe there is and we just
`
`can't find it.
`
`MR. BARKAN: Could be. This looks like
`
`it's from the original CashEdge production, so I'll
`
`have somebody look at it because I suspect the same
`
`document was also produced with CCPA_Plaid numbers,
`
`but I'll check.
`
`MR. BUROKER: Yeah, we can --
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`5
`
`
`
`possible.
`
`So then I want you —— if you would look at
`
`another exhibit.
`
`BY M. BUROKER:
`
`(Defendant's Exhibit 12 marked
`
`for identification.)
`
`Q
`
`So what was marked as Exhibit 12 is the
`
`Second Amended Central Coast Patent Agency privilege
`
`document log from the Yodlee/CashEdge case, which
`
`counsel in this case have reproduced.
`
`So you'll see
`
`there's also a Yodlee_Plaid Bates number at the
`
`bottom for us to look at.
`
`I wanted you to look at a couple of
`
`entries on the privilege log.
`
`In fact,
`
`the very
`
`last entry. There's a communication from Greg
`
`Kirsch to you, copying Mr. Barkan and Mr. Polverari
`
`and Sree Rajan in February 28th, 2001.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I do.
`
`And the description is "E—mail string and
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`attachments transmitting provisional patent
`
`applications."
`
`Do you recall whether or not these
`
`provisional patent applications relate to the --
`
`what became the '783 patent?
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`wnwwnverfiextconl
`
`212-490-3430
`
`6
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
