Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _____________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _____________________
`
` UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI AND KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
` Patent Owners.
`
` _____________________
`
` Case CBM2016-00064
`
` Case CBM2016-00063
`
` Patent 8,266,432
`
` DEPOSITION OF SETH NIELSON, PH.D.
`
` March 28, 2017
`
` Deposition of SETH NIELSON, PH.D., held at
`
`the offices of Fish & Richardson, P.C., 1425 K
`
`Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C., commencing at
`
`9:23 a.m., Tuesday, March 28, 2017, before KAREN
`
`YOUNG, Notary Public.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _____________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _____________________
`
` UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI AND KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
` Patent Owners.
`
` _____________________
`
` Case CBM2016-00064
`
` Case CBM2016-00063
`
` Patent 8,266,432
`
` DEPOSITION OF SETH NIELSON, PH.D.
`
` March 28, 2017
`
` Deposition of SETH NIELSON, PH.D., held at
`
`the offices of Fish & Richardson, P.C., 1425 K
`
`Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C., commencing at
`
`9:23 a.m., Tuesday, March 28, 2017, before KAREN
`
`YOUNG, Notary Public.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
`
`FOR UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION:
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` BY: TIMOTHY W. RIFFE, ESQUIRE
` BRIAN J. GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE
` THOMAS A. ROZYLOWICZ, ESQUIRE
` 1425 K Street, Northwest
` 11th Floor
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` bgoldberg@fr.com
` riffe@fr.com
` (202) 783-5070
`
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
` BY: STEVE JAE YOUN KIM, ESQUIRE
` 3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 404
` Fairfax, Virginia 22030
` skim@nkllaw.com
` (703) 745-5495
`
` MH2 TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP
` BY: STEVEN ASHBURN, ESQUIRE
` 1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 550
` Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
` sashburn@mh2law.com
` (703) 917-0000
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`WITNESS: SETH NIELSON, PH.D.
`
`EXAMINATION: PAGE
`
` By Mr. Ashburn............................. 5
`
` By Mr. Riffe............................... 146
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
` DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
`
` SETH NIELSON, PH.D.
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
`
`Exhibit 1 Declaration of Seth Nielson, Ph.D.......... 12
`
`Exhibit 2 Patent Owners Response, Case CBM2016-00063. 21
`
`Exhibit 3 Certificate of Correction.................. 31
`
`Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent No. 7,356,837.................. 36
`
`Exhibit 5 U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432.................. 36
`
`Exhibit 6 Section 2151 from MPEP..................... 51
`
`Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent No. 8,281,129.................. 71
`
`Exhibit 8 U.S. Patent No. 7,444,676.................. 107
`
`Exhibit 9 Declaration of Dr. Alfred C. Weaver........ 109
`
`Exhibit 10 Patent Owners Response, CBM2016-00064...... 145
`
` ******
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` - - -
`
` SETH NIELSON, PH.D.,
`
` having been first duly sworn by
`
` Karen Young, a Notary Public
`
` within and for the District of
`
` Columbia, was examined and testified as
`
` follows:
`
` - - -
`
` MR. ASHBURN: Should we do introductions?
`
`I can start for us. So for the patent owner, I am
`
`Steven Ashburn of MH2 Law, and I am backup counsel.
`
` MR. KIM: My name is Steve Jae Youn Kim
`
`from Novick, Kim & Lee. I'm the lead counsel.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Tim Riffe with Fish &
`
`Richardson. With me is Brian Goldberg, also of Fish
`
`& Richardson, and Thomas Rozylowicz of Fish &
`
`Richardson on behalf of USAA.
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PATENT OWNERS
`
` BY MR. ASHBURN:
`
` Q. Okay, so to kick off, just for the record,
`
`I think we both -- we all realize that this
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`deposition is applicable to both CBMs, CBM2016-00063
`
`and CBM2016-00064. So good morning, Dr. Nielson.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Can you please state your home address for
`
`the record?
`
` A. 12210 Woodelves Drive, Owings Mills,
`
`Maryland 21117.
`
` Q. And could you please state your work
`
`address for the record?
`
` A. So I have work at Crimson Vista, which is
`
`also my home address, and then at Johns Hopkins
`
`University. I believe that the address for the
`
`university is 3500 North Charles Street in Baltimore.
`
`I don't remember the zip code off the top of my head.
`
` Q. And are you employed at John Hopkins
`
`Information Security Institute?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you understand that you've just taken an
`
`oath as if you were testifying in a court of law?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is there any reason that you cannot give
`
`truthful or accurate testimony today?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you have any medical conditions which we
`
`might need to be made aware of?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So turning to your C.V., what percentage of
`
`your overall personal income comes from serving as an
`
`expert witness in legal proceedings such as this one?
`
` A. I don't know exactly.
`
` Q. Can you give me an estimate?
`
` A. I would estimate that it is probably -- my
`
`best estimate is maybe two thirds.
`
` Q. Okay. Could you please tell me who first
`
`contacted you for engagement in this matter?
`
` A. I don't remember. It's been over a year.
`
`I'm not sure.
`
` Q. Was it one of the folks from Fish &
`
`Richardson?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you have a main point of contact at Fish
`
`& Richardson?
`
` A. I would say that Tom Rozylowicz is probably
`
`my main point of contact.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Is there anyone else you work closely with
`
`on these CBMs?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. I have also worked closely with Brian
`
`Goldberg.
`
` Q. Do you or your family have any financial
`
`ties or fiscal interests in USAA?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And can you tell me, about how much time
`
`did you spend preparing for this deposition?
`
` A. Specifically preparing for this deposition,
`
`I put in some hours on Saturday reviewing my
`
`declarations that I've submitted, and some hours
`
`yesterday doing the same.
`
` Q. During that time, did you consider any
`
`materials that aren't listed in your materials
`
`considered and your declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And during the time that you spent
`
`preparing, did you spend all of that time working
`
`with petitioner's counsel?
`
` A. No, some of the time I was by myself.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. So about how much time did you spend with
`
`petitioner's counsel?
`
` A. I would say about five hours.
`
` Q. So just kicking off into the matters at
`
`hand, I just want to lay out some terms before we get
`
`started so we can have a common glossary to work
`
`with. Especially with patents, there's always some
`
`terms of art that we tend to throw around that I'd
`
`like to make sure that I don't mix them up and that
`
`we're on the same page when we talk. So in these
`
`CBMs, do you understand when I say patent owners, I
`
`mean the Asghari-Kamranis and -- who comprise Nader
`
`Asghari-Kamrani and Kamran Asghari-Kamrani? Do you
`
`understand that?
`
` A. That is my understanding as well.
`
` Q. Okay. And when I refer to the petitioner,
`
`I'm referring to United States Automobile
`
`Association, Inc., or for short USAA.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. As for the patents, I am going to refer to
`
`U.S. patent number 8,266,432 as the '432 patent.
`
` A. Yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. U.S. patent number 7,444,676 as the '676
`
`patent.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. U.S. patent number 8,281,129 as the '129
`
`patent.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And U.S. patent number 7,356,837 as the
`
`'837 patent.
`
` A. Yes. Let me add, I don't remember the full
`
`numbers --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- from the top of my head, but assuming
`
`those are the correct numbers, I agree with those
`
`shortening of the terms.
`
` Q. So for another shortcut, we often
`
`throughout this matter have referred to the '676
`
`patent and the '129 patent and the '837 patent
`
`numbers by their patent numbers as opposed to their
`
`application numbers. Do you understand that the '676
`
`patent corresponds to U.S. application number
`
`11/239,046?
`
` A. I have to double-check my report, but I
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`understand the concept of the patent application and
`
`the patent and where they're the same or different.
`
` Q. Sure. For the record, I'm going to go
`
`through it and that way we'll have it all down.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. And for the '129 patent, it -- we're going
`
`to refer to that as opposed to application number
`
`11/333,400. Do you understand?
`
` A. Yes, with the same caveats.
`
` Q. And for the '837 patent, we're going to
`
`refer to that as opposed to U.S. patent application
`
`number 09/940,635. Understood?
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. All right, still referring to our glossary,
`
`in this case when I say CBM review or CBMs, I'm
`
`referring to a covered business method review.
`
`Understood?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And when I say "these CBMs," I'm referring
`
`to CBM2016-00063 and CBM2016-00064.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And we also toss around the term, a person
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. We often shortcut
`
`to save words as a POSITA, and also sometimes as one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And I will tend to interchange those
`
`because I refer to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`but the rest of the world does not. All right, we're
`
`going to start off and I'm going to give the court
`
`reporter a document that's going to be marked as
`
`Nielson Exhibit Number 1. It's also identified as
`
`USAA document 1054 in this CBM.
`
` - - -
`
` (A document was marked as Deposition
`
`Exhibit Number 1.)
`
` - - -
`
` MR. ASHBURN: Would you guys like a copy?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Thanks.
`
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
` BY MR. ASHBURN:
`
` Q. Do you recognize the document I just handed
`
`you?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And at face value, it's a copy of your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. It is a copy of the declaration that I
`
`submitted on February 21st, 2017.
`
` Q. Thank you. So I'm going to refer to this
`
`document as your declaration or the Nielson
`
`declaration. Understood?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you work on your declaration alone?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. What do you mean, work on and alone?
`
` Q. As you typed up your declaration, did you
`
`have a attorney present with you?
`
` A. While I was typing it up, no.
`
` Q. Did anyone help you write your declaration
`
`as far as the contents?
`
` A. So there were certainly sections where I
`
`had some input from counsel, especially, for example,
`
`in the sections where there were legal standards, as
`
`well as feedback or input that I incorporated when it
`
`was consistent with my opinion.
`
` Q. At any time did someone send you text and
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`you just incorporated it word for word?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Were there any instances where you received
`
`a message like an e-mail and cut and pasted into your
`
`document?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Who prepared the first draft of your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. After your first draft, did you contact
`
`anyone for assistance?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. I had my drafts reviewed by counsel to get
`
`feedback.
`
` Q. So when you take the entire 52 pages of
`
`your declaration, can you give me an estimate of how
`
`much was your original text as opposed to what was
`
`provided to you by counsel?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. So there's no part of my document that is
`
`just provided to me by counsel. To the extent that
`
`there was feedback that I incorporated that was
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`additioned -- in addition to my first draft, I'm not
`
`sure what the percentage is.
`
` Q. So your declaration is applicable to both
`
`CBMs, correct?
`
` A. That is my understanding.
`
` Q. If you look at page 1 in the lower
`
`right-hand corner, there's a mark, a water mark that
`
`says USAA versus Asghari-Kamrani, CBM2016 tack 00063
`
`and CBM2016 tack 00064; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. If you turn to page 2 -- page 2 to 3, your
`
`paragraph number 5, there is a -- that encompasses a
`
`section entitled "Materials Considered," correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So please look at that list and tell me,
`
`outside of that information that's listed, whether
`
`there's anything that you consider that's not
`
`included in that list.
`
` A. So in the paragraph that precedes it, it
`
`also mentions that this is in addition to materials I
`
`cite in my declaration.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. So all of the materials considered would be
`
`things cited and these.
`
` Q. So looking at page 3 of your materials
`
`considered, you indicate that you considered patent
`
`owners' response, paper 22, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Are you aware that patent owner filed two
`
`patent owner responses in these CBMs?
`
` A. So unless it's -- without looking through
`
`my declaration, I'm not sure, but as I sit here, I'm
`
`not sure. If it is not cited or not included here,
`
`then this is the only one that I reviewed.
`
` Q. So then it would be my understanding that
`
`these CBMs involve two CBMs, and patent owner filed
`
`patent owner responses in both CBMs, and as far as
`
`you can remember, you only considered one of the
`
`responses; is that correct?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. So the primary focus that I took in this
`
`document was to respond to the report of Dr. Weaver,
`
`and I felt that I had sufficient analysis to do so.
`
` Q. Why did you focus on Dr. Weaver and not
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`patent owner responses?
`
` A. So I was -- so part of my answer to that is
`
`that I was asked to evaluate Dr. Weaver's report, and
`
`so this is an opinion I was asked to -- this is what
`
`I was asked to opine about, and that is also what I
`
`understood this declaration to be focused on, is a
`
`rebuttal declaration to that expert report primarily.
`
` Q. Do you recall who scoped out that task for
`
`you, which of the attorneys at Fish & Richardson?
`
` A. No.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Sorry.
`
` BY MR. ASHBURN:
`
` Q. Were you told not to consider certain
`
`materials?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you choose not to consider certain
`
`materials?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So again, the patent owner filed two patent
`
`owner responses, one in each CBM, and you considered
`
`one of them. Do you know which one you considered?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Did you consider the one from CBM2016 tack 0063 or
`
`the one from tack 0064?
`
` A. Without looking at the one that is cited in
`
`paper 22, I'm not sure.
`
` Q. Do you know if there's any differences
`
`between the two responses filed, the two patent owner
`
`responses?
`
` A. Not as I sit here at this time, no.
`
` Q. To rephrase that, if there was something
`
`argued in the patent owner response in the CBM2016
`
`tack 00063 that wasn't in 2016 tack 00064 patent
`
`owners' response, you would not know that.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. If it is correct that I have not seen the
`
`second one, and as I sit here, I can't remember for
`
`absolute certain if I cited it or not, but if I have
`
`not seen it, then I can't know what's in it.
`
` Q. So assuming that both the patent owners'
`
`responses are approximately the same length, and you
`
`only considered one of them, is it your practice to
`
`only consider half the material when you're doing an
`
`expert declaration?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. So one of the things that I would refer you
`
`to in my report is where I have a summary of
`
`opinions, and you'll see that in my summary of
`
`opinions, I am basing my opinions on -- in the
`
`materials considered and primarily focusing on the
`
`declaration of Dr. Weaver, which I considered to be
`
`the primary technical content in support of the CBM
`
`for the patent owner and the primary source that I
`
`needed to consider when doing a rebuttal as a
`
`technical expert.
`
` Q. With that said, does your expert
`
`declaration attempt to rebut what's in the patent
`
`owners' response in either CBM?
`
` A. I believe my opinions are set out in
`
`section 3, and I believe that my report backs up
`
`those opinions with a complete analysis.
`
` Q. But given that you didn't consider at least
`
`one of the patent owner responses, you can't have
`
`particularly known that you've rebutted what's in
`
`there.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`mischaracterize testimony.
`
` A. Again, as I said a minute ago, as a
`
`technical expert, my understanding is that my primary
`
`responsibility was to address opinions of the
`
`opposing technical expert, and that that is what is
`
`contained in my report.
`
` Q. Switching topics, are you aware of the
`
`document known as the Manual of Patent Examining
`
`Procedure?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Given that, did you consider -- we call it
`
`the MPEP for short. Did you consider the MPEP when
`
`drafting your expert declaration?
`
` A. I don't believe so, no.
`
` Q. Therefore, you could not have considered
`
`the relevant sections of the MPEP regarding the
`
`written description requirement under 35 USC 112
`
`first paragraph, correct?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. So I think I made it clear in my
`
`declaration that I am not a lawyer, and that I have
`
`my understanding of legal principles as it is
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`explained to me by counsel, and I have presented the
`
`legal principles that I used in my analysis in the
`
`report.
`
` Q. Okay, I am going to have the court reporter
`
`hand you a document that's going to be marked as
`
`Nielson Exhibit Number 2. It's also identified as
`
`the patent owners' response filed in CBM2016 tack
`
`00063, paper 22.
`
` - - -
`
` (A document was marked as Deposition
`
`Exhibit Number 2.)
`
` - - -
`
` BY MR. ASHBURN:
`
` Q. Do you recognize that document as being the
`
`patent owners' response in CBM2016 tack 000063?
`
` A. This appears to be the same patent owner
`
`response that I reviewed.
`
` Q. Can you give me a quick estimate -- I know
`
`it's not perfection -- of the number of pages within
`
`that document, just by counting? You can use the
`
`page numbers without getting them perfect.
`
` A. Maybe 75.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Let's just see. So there is, apart from
`
`the front page, there are 29 pages of arguments up to
`
`the signature page, correct?
`
` A. That appears to be correct, yes.
`
` Q. After page 29, there's an appendix 1, and
`
`that goes on for 27 pages; is that correct?
`
` A. That appears to be correct, yes.
`
` Q. And there's an appendix 2 which goes on for
`
`27 pages; is that right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. What percentage of those pages would you
`
`estimate that you considered when you drafted your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. So I reviewed all of these pages at one
`
`time or another.
`
` Q. Does your declaration include any citations
`
`to any pages or tables inside of this document --
`
`inside of the patent owners' response?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. Off the top of my head, I don't remember if
`
`I cited to any of the appendices. Again, I -- I
`
`focused primarily on Dr. Weaver's report and
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`rebutting it.
`
` Q. Would you please look at appendix 1, and
`
`based on the section headings, tell me what it
`
`addresses?
`
` A. Appendix 1 sets forth a type of claim chart
`
`showing claim -- claims from the '432 patent --
`
` Q. Uh-huh.
`
` A. -- and on the right-hand side, listing
`
`disclosures from the '129 patent, from the --
`
`primarily it appears the specification.
`
` Q. Does it set out any correspondence between
`
`claim features and disclosure in the specification of
`
`the '129 patent?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Objection, form.
`
` A. I would -- I would say that it is the
`
`patent owners' view of a mapping from the '432 patent
`
`to disclosures in the '129 patent.
`
` Q. Fair enough. Can you go through each page
`
`and tell me if it addresses every claim feature
`
`recited in the '432 patent?
`
` A. So is your question is there something
`
`filled in in the box for every one of the --
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`KAMRANI 2014
`
`
`
`Seth Nielson, Ph.D. - March 28, 2017
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Yes.
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
