SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP,
`
`INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—OO246
`
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
`and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DEPOSITION OF KETAN D. MAYER—PATEL, PH.D.
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Friday, April 18, 2014
`
`Pages:
`
`1- 55
`
`Reported by:
`
`CINDY L. SEBO, RMR, CRR, RPR, CSR, CCR, CLR, RSA
`
`JOB NO.
`
`48784
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 1
`
`
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP,
`
`INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—OO246
`
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
`and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DEPOSITION OF KETAN D. MAYER—PATEL, PH.D.
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Friday, April 18, 2014
`
`Pages:
`
`1- 55
`
`Reported by:
`
`CINDY L. SEBO, RMR, CRR, RPR, CSR, CCR, CLR, RSA
`
`JOB NO.
`
`48784
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 1
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 2
`
`Friday, April 18, 2014
`
`10:35 a.m.
`
`Deposition of KETAN D. MAYER—PATEL,
`
`PH.D., held at the offices of Fisch Hoffman Sigler,
`
`LLP, 5335 Wisconsin Ave, Northwest, Eighth Floor,
`
`Washington, D.C. 20015, on the above date pursuant
`
`to Agreement, before Cindy L. Sebo, Registered Merit
`
`Reporter, Certified Real—Time Reporter, Registered
`
`Professional Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter,
`
`Certified Court Reporter, Certified LiveNote
`
`Reporter, Real—Time Systems Administrator and Notary
`
`Public in and for the District of Columbia.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 2
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Attorney for Petitioner:
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`
`BY:
`
`MICHAEL T. MORLOCK, ESQUIRE
`
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`Winston—Sa1em, North Carolina 27101-2400
`
`336.607.7391
`
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner, Straight Path,
`and the witness:
`
`FISCH HOFFMAN SIGLER LLP
`
`BY:
`
`JASON HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE
`
`BY:
`
`LUCI BUDA, ESQUIRE
`
`BY:
`
`MICHELLE CHATELAIN, ESQUIRE
`
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Eighth Floor
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20015
`
`202.362.3500
`
`Jason.Hoffman@FischLLP.com
`
`Luci.Buda@FischLLP.com
`
`Michelle.Chatelain@FischLLP.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`VANDANA KOELSCH,
`Innovative
`Communications Technologies,
`
`Inc.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 3
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 4
`
`WITNESS
`
`PAGE NO .
`
`KETAN D . MAYER— PATEL , PH . D .
`
`By Mr. Morlock
`
`(No Exhibits Marked.)
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`wvvw.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 4
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 5
`
`DEPOS ITION SUPPORT INDEX
`
`Direction to Witness Not To Answer
`
`Page Line
`
`Page Line
`
`(None)
`
`Request For Production of Documents
`
`Page Line
`
`Page Line
`
`(None)
`
`Stipulations
`
`Page Line
`
`Page Line
`
`6
`
`1
`
`Questions Marked
`
`Page Line
`
`Page Line
`
`(None)
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 5
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 6
`
`STIPULATIONS
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
`
`the attorneys for the respective parties herein,
`
`that filing, sealing and certification of the within
`
`deposition be waived.
`
`IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that all
`
`objections, except as to the form of the question,
`
`shall be reserved to the time of the trial.
`
`IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the within
`
`deposition may be signed and sworn to before any
`
`officer authorized to administer an oath, with the
`
`same force and effect as if signed and sworn to
`
`before the Court.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 6
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 7
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`April 18, 2014; 10:35 a.m.
`
`KETAN D . MAYER— PATEL , PH . D .
`
`after having been first duly sworn, was
`
`examined and testified as follows:
`
`MR. MORLOCK: This is Michael Morlock,
`
`counsel for Petitioner.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`Jason Hoffman, counsel
`
`for Patent Owner, Straight Path, as well as
`
`for the witness.
`
`I'm joined, with my firm, by
`
`Michelle Chatelain and Luci Buda, and I'm
`
`also joined by Vandana Koelsch, counsel for
`
`Straight Path.
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Okay.
`
`As an initial matter, I'd like the
`
`record to reflect that counsel for Patent
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 7
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 8
`
`Owner has given the witness a binder.
`
`I've
`
`asked the witness to return the binder.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Will you return the binder?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Return the binder.
`
`MR. MORLOCK:
`
`To you.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`Sure.
`
`THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: And, for the record,
`
`the
`
`binder contains Dr. Mayer—Patel's expert
`
`report; a copy of the '704 patent;
`
`the two
`
`pieces of prior art involved in this IPR;
`
`the NetBIOS and WINS;
`
`the original petition
`
`filed by SIPENT; and the original decision
`
`to institute by the board.
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Are there any
`
`handwritten notes?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`I told you it'S
`
`completely clean. And you have a copy of it
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 8
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 9
`
`as well.
`
`MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Thank you very much.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: You're welcome.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`If you need to refer to the binder,
`
`please let me know, and I'll object at that time.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`I'm sorry. And you'll
`
`MR. MORLOCK: And I will object at
`
`that time.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: You will object at that
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Yes.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Have you testified in prior depositions?
`
`Yes.
`
`How many times?
`
`Maybe six times.
`
`What were those in connection with?
`
`A number of different matters. Most
`
`recently,
`
`in November,
`
`I was involved in an IPR
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 9
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 10
`
`deposition. And, prior to that,
`
`last year,
`
`I was an
`
`expert for Netflix in the International Trade
`
`Commission matter. And it was —— and so I was
`
`deposed as part of my preparation for that —— for
`
`this —— my testimony there.
`
`Prior to that, various other matters,
`
`some of it related to patents,
`
`some related to
`
`copyright or trade secret.
`
`Q.
`
`Have you ever testified in a patent
`
`litigation?
`
`A.
`
`In a patent litigation?
`
`I testified in
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`litigation.
`
`Yes.
`
`No, not in —— not in a patent
`
`Q.
`
`How many IPRs have you provided a
`
`declaration for?
`
`A.
`
`This one and the one that —— in
`
`November.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`So two?
`
`Two.
`
`And is this —— this is your second
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 10
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 11
`
`deposition for an IPR?
`
`A.
`
`This is my second deposition for an IPR,
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So since you're something of an
`
`old hand at depositions, I'll give you the short
`
`version of the ground rules.
`
`We have a court reporter here. Try not
`
`to nod;
`
`try to answer yes or no; if your counsel
`
`objects,
`
`try to give him a chance to object; give me
`
`time to answer a question —— or ask a question so
`
`that we can preserve a full record.
`
`Do you understand that?
`
`Yes.
`
`Do you understand that your testimony
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`has the same effect as it would if you were in
`
`Court?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. This deposition is going to be on
`
`topics covered in a declaration that was served in
`
`this inter partes review.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Have you taken any drugs, alcohol or
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 11
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 12
`
`anything else that affect your ability to testify
`
`this morning?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Not this morning, no.
`
`I would hope not, but
`
`I like to make
`
`sure the record it clear.
`
`If you need to take a break,
`
`let me
`
`know. As long as there's not a question pending, we
`
`can take a break.
`
`Any questions?
`
`NO.
`
`Great.
`
`Did you prepare for this deposition?
`
`Yes.
`
`When?
`
`Yesterday,
`
`I met with counsel pretty
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`much all day. We went over my declaration and the
`
`various references and talked about the —— the
`
`declaration.
`
`And then, prior to that,
`
`the last week,
`
`I reread the references in my declaration a few
`
`times in preparation for this.
`
`Q.
`
`"A few times"? You mean each reference?
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 12
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`A.
`
`I mean —— I don't remember exactly which
`
`references I —— I read and how many times I read
`
`them, but
`
`I spent a few hours reviewing the various
`
`documents involved.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. When you say "documents
`
`involved," do you mean NetBios' reference that's
`
`Exhibit 1003?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`The '704 patent?
`
`It's 6,108,704?
`
`Yes.
`
`Exhibit 1001?
`
`Yes,
`
`the patent, my declaration,
`
`the
`
`NetBIOS reference and the WINS reference.
`
`Q.
`
`Yeah. And you did this yesterday —— you
`
`also prepared yesterday?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`For approximately the full day?
`
`Approximately.
`
`How much of that time did you spend,
`
`give or take,
`
`looking at the NetBIOS reference?
`
`A.
`
`I can't recall exactly how much was on
`
`one versus the other.
`
`If I had to guess, maybe a
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 13
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 14
`
`third of the day.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A third of the day?
`
`Sure.
`
`Okay. Well, let's start off on some
`
`topics,
`
`then.
`
`Are you familiar with U.S. 6,108,704?
`
`Yes.
`
`I'm going to refer to that as the '704
`
`Sure.
`
`—— you understand that?
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay.
`
`Do the claims of the '704 patent
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`recite the term "process"?
`
`A.
`
`I believe the claims of the '704 patent
`
`do,
`
`in fact, refer to a process, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Is a running computer application
`
`a process as recited by the claims of the '704
`
`patent?
`
`A.
`
`I think that is a fair representation of
`
`what a process is, yes, a running application, yeah.
`
`Q.
`
`So does that mean a process is created
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 14
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 15
`
`when a program starts?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`that's about right.
`
`When a program starts on a computer,
`
`the
`
`process is created to that —— that represents that
`
`program running, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And that process ends when the program
`
`A.
`
`That process ends when the process ends.
`
`So a program might actually, you know, create
`
`several processes as part of the program.
`
`So when all of the processes associated
`
`with the program end,
`
`then you can say that the
`
`program ends.
`
`Q.
`
`So if —— if a —— I'm sorry.
`
`I missed
`
`When all the process —— processes
`
`associated with a program end,
`
`the process ends?
`
`A.
`
`So the process ends when the process
`
`So a process is a running —— is an
`
`abstraction for a running thread of execution on a
`
`computer. And if it ends,
`
`then that's the end of
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 15
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 16
`
`the process.
`
`Q.
`
`So if the running thread of execution
`
`ends,
`
`the process ends?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's my understanding, yes.
`
`If a program is started again,
`
`is a new
`
`process created?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Generally that is true, yes.
`
`I have some questions about
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`I'm going to read you the full name so
`
`we're clear what we're talking about.
`
`That is the NetBIOS reference, Protocols
`
`for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB, Version 2.
`
`And you're familiar with this reference?
`
`Yes.
`
`As you said, you reviewed it several
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`times in the past couple of weeks?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Sure.
`
`Okay.
`
`I'm going to refer to this as
`
`either Exhibit 1003 or NetBIOS,
`
`just for
`
`convenience --
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 16
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 17
`
`—— do you understand that?
`
`Yes.
`
`Great.
`
`Does NetBIOS describe applications?
`
`A.
`
`I would have to refer to —— can I review
`
`the reference?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`The actual reference?
`
`Yes.
`
`So you don't —— as you sit here, without
`
`looking at your notebook, you don't know if NetBIOS
`
`discusses an application?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know whether that word appears
`
`in the —— like,
`
`somewhere in the reference.
`
`It's a
`
`long document.
`
`I didn't memorize it.
`
`Q.
`
`That's reasonable.
`
`It is a long
`
`document.
`
`So,
`
`just to be clear, you can't answer
`
`yes or no right now whether or not NetBIOS describes
`
`applications without looking at the document?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I can't —— I can't
`
`answer whether that word appears in
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 17
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 18
`
`the —— in the document somewhere.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`Does NetBIOS discuss the concept of
`
`applications?
`
`A.
`
`NetBIOS, with respect to this patent,
`
`in
`
`my understanding of NetBIOS, describes a mapping
`
`between names and IP addresses, and a service for --
`
`for maintaining that mapping.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`I'm going to turn you to —— you
`
`can pick up the notebook if you want.
`
`It's
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 377.
`
`By "Page 377," I mean the exhibit pages
`
`at the bottom.
`
`A.
`
`Sure.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`Thank you for that
`
`clarification.
`
`It's one of the more
`
`confusing things about these exhibits.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`So you're on that page?
`
`Yes.
`
`I'll refer you to —— under Section 5,
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Overview of NetBIOS.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 18
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 19
`
`The third paragraph --
`
`Sure.
`
`—— reads, NetBIOS applications employ
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`NetBIOS mechanisms to locate resources.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`I see that.
`
`So does NetBIOS describe applications?
`
`That's not how I would characterize it.
`
`My understanding of what they mean by
`
`"NetBIOS applications" in this phrase are
`
`applications that are using NetBIOS for name to IP
`
`address mapping.
`
`Q.
`
`So does NetBIOS discuss applications?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`So NetBIOS describes how
`
`applications use NetBIOS to look up mappings
`
`between names and IP addresses.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`Does NetBIOS use the word
`
`"applications"?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`The word "applications"
`
`appears in the NetBIOS document.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 19
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 20
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Is a NetBIOS application an application?
`
`My understanding of NetBIOS is that
`
`NetBIOS is not an application. NetBIOS is a service
`
`used by applications to look up names and their
`
`mapping IP addresses.
`
`Q.
`
`So does —— when NetBIOS describes
`
`NetBIOS applications,
`
`is NetBIOS referring to an
`
`application?
`
`A.
`
`NetBIOS is referring,
`
`in this case,
`
`I
`
`believe,
`
`to an application that employs NetBIOS.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Is a running NetBIOS application
`
`a process?
`
`A.
`
`So you need to define what a NetBIOS
`
`application is.
`
`Q.
`
`Well, would you describe a NetBIOS
`
`application?
`
`A.
`
`An application that uses NetBIOS is a
`
`running application.
`
`Q.
`
`Do the claims of the '704 patent recite
`
`"a process is connected to a network"?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form;
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 20
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 21
`
`foundation.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I have to look at
`
`the patent more clearly, more specifically.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`You can turn specifically to Claim 1,
`
`that will help. And the patent is Exhibit 1001.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`I assume, Counsel,
`
`you've withdrawn your objection of him
`
`having his binder.
`
`MR. MORLOCK:
`
`For now.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`I
`
`think your objection
`
`is now waived.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`Can you repeat the
`
`question?
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Sure.
`
`So do the claims of the '704 patent
`
`recite the term "a process is connected to the
`
`network"?
`
`A.
`
`I believe the patent refers to processes
`
`that can connect to each other and to a server,
`
`presumably over a network.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 21
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 22
`
`Q.
`
`When a process starts on a computer
`
`that's connected to a network,
`
`is that process
`
`automatically connected to the network,
`
`too?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: Well,
`
`the computer —— if
`
`the computer is connected to the network,
`
`then a process that is running on that
`
`computer is able to make connections over
`
`that network. Until it does, it is just
`
`running locally on that computer.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`When would that process receive a
`
`network protocol address?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection: foundation.
`
`THE WITNESS: That process would
`
`receive a network protocol address when it
`
`uses the operating system in order to make a
`
`connection to some other process on some
`
`other computer.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`So referring to another part of NetBIOS,
`
`does NetBIOS describe NetBIOS applications register
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 22
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 23
`
`their names?
`
`A.
`
`I wouldn't characterize that as the
`
`application registry of the name. NetBIOS describes
`
`a computer —— a mapping being registered between a
`
`name and an IP address, and that IP address
`
`represents a computer.
`
`Q.
`
`I'd like to turn you to Exhibit 1003.
`
`Again, page number, at the bottom,
`
`is 378.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`The first full paragraph under
`
`Section 5.2, Name Service,
`
`reads, NetBIOS resources
`
`are referenced by name.
`
`Lower—level address
`
`information is not available to NetBIOS
`
`applications. An application, representing a
`
`resource, registers one or more names that it wishes
`
`to use.
`
`Does an application in NetBIOS register
`
`A.
`
`An application may cause the
`
`registration of a mapping between a name and IP
`
`address.
`
`I would agree to that.
`
`The IP address, however, can't identify
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 23
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 24
`
`a process; it identifies a computer.
`
`Q.
`
`But a process is an application
`
`executing on a computer?
`
`A.
`
`A process is an application executing on
`
`a computer;
`
`that is true.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Paragraph 34 of your
`
`declaration —— if you want to turn to it to confirm
`
`what I'm saying is true.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`What's your question?
`
`Are you at Paragraph 34?
`
`I am at Paragraph 34.
`
`It says,
`
`In NetBIOS, a registration may
`
`extend indefinitely regardless of whether the node
`
`remains connected to the computer network.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That is correct.
`
`Does NetBIOS disclose that names are
`
`given a lifetime during their name registration?
`
`A.
`
`I believe NetBIOS describes the ability
`
`to associate a lifetime with the mapping.
`
`Q.
`
`Does NetBIOS disclose this lifetime may
`
`be any definite period?
`
`A.
`
`I believe the description of the
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 24
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 25
`
`lifetime is that the NetBIOS —— it might be a
`
`definite period and/or it might be an indefinite
`
`period.
`
`Q.
`
`So not all NetBIOS name registrations
`
`extend indefinitely?
`
`A.
`
`It depends exactly on the —— the —— on
`
`how NetBIOS is being used. But it —— it is possible
`
`that a name mapping in NetBIOS is associated with a
`
`lifetime.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And that lifetime is a finite period?
`
`That lifetime can be a finite period.
`
`It can also be an indefinite period.
`
`Q.
`
`So a NetBIOS name registration can have
`
`a finite period?
`
`A.
`
`It is possible for a mapping between the
`
`name and an IP address to have a finite lifetime
`
`period associated with it, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Does NetBIOS disclose that end—nodes may
`
`send refresh messages?
`
`A.
`
`Let me refer to NetBIOS.
`
`(Whereupon,
`
`the witness
`
`reviews the material provided.)
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 25
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 26
`
`THE WITNESS: Yes, NetBIOS does
`
`describe a mechanism for refresh.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And that is a name refresh
`
`request packet?
`
`Page 400 is my copy.
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I believe they refer to this as a
`
`name refresh request packet.
`
`Q.
`
`Does NetBIOS disclose that if end—node
`
`does not send a refresh message, it may be removed
`
`from the group?
`
`A.
`
`NetBIOS describes a —— a mechanism that
`
`if a refresh packet is not received,
`
`the mapping may
`
`be removed, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`So that refresh message renews the
`
`lifetime of a registered name?
`
`A.
`
`That refresh message,
`
`I believe, does
`
`renew the lifetime of the mapping between a name and
`
`IP address, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And that's renewing the
`
`registered name?
`
`A.
`
`And that's renewing a registered name,
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 26
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 27
`
`Q.
`
`Can a NetBIOS application remove its
`
`name registration before its registration time
`
`expires?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I
`
`think you've
`
`mischaracterized the —— the mapping.
`
`The mapping is not between a name and
`
`an application.
`
`So an end—node can refresh
`
`the mapping between a name and an IP
`
`address.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`Can a NetBIOS name be released
`
`explicitly by an end—node?
`
`A.
`
`I believe it is possible for an end—node
`
`to release a map —— a name explicitly.
`
`Q.
`
`Right.
`
`I'll turn you to Page 395 of
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I'm there.
`
`Under Section 15.1.3, Name Release --
`
`it's three—quarters of the way down the page.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 27
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 28
`
`Yes.
`
`So could you read that for me?
`
`A.
`
`NetBIOS names may be released explicitly
`
`or silently by an end—node. Silent release
`
`typically occurs when an end—node fails or is turned
`
`off. Most of the mechanisms described below are
`
`present to detect silent name release.
`
`Q.
`
`Thank you.
`
`I'll just ask again for clarity.
`
`Does NetBIOS disclose that names may be
`
`released explicitly by an end—node?
`
`A.
`
`NetBIOS does describe releasing a name
`
`explicitly by an end—node.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Paragraph 17 of your declaration --
`
`I'm there.
`
`Okay.
`
`—— starts off with, One of the
`
`objectives of the '704 patent is to provide a
`
`connection between two end—line processes so that
`
`the process may establish a point—to—point
`
`communications over the network.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 28
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 29
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`It continues, To achieve this objective,
`
`the '704 patent teaches tracking the on—line status
`
`of registered processes, rather than simply
`
`maintaining a database of these processes.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And I'm going to skip down.
`
`It looks
`
`like the last full sentence of that same paragraph
`
`reads, One illustrative way of determining this
`
`on—line status is by use of an ongoing time stamp
`
`application with which the system actively checks
`
`whether a process is still connected to the network.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Does this ongoing time stamp
`
`application, as used in the '704 patent, mean that a
`
`registration would be removed from the connection
`
`server sometime after it was created?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I don't think I quite
`
`understand your question.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Okay.
`
`The '704 patent describes an
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 29
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 30
`
`ongoing time stamp application?
`
`A.
`
`It describes one possible way of
`
`achieving the goal of tracking on—line status of a
`
`process is to use a ongoing time stamp in order to
`
`make sure that that process is still active and
`
`on—line.
`
`Q.
`
`So the '704 patent describes a
`
`connection server that checks time stamps?
`
`A.
`
`So the '704 patent does use a —— does
`
`illustrate the possibility of using a time stamp.
`
`That's not
`
`the only way to achieve the goals of the
`
`'704 patent.
`
`But the important distinction is
`
`between, for example, NetBIOS and what
`
`the '704
`
`patent is asking is the difference between a
`
`computer connected to a network and a process
`
`connected to a network.
`
`So the '704 patent is
`
`tracking the on—line status of a process.
`
`Q.
`
`So does the '704 patent describe that
`
`the connection server checks time stamps of
`
`registered records periodically?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 30
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 31
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`So the '704 patent does
`
`provide a illustration of one way of
`
`achieving its goals. And one way to achieve
`
`that would be to check the time stamp
`
`associated with processes that are known to
`
`be on—line.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`And it would remove processes that had
`
`an expired time stamp?
`
`A.
`
`Not necessarily.
`
`It could —— if —— the
`
`expired time stamp might simply prompt the server to
`
`communicate with that process in order to then
`
`confirm whether or not that process is still on—line
`
`or not.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Is that described in the '704 patent?
`
`It describes this somewhat implicitly
`
`where it talks about the connection server using the
`
`stamps to update the status of each processing unit.
`
`So to update the status of each
`
`processing unit would be to confirm whether that
`
`processing unit is on—line or not.
`
`Q.
`
`Does that —— you're talking about
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 31
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 32
`
`Column 5, Line 39, give or take?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Does that explicitly describe sending an
`
`update message?
`
`A.
`
`It doesn't explicitly describe how it is
`
`able to confirm the on—line —— how —— how it updates
`
`the status of the —— of the —— of the process.
`
`Q.
`
`So does the '704 patent describe that if
`
`time stamps are —— let me rephrase that.
`
`Does the '704 patent describe checking
`
`time stamps and periodically removing records with
`
`an expired time stamp?
`
`A.
`
`I don't recall it describing removing
`
`records associated with an expired time stamp.
`
`Q.
`
`Does the '704 patent describe
`
`maintaining on—line status information so that it
`
`is, quoting, relatively current?
`
`A.
`
`It does describe maintaining on—line
`
`status information, so it's relatively concurrent.
`
`I also see, on Column 6 around Line 5,
`
`that it describes either removing the user's
`
`information or simply flagging the information as
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 32
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 33
`
`being off—line.
`
`Q.
`
`So it describes removing the user's
`
`information?
`
`A.
`
`It describes that as one possibility for
`
`how it maintains its internal data structures.
`
`Q.
`
`Do any claims of the '704 patent require
`
`removal of expired records from the connection
`
`server database?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection: scope.
`
`(Whereupon,
`
`the witness
`
`reviews the material provided.)
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`It does not describe
`
`that explicitly, but there's an implicit
`
`inference that can be made for Claims 32
`
`through 38, where they describe maintaining
`
`a list of on—line processes that are
`
`connected.
`
`So if one of those processes in the
`
`list that is —— that are connected
`
`become —— subsequently become not
`
`connected,
`
`then, presumably,
`
`to maintain a
`
`list of processes that are connected,
`
`that
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 33
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 34
`
`process would have to be removed from that
`
`list.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`A minute ago, you referred to --
`
`it was Column 6, Line 6, give or take, referring to
`
`updating user's information in the database 34?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Does this off—line message —— is that a
`
`deregistration message?
`
`A.
`
`Not necessarily.
`
`The off—line message
`
`simply would indicate that that process is now
`
`off—line.
`
`So the —— the database could still
`
`maintain the record but simply include information
`
`about
`
`the on—line or off—line status of that
`
`process.
`
`So that would not be deregistering the
`
`record in any way; it would simply be updating the
`
`record to reflect the off—line status.
`
`Q.
`
`But it could be deregistering the
`
`record?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`Huseby, Inc.
`555 North Point Center, E., #403, Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`www.huseby.com
`(404) 875-0400
`
`Petitioner Sipnet EU S.R.O. - Exhibit 1022 - Page 34
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Ketan D. Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. on 04/18/2014
`
`Page 35
`
`THE WITNESS: Depending on how you've
`
`implemented, it could possibly deregister.
`
`That's one possibility.
`
`Here, it seems to be updating.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`So one possibility is it could be
`
`deregistering?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`It could be one
`
`possibility for how this is implemented.
`
`The description in Column 6 seems to
`
`describe updating the information.
`
`BY MR. MORLOCK:
`
`Q.
`
`But one possible implementation would be
`
`deregistering?
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Objection:
`
`form.
`
`THE WI
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
