`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`----------------------------X
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O. :
`
`Petitioner :
`
`v. : U.S. Patent No.:
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS : 6,108,704
`
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.:
`
`(now STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP : IPR2013-00246
`
`INC.) :
`
`PATENT OWNER :
`
`----------------------------X
`
` San Francisco, California
`
` Thursday, May 29, 2014
`
` Deposition of LESLIE EHRLICH, a witness
`
`herein, called for examination by counsel for
`
`Patent Owner in the above-entitled matter, the
`
`witness having been previously duly sworn, taken at
`
`the offices of Kilpatrick Townsend, Two Embarcadero
`
`Center, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, California at
`
`1:03 P.m., on Thursday, May 29, 2014, and the
`
`proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CINDY
`
`TUGAW, RPR, CSR and transcribed under her
`
`direction.
`
`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
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
` MICHAEL MORLOCK, ESQ.
`
` Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
`
` 1001 West Fourth Street
`
` Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
`
` (336) 607-7391
`
`On behalf of Patent Owner
`
` JASON F. HOFFMAN, ESQ.
`
` Fisch Hoffman Sigler, LLP
`
` 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Eighth Floor
`
` Washington, DC 20015
`
` (202) 362-3550
`
`and
`
` VANDANA KOELSCH, In-house Counsel
`
` Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
` (Patent Owner)
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Sean McGrath, Video Operator
`
`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
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 3
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`THE WITNESS EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR
`
`LESLIE EHRLICH PETITIONER PATENT OWNER
`
`By Mr. Hoffman 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Exhibits previously marked. Exhibits retained by
`
`Counsel.
`
`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
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` VIDEO OPERATOR: Good afternoon, we're on the
`
`video record, ladies and gentlemen, at 1:03 p.m. I
`
`am Sean McGrath from Alderson Court Reporting in
`
`Washington, D.C. The phone number is (202)
`
`289-2260.
`
` This is a matter pending before the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board in the case captioned Sipnet
`
`EU S.R.O. versus Innovative Communications
`
`Technologies, Incorporated, IPR 2013-0246.
`
` This is the beginning of Disk 1, Volume 1,
`
`of the deposition of Leslie Ehrlich, on May 29th,
`
`2014. We're located at Two Embarcadero Center, San
`
`Francisco, California. This is being taken on
`
`behalf of the patent owner.
`
` Counsel, will you please identify
`
`yourselves, starting with the questioning attorney.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN: Jason Hoffman on behalf of the
`
`patent owner, and I'm joined by Vandana Koelch.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Michael Morlock on behalf of the
`
`petitioner, Sipnet.
`
` VIDEO OPERATOR: Will the court reporter
`
`please swear in the witness and we can proceed.
`
` Whereupon,
`
` LESLIE EHRLICH,
`
`called for examination by counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 5
`
`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 having been duly sworn by the Court Reporter,
`
`was examined and testified as follows:
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Good afternoon. State your name for the
`
`record.
`
` A. Leslie Ehrlich.
`
` Q. Ms. Ehrlich, have you ever been deposed
`
`before?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Were you advised at the time that you
`
`filled out a declaration that there was a chance
`
`that you could get deposed?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. What is your current title?
`
` A. Patent prosecution paralegal.
`
` Q. And could you just describe some of your
`
`responsibilities and roles as a patent prosecution
`
`paralegal?
`
` A. I assist with prosecuting patents with the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office -- sorry,
`
`I assist with prosecution of patents with the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, and
`
`other foreign offices, such as filing patent
`
`applications, maintaining duty of disclosure for
`
`patent applications, reviewing patent terms and
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`other duties.
`
` Q. And how long have you been a patent
`
`prosecuting paralegal?
`
` A. Since November 2007. Or September.
`
`September or November 2007.
`
` Q. What did you do prior to that?
`
` A. I was in college.
`
` Q. When did you graduate college?
`
` A. June '07.
`
` Q. And have you been employed by Kilpatrick
`
`Stockton since the time you joined in November
`
`of -- since the time you started being a
`
`prosecution paralegal in --
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. -- June of '97?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. All right, so let's start -- so you
`
`graduated June 19 -- sorry, start again.
`
` You graduated in June 2007.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. So where did you work, what
`
`was your first job after college?
`
` A. I worked for Morrison & Foerster LLP as a
`
`patent prosecution paralegal starting in September
`
`or November of 2007. So just later that year.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. And when did you wrap up your time at
`
`Morrison & Foerster?
`
` A. April 2012, two years ago, and then I
`
`started here.
`
` Q. So in April 2012, you started at
`
`Kilpatrick Stockton?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you've had the same role since you've
`
`been here?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. When did you start doing any work on --
`
`with respect to the Sipnet matter?
`
` A. I was approached to do a special project
`
`for Paul Haughey to compare a disk to a paper copy.
`
` Q. And prior to that time of being approached
`
`by Mr. Haughey, you hadn't done any work on the --
`
`with respect to the Sipnet matter, is that correct?
`
` A. No. That is correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And what did Mr. Haughey ask you to
`
`do?
`
` A. There was a paper copy of a document and a
`
`disk copy, and I was to compare the two to see that
`
`they were the same thing.
`
` Q. And what did you conclude?
`
` A. That they were pretty much the same thing.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. Is that what you said in your declaration?
`
` A. I don't think I said it as casually.
`
` Q. It wasn't your conclusion, in fact, they
`
`were different documents?
`
` A. No, I was concluding that they were the
`
`same document.
`
` Q. So it's your testimony today under oath
`
`under penalty of perjury that when you did the
`
`comparison of the two documents, they were the same
`
`document, correct?
`
` A. I believe I said in my declaration that
`
`they were substantially the same. There were some
`
`errors regarding things that looked like typos or
`
`formatting, and I believe that one section was
`
`different, glossary section was different.
`
` Q. So is your conclusion that the two
`
`documents are the same documents or are they
`
`different documents?
`
` A. I don't know what you're asking. Are they
`
`literally identical? No.
`
` Q. So you would agree that the two documents
`
`that you compared were not identical, correct?
`
` A. Not one hundred percent identical, no, to
`
`my knowledge.
`
` Q. So to make the record clear, the two
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
`documents that you compared --
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. -- they were not identical, correct?
`
` A. No. Do you mean identical -- what do you
`
`mean by "identical," like exactly the same?
`
` Q. Exactly the same, yes.
`
` A. No, not completely identical, no.
`
` Q. Were the two documents that you compared
`
`completely the same?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Were the two documents that you compared
`
`identical?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. There were differences between the two
`
`documents, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Next to you is a document that's got a big
`
`binder clip on it. If you can pull that document
`
`out. This document is labeled Exhibit 1004.
`
` Do you see at the bottom?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is this one of the two documents that you
`
`prepared?
`
` A. Yes, it looks like it.
`
` Q. Where did you get this document,
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`Exhibit 1004 from?
`
` A. Paul Haughey.
`
` Q. Do you know where Mr. Haughey got the
`
`document from?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And have you ever seen Exhibit 1004 prior
`
`to Mr. Haughey giving it to you?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. I'm going to give you a copy of your
`
`declaration. I apologize, but it was given to us
`
`in seven or eight parts. So that's how I'm going
`
`to give it back to you.
`
` The first part of your declaration is
`
`labeled 1018. Part 2 of your declaration is --
`
`continues on Exhibit 1018, starts on Page 31.
`
`Part 3 of your declaration, 1018, starts on
`
`Page 61. Part 4 of your declaration starts on
`
`Page 91. And Part 5 of your declaration starts on
`
`Page 121. Part 6 of your declaration starts on
`
`Page 151. Part 7 of your declaration starts on
`
`Page 181. Part 8 of your declaration starts on
`
`Page 211. Part 9 of your declaration starts on
`
`Page 241.
`
` And I note for the record that it ends on
`
`Page 269. All right.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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 can you confirm for me that
`
`Exhibit 1018 from Page 1 through page 269 is a copy
`
`of your declaration?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And, for the record, as I refer to
`
`Exhibit 1018, I'm going to refer to Page 1 through
`
`Page 269. All right.
`
` Let's turn to Page 1 of your declaration,
`
`which is Page 2 of Exhibit 1018, and Page 3. First
`
`and foremost, is that your signature?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you executed this declaration on
`
`November 26th, 2013, is that correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you draft this declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Who drafted the declaration?
`
` A. Paul Haughey. And then I reviewed it and
`
`made some edits and then executed it.
`
` Q. What edits did you make to it?
`
` A. I remember that I made edits to say that
`
`they were substantially identical except for the
`
`typo stuff and the section about the glossary.
`
` Q. So the words "substantially identical,"
`
`does that come from Mr. Haughey?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 12
`
`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. No, that came from me.
`
` Q. Well, what did it say before?
`
` A. I don't remember.
`
` Q. So you authored the words "substantially
`
`identical"?
`
` A. I believe I did, but I can't remember.
`
` Q. And when you say substantially identical,
`
`you didn't actually mean the two documents were
`
`identical, correct?
`
` A. No, then I would just say identical.
`
` Q. Now, I want to talk about the documents
`
`that you compared. One of them was Exhibit 1004,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The other exhibit you compared is what you
`
`referred to as the Yuri guide?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Exhibit 1008. Why do you call it the Yuri
`
`guide?
`
` A. Paul calls it that. It was given to us by
`
`someone named Yuri.
`
` Q. Had you ever met Yuri?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Had you ever talked to Yuri.
`
` A. No.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 13
`
`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. I'm going to give you a copy of
`
`Exhibit 1019. It's in two parts.
`
` Now, before the deposition started, your
`
`counsel brought in a stack of paper, I think
`
`represented to me that this was the document that
`
`you printed out from the CD-ROM.
`
` Is that the same document as Exhibit 1019?
`
` A. I believe so.
`
` Q. So talk to me about the process that you
`
`went about in terms of printing out the document.
`
`How did you do it?
`
` A. I opened up the disk -- well, first I had
`
`to have IT install the program to read the disk on
`
`my computer. Then I opened the disk and opened
`
`every section and printed every section contained
`
`on the disk.
`
` Q. So what program did you have installed on
`
`your computer in order to read it?
`
` A. I do not know.
`
` Q. How did you know which document that you
`
`were going to print out?
`
` A. I found it on the disk, and it looked like
`
`the Exhibit 1004.
`
` Q. So can you compare the two first pages on
`
`Exhibit 1004 and 1019? Are they the same?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. They're not the same, correct?
`
` A. No, the first pages are not the same.
`
` Q. Did you note that in your declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So your declaration is incorrect with
`
`respect to what parts of the documents are actually
`
`different, correct?
`
` A. I don't know.
`
` Q. Well, doesn't your declaration say that
`
`they're substantially identical with the exception
`
`of the glossary which contained different terms?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. There's no mention on the cover
`
`page, correct?
`
` A. No. Well, one is a printed paper document
`
`and one is a computer program. They are -- can
`
`appear visually different.
`
` Q. I'm sorry, what is a printed paper
`
`document?
`
` A. 1004.
`
` Q. And what do you mean by a printed paper
`
`document?
`
` A. It appears to have -- at the time, I
`
`assumed, and it appeared, that it was a book
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`document, not a computer document.
`
` Q. And how do you know it was a book
`
`document?
`
` A. I don't. That's what I assumed.
`
` Q. Have you ever seen a book that looks like
`
`Exhibit 1004?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You have?
`
` A. I've seen manuals that look like that. I
`
`guess a manual would be the appropriate word.
`
` Q. Have you seen the exact manual that
`
`Exhibit 1004 was copied from?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So you don't know where Exhibit 1004 came
`
`from, correct?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And you don't know if it was copied from a
`
`book or copied from a printed out piece of paper,
`
`correct?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Or if it was a draft?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Or uncirculated draft, correct?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you know when -- or do you know if
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Exhibit 1004 was ever published?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you know if Exhibit 1004 was ever made
`
`publicly available?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. All right. Can you turn to the second
`
`page of Exhibit 1004?
`
` Is the second page of Exhibit 1004 in the
`
`materials that you printed out?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you note that difference in your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So your declaration is incorrect again
`
`with respect to your comparison of the similarities
`
`between the two documents, correct?
`
` A. Yes, I believe that when I said the main
`
`differences between the different texts of the
`
`glossary are formatting type differences due to the
`
`help screen format on the CD-ROM. I realize now
`
`that doesn't read well, but that was my intent in
`
`the declaration to say that large differences in
`
`the text are due to the formatting from the CD-ROM
`
`versus the paper document.
`
` Q. Well, now, the comparison that was done,
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`for instance, does your comparison show that the
`
`first two pages of Exhibit 1004 is missing?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did your comparison compare -- so the
`
`comparison is incomplete, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you -- at the time the -- you didn't
`
`actually do the comparison, correct?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Somebody in word processing did the
`
`comparison, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And did you check the comparison
`
`afterwards to see that the entire documents had
`
`been compared?
`
` A. I did not check the entire document word
`
`for word, no. I did a visual description between
`
`what I had printed and what was here and determined
`
`that the appropriate information had been compared.
`
` Q. All right. But so far, the first page of
`
`Exhibit 1004 is missing, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And the second page of Exhibit 1004 is
`
`missing, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. And what about the third page of
`
`Exhibit 1004, is that missing, too?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So now we're up to at least three pages
`
`that weren't compared, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. What about the fourth page of
`
`Exhibit 1004, was that compared?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The fourth page was compared, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Show me where that shows up in the
`
`comparison.
`
` A. Chapter 1, "Overview of Microsoft TCI/IP
`
`for Windows NT." Oh, you know what, no. Page 4
`
`was not compared. The table of contents was not
`
`compared.
`
` Q. So that includes Page 4, Page 5, Page 6,
`
`Page 7, Page 8, Page 9 and Page 10, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So the first ten pages of Exhibit 1004
`
`weren't compared, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Now, there's also -- so, in fact, the
`
`first 16 pages of Exhibit 1019 weren't compared,
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`correct?
`
` A. No. The first 16 pages? Correct.
`
` Q. So when you did this comparison of the two
`
`documents, in fact, you didn't compare at least ten
`
`pages of Exhibit 1004 and at least 16 pages of
`
`Exhibit 1018, correct?
`
` A. Correct. Because the computer program
`
`does not contain references in the table of
`
`contents to page numbers. The computer programs
`
`don't have page numbers as the Exhibit 1004 does.
`
` Q. I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer.
`
` A. So Exhibit 1019, which is the printout of
`
`the computer program, has a table of contents but
`
`does not list page numbers for each section in the
`
`table of contents. Exhibit 1004 includes a table
`
`of contents with reference to page numbers.
`
` Q. So you've identified yet another
`
`difference between the two documents, that is
`
`specifically Exhibit 1004 has a table of contents
`
`with page numbers and 1018 has a table of contents
`
`with no page numbers, correct?
`
` A. Yes, because the computer program doesn't
`
`have page numbers that I'm aware of.
`
` Q. So they're different again, and you've
`
`pointed out yet another difference in the
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`documents?
`
` A. Yes, due to the formatting as in this was
`
`formatted in a computer program and this isn't.
`
` Q. At the time, did you compare the two table
`
`of contents to determine that they were exactly the
`
`same with the exception of page numbers?
`
` A. I remember comparing the headings of all
`
`of the chapters and they were consistent.
`
`Actually, yes, I did compare them visually myself
`
`and they were the same.
`
` Q. Why did you have the word processing
`
`department compare them as well to double-check?
`
` A. I don't know.
`
` Q. Now, all the differences that you
`
`identified in your declaration in terms of what was
`
`attached, did you go through all the differences at
`
`the time you wrote your declaration?
`
` A. I reviewed the document, but I did not go
`
`through each individual difference.
`
` Q. Did you go through to determine what the
`
`source of the difference was, each of the
`
`differences were at the time?
`
` A. I don't know what you mean.
`
` Q. Do you know -- is it your conclusion that
`
`some of the differences were based upon formatting
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`issues?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you go through to compare -- to
`
`examine the differences to confirm that, in fact,
`
`each and every change was due to a formatting
`
`error?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Let's ask you a question about Page 31 of
`
`your declaration.
`
` So can you explain to me the different --
`
`what's going on in terms of the compare that
`
`appears in the first set of double underlines on
`
`Page 31?
`
` A. Double underlines are insertions, so that
`
`task was included in the Exhibit 1019 but not
`
`included in Exhibit 1004.
`
` Q. So, for instance, this line about "Fiend
`
`Trap with Community Hamas" was in the 1018 but was
`
`not in 1004, is that correct?
`
` A. I believe so, yes.
`
` Q. So if you could turn to Page 35, at the
`
`bottom of 35, there is a cross-out starting -- says
`
`Chapter 2 - "Installing and configuring Microsoft
`
`TCP NP and SNPM option meaning."
`
` What does that mean that's crossed out?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
` A. That that was included in Exhibit 1004 but
`
`not in Exhibit 1019.
`
` Q. And so a cross-out throughout your
`
`comparison is information that was deleted from --
`
`or, sorry, information that's been -- with a single
`
`cross-out is information that does not appear in
`
`1004 but does -- sorry, I'm still confused. Let's
`
`try this again.
`
` Information that's been crossed out is
`
`information that appears in 1004 but does not
`
`appear in Exhibit 1018, correct?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, foundation.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. You can answer.
`
` A. Not necessarily, no.
`
` Q. So explain to me what does a cross-out
`
`line mean?
`
` A. It either means that it was stuff that was
`
`deleted from Exhibit 1004 and is not contained in
`
`Exhibit 1019 or it can also mean that it was text
`
`that was in Exhibit 1004 and was moved in 1019.
`
` There's a legend at the back of the
`
`exhibit. The printout does not appear in color.
`
`So it was not as informative.
`
` Q. Was the original done in color?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
` A. Yes. As you can see, insertion, two
`
`underlines, deletion, strike through, moved from
`
`was in a color, I don't remember if it's green or
`
`blue, and moved to is an underline in either green
`
`or blue. I don't remember the colors.
`
` Q. Okay. So turning back to the back page of
`
`the document where this legend is, it gives us
`
`statistics, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So in comparison of the two documents,
`
`there was 5,603 insertions, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And there were -- in comparing the two
`
`documents, there was 4,513 deletions, correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And there were 74 times where text was
`
`moved, is that correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And so the total amount of changes in
`
`comparison of the two documents, that being
`
`Exhibit 1004 and Exhibit 1018, was 10,264 changes,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And as a result of all these changes, it
`
`is clear that the two documents are not identical,
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 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
`
`correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN: Take a break?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Sure.
`
` VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 1:32 p.m., and
`
`we're off the record.
`
` (Brief recess.)
`
` VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 1:42 p.m., we're
`
`on the record.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Can I ask you to turn back to Page 2 of
`
`Exhibit 1018 which is your declaration?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I want to look at Paragraph 4 for a
`
`moment. It says, "I received the box for Windows
`
`NT 3.5 from Yuri Kolesnikov."
`
` That's not a true statement, correct?
`
` A. No, I received it from Paul Haughey who
`
`received it from Yuri.
`
` Q. How do you know Mr. Haughey actually
`
`received it from Yuri?
`
` A. I do not.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN: I have no further questions.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Okay.
`
` VIDEO OPERATOR: This marks the end of
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 25
`
`Volume 1, Disk 1, and concludes the deposition of
`
`Leslie Erhlich. The time is 1:43 p.m., and we are
`
`off the record.
`
` THE REPORTER: Do you want a rough draft?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Yes, that would be great.
`
` (Whereupon, the deposition
`
` concluded at 1:43 o'clock p.m.)
`
` ---o0o---
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 26
`
` CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
`
`I hereby certify that I have read and examined the
`
`foregoing transcript, and the same is a true and
`
`accurate record of the testimony given by me.
`
`Any additions or corrections that I feel are
`
`necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet of
`
`paper to the original transcript.
`
` _________________________
`
` Signature of Deponent
`
`I hereby certify that the individual representing
`
`himself/herself to be the above-named individual,
`
`appeared before me this _____ day of ____________,
`
`2014, and executed the above certificate in my
`
`presence.
`
` ________________________
`
` NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
`
` ________________________
`
` County Name
`
`MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`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
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Leslie Ehrlich
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 29, 2014
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
`
` )
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
`
` I, CINDY TUGAW, a Certified Shorthand
`
`Reporter of the State of California, duly
`
`authorized to administer oaths pursuant to Section
`
`8211 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, do
`
`hereby certify that
`
` LESLIE EHRLICH,
`
`the witness in the foregoing deposition, was by me
`
`duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth
`
`and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
`
`cause; that said testimony of said witness was
`
`reported by me, a disinterested person, and was
`
`thereafter transcribed under my direction into
`
`typewriting and is a true and correct transcription
`
`of said proceedings.
`
` I further certify that I am not of counsel
`
`or attorney for either or any of the parties in the
`
`foregoing deposition and caption named, nor in any
`
`way interested in the outcome of the cause named in
`
`said caption.
`
` Dated the 2nd day of June, 2014.
`
` CINDY TUGAW
`
` CSR No. 4805 (California)
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2044
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246