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 No. IPR2013-00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and TRENTON
`A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S DECLARANT VADIM ANTONOV
`
`
`
`June 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`______________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and TRENTON
`A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S DECLARANT VADIM ANTONOV
`
`
`
`June 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`CASE IPR2013-00246
`
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT #
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`2014
`
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Power of Attorney
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`Reexamination Certificate
`Response to Non-Final Rejection in a
`Re-Examination
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte
`Reexamination Certificate
`Final Rejection
`List of References
`Complaint for Patent
`Stipulation for Dismissal
`June 11, 2013 Letter from P. Lee to P.
`Haughey
`June 17, 2013 Correspondence from P.
`Haughey to P. Lee
`IPR2012-00041 Decision
`Patent Owner’s Certificate of Service
`Declaration of Alan M. Fisch in
`Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`Certificate of Service
`Declaration of Jason F. Hoffman in
`Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`Declaration of R. William Sigler in
`Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-
`Patel
`Curriculum Vitae of Prof. Ketan
`Mayer-Patel
`Declaration of David K. Callahan
`Stalker Complaint
`Stalker Summons
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT #
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`2032
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`2041
`2042
`
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Declaration of Michelle Chatelain
`Sipnet - Contacts
`Sipnet.Net
`Dec. 10, 2013 Petitioner Response to
`Discovery
`Oct. 28, 2013 Patent Owner
`Interrogatories
`Nov. 26, 2013 Petitioner Objections to
`Interrogatories
`Dec. 20, 2013 Petitioner Response to
`Supplemental Discovery Requests
`CommuniGate – Tario
`Communications
`CommuniGate – Yuri Kolesnikov
`Dec. 4, 2013 Telephonic Hearing
`Oct. 25, 2013 Patent Owner Objections
`to Exhibits
`Nov. 6, 2013 Petitioner Supplemental
`Evidence
`NT Resource Kit
`Nov. 27, 2013 Petitioner Supplemental
`Evidence
`Nov. 27, 2013 Petitioner Decl. of Yuri
`Kolesnikov
`May 11, 2010 Office Action in a
`Reexamination
`Nov. 6 2013 Petitioner Supplemental
`Evidence (A)(1)
`[Reserved]
`[Reserved]
`Y. Kolesnikov LinkedIn Profile
`(served on Petitioner at May 29, 2014
`Y. Kolesnikov Deposition)
`May 29, 2014 Y. Kolesnikov
`Deposition Transcript
`May 29, 2014 L. Ehrlich Deposition
`Transcript
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT #
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`DESCRIPTION
`May 30, 2014 V. Antonov Deposition
`Transcript
`Oct. 25, 2013 Patent Owner Objections
`to Evidence
`May 6, 2014 Patent Owner Objections
`to Evidence
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization on June 4, 2014, Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully makes the following observations
`
`regarding the May 30, 2014 cross-examination testimony of Vadim Antonov,
`
`expert declarant of Sipnet EU S.R.O. (“Petitioner”).
`
`Mr. Antonov Anticipation Opinions Were Based On The Combination of
`Multiple References
`
`1. Mr. Antonov testifies:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 23, Line 22 through Page 24, Line 4:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`If you turn to Page 5 of your declaration --
`
`Okay.
`
`-- your opinion is that "all of the claims subject to the current
`
`Inter Partes Review (i.e. claims 1 - 7 and 32 - 41) are anticipated by
`
`NetBIOS," is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. This is correct.
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 22, Lines 7-23:
`
`Q.
`
`A chart where there is an element-by-element comparison of a
`
`particular claim to where the alleged prior art reference teaches that
`
`particular element? Have you ever seen a claim chart before?
`
`A.
`
`No, I haven't seen claim charts. From what you're saying, I get
`
`a basic concept, basically a list of things which -- and I understand the
`
`concept of independent and dependent claims.
`
`Q.
`
`Is there anywhere in your declaration where you list the texts of
`
`all of the claims at issue?
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`A.
`
`All the claims at issue. I provided some copies of things
`
`addressed in the document, but I do not cite a complete list of claims in
`
`verbatim form. Sorry.
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 31, Lines 10-24:
`
`Q.
`
`I just want to make sure the record is clear. You provide an
`
`opinion that's limited to a theory that the alleged claim -- the claims are
`
`anticipated by the prior art, is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`You do not provide an opinion in your declaration that any of
`
`the claims are rendered obvious by the prior art, is that correct?
`
`A. The foundation of my argument is that everything is anticipated to the
`
`extent that translation between prior existing art to what is in the ’704
`
`patent is obvious and trivial. So somebody skilled in this profession
`
`would understand that they mean exactly same thing.1
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 30, Lines 13-23:
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
` So to confirm –
`
` Yes.
`
`-- is that you do not provide an opinion with respect to whether
`
`or not any of the claims are obvious, is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`I’m confused by legal usage of that term. What I'm saying is
`
`that my declaration, all of it depends on things being already known or
`
`implemented by previous published documents or products, and it didn't
`
`actually require any new ideas or new things which would not be trivial.
`
`
`1 All instances of italicized text represent emphasis added by Patent Owner.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 35, Lines 14-25:
`
`Q.
`
`What documents did you review in preparation for your doing
`
`your opinion that's in your declaration?
`
`A.
`
`The text of the ’704 patent itself, declaration of Mr. Mayer-
`
`Patel, RFC 1001, 1002. RFC. RFC stand for request for comment,
`
`which is basically name commonly used for Internet standards. I also
`
`refer some earlier request for comments, like RFC 793, and I also
`
`reviewed the WINS user manual. So I do refer to it in a few places.
`
`This testimony is relevant to (1) Mr. Antonov’s assertion that “all of the claims
`
`subject to the current Inter Partes Review (i.e., claims 1-7 and 32-42) are
`
`anticipated by NetBIOS,” Ex. 1023, Antonov Declaration at 5; and (2) Petitioner’s
`
`anticipation argument as stated in Paper No. 33, Petitioner’s Reply. The testimony
`
`above indicates that Mr. Antonov limited his opinions to anticipation and that he
`
`improperly relied on the combination of multiple sources to form those opinions.
`
`Further, his anticipation opinions are unsupported and he did not use claim charts
`
`to form those opinions. This testimony is also relevant to Paper No. 11, the Board
`
`Decision to Institute because (1) the Board limited its institution on anticipation
`
`and obviousness to only two references: NetBIOS and Ex. 1004, the WINS
`
`manual, and (2) because the Board stated that it was not persuaded that Petitioner
`
`was likely to prevail on an anticipation challenge to claims 33-37, noting that
`
`NetBIOS did not disclose that processes have dynamically assigned network
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`protocol addresses.2 This testimony is relevant because Mr. Antonov states that he
`
`offered an opinion that NetBIOS anticipated every challenged claim. Therefore,
`
`Mr. Antonov improperly offered an opinion that exceeds the scope of this inter
`
`partes review.
`
`Mr. Antonov Rendered Anticipation Opinions Based On Multiple Sources
`That Are Not Of Record In This Proceeding
`
`2. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 83, Lines 14-25:
`
`Q.
`
`So the discussion in 39 makes reference to something called a
`
`TCP/IP protocol stack?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`And RFC793, correct?
`
`Yes.
`
`RFC793 is not part of NetBIOS, correct?
`
`No, it’s not part of NetBIOS, but it’s now foundational
`
`document on the Internet, so it’s effectively every subsequent Internet
`
`standard. It’s foundational document on the Internet. It specifics the
`
`basic IT protocol. Okay, every subsequent document in RFC series of
`
`documents incorporates it effectively.
`
`Q.
`
`So it's your opinion that every RFC document incorporates
`
`every other RFC document?
`
`A.
`
`Later than September 1981.
`
`
`2 Paper No. 11, Decision to Institute at 14-15.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Q.
`
`Are there any other RFC documents that you relied on that you
`
`haven't disclosed?
`
`A.
`
`No, that statement I just made, that every RFC document, I'm
`
`referring to the fact that RFC793 and RFC768 define the meaning of IP
`
`addresses and port number, so the basic concept used to communicate on
`
`the Internet. So every Internet protocol after that was built on top of
`
`those.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Well --
`
`So effectively I suppose that Internet is built in accordance to
`
`those two documents.
`
`Q.
`
`Well, I guess so I'm a little confused in this entire section that
`
`you've got because -- so, as to what the source of your information is. It
`
`sounds like that with respect to port numbers and protocol stacks, that
`
`came from RFC793 and RFC768, is that correct?
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. So that's not -- that's not actually in RFC1001, 1002,
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`No, there is no need to duplicate that information. It is a
`
`different layer in the network stack.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. So -- and just to be clear, RFC1001 and 1002 is
`
`NetBIOS, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. So all the discussions about protocol stacks and port
`
`numbers are not in the NetBIOS document, correct?
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`A.
`
`No, NetBIOS itself relies on lower level in protocol stack,
`
`which is IP and TCP protocols. IP is Internet protocol and TCP is
`
`transmission control protocol.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Ex. 1023, Paper No. 33, and Paper No. 11 for the
`
`same reasons discussed above in Paragraph 1. The testimony confirms that Mr.
`
`Antonov rendered an anticipation opinion based on multiple sources that are not of
`
`record in this proceeding. RFC 793 and RFC 768 were not submitted by Petitioner
`
`in its original Petition or Reply.3 Further, this testimony is relevant to Section
`
`VIII, Paragraphs 39-47 of Ex. 1023, where Mr. Antonov opines on NetBIOS
`
`addresses and a process versus a processing unit. The above testimony confirms
`
`that Mr. Antonov relied on references beyond NetBIOS as a basis for his opinions
`
`on NetBIOS and his “processes versus processing units” argument.
`
`Mr. Antonov Relied On A Product To Form His Opinions
`
`3. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 24, Lines 14 to 25:
`
`Q.
`
`Is your opinion with respect to WINS with respect to the
`
`product WINS?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
`And it's the product WINS as you know has been implemented
`
`over the years, correct?
`
`Yes.
`A.
`
`3 See Paper No. 1, Petition at ii-iii; Paper No. 33, Reply at iii.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Q.
`
`And your opinions with respect to WINS are not based on
`
`simply, say, the Microsoft manual – I think it's Exhibit 1004 -- that was
`
`produced to us in this case?
`
`A.
`
`No, I had experience of work on WINS as a product over the
`
`years.
`
`Mr. Antonov’s testimony that he evaluated the WINS product is relevant to Ex.
`
`1023, Paper No. 33, and Paper No. 11 for the same reasons as discussed above. In
`
`this testimony, Mr. Antonov confirmed that he evaluated a product to render his
`
`anticipation opinions. Additionally, this testimony is relevant to WINS, Ex. 1004,
`
`and Mr. Antonov’s discussion on WINS in Section XII of Ex. 1023. This
`
`testimony establishes that in forming his opinion that WINS anticipates the claims,
`
`Mr. Antonov relied on various implementations of the WINS product.
`
`Mr. Antonov Stated That NetBIOS Does Not Disclose Dynamic Addressing
`
`4. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 134, Lines 12 through 20:
`
`Q.
`
`But the document itself, the NetBIOS document itself, doesn't
`
`specifically disclose the idea of dynamic addresses.
`
`A.
`
`No, it doesn't. And, again, the fact that it doesn't, it means
`
`precisely that it will work with -- is that it is designed to work with any
`
`method, that NetBIOS -- operation of NetBIOS is not affected in any way
`
`by network of address assignment.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Antonov’s discussion of NetBIOS and dynamic
`
`addressing in Ex. 1023, Paragraphs 56-61 of Section X. In his Declaration, Ex.
`
`1023, Mr. Antonov opines that NetBIOS teaches dynamic addressing stating “the
`
`NetBIOS-over-TCP standards (RFC10001/1002) themselves fully anticipate
`
`configurations where IP addresses of ‘processing units’ are assigned on a non-
`
`permanent basis (‘dynamically’).”4 Further, this testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s assertion on Page 12 of Paper No. 33 that NetBIOS discloses dynamic
`
`addressing. Mr. Antonov’s deposition testimony contradicts his statements in his
`
`Declaration and the Petitioner’s Reply because he admits that NetBIOS does not
`
`disclose dynamic addressing. This testimony is also relevant to Pages 50-54 of
`
`Paper No. 30, Patent Owner’s Response, and to Pages 14-15 of the Board’s
`
`Decision to Institute, where the Board stated that “Petitioner did not provide
`
`sufficient evidence that NetBIOS discloses that the processes [have] ‘dynamically
`
`assigned network protocol address.’”5 This is relevant because he agrees with the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board on this issue. The above testimony confirms that
`
`NetBIOS cannot anticipate at least claims 33-37 of the ’704 Patent.
`
`
`4 Ex. 1023, Antonov Declaration at ¶61.
`
`5 Paper No. 11, Decision to Institute at 14-15.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Mr. Antonov Testified That He Did Not Provide An Obviousness Opinion
`
`5. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 31, Lines 16 through 24:
`
`Q.
`
`You do not provide an opinion in your declaration that any of
`
`the claims are rendered obvious by the prior art, is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`The foundation of my argument is that everything is anticipated
`
`to the extent that translation between prior existing art to what is in the
`
`'704 patent is obvious and trivial. So somebody skilled in this profession
`
`would understand that they mean exactly same thing.
`
`This testimony is relevant to confirmation of Page 5 of Ex. 1023, where Mr.
`
`Antonov stated that he has only rendered an opinion on anticipation. It is also
`
`relevant to Page 10 of Paper No. 33, where Petitioner states that NetBIOS in
`
`combination with WINS renders obvious claims 33-37. Mr. Antonov confirmed in
`
`the above testimony that he does not opine on the obviousness of NetBIOS in
`
`combination with WINS. The Board specifically instituted on claims 33-37 based
`
`on the combination of WINS and NetBIOS.
`
`Mr. Antonov Testified That A Response To A Query In NetBIOS Indicates
`Only A “Willingness” To Accept Communication Rather Than Availability
`For Communication
`
`6. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 60, Line 9, through Page 61, Line 5:
`
`Q.
`
`Just to be clear, so if you give me your number, you are
`
`implying that I should be able to call you.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Right?
`
`That is essentially what it does in NetBIOS. So this is my
`
`status, that I’m willing to accept your calls, the fact that I gave you the
`
`number. That doesn’t mean that in any specific moment I will be able or
`
`-- to answer your call.
`
`Q.
`
`All right. But to be clear, so I’m willing, by providing you my
`
`number, phone number, or network address --
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`-- I’m telling you that I am willing to accept your calls, correct?
`
`Yes, yes.
`
`Okay. I am not telling you, by providing that information, that
`
`I am going to accept your calls, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. I indicate only willingness but do not provide guarantee.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Section VII of Ex. 1023. It is relevant because it
`
`clarifies Mr. Antonov’s understanding of a registration in NetBIOS. The above
`
`testimony confirms that Mr. Antonov interprets registration in NetBIOS as the
`
`ability to receive a request for communication from a node, but not necessarily an
`
`availability for communication between two nodes. Mr. Antonov’s testimony is
`
`also relevant to Section B of Paper No. 33, where Petitioner adopts Mr. Antonov’s
`
`understandings of NetBIOS. This testimony is further relevant because it
`
`contradicts the requirements of the challenged claims. The challenged claims each
`
`require a query into the on-line status of the requested process for the purpose of
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`establishing a point-to-point communication between the two processes. Mr.
`
`Antonov’s testimony confirms that NetBIOS does not query into whether a
`
`requested node is able to engage in communication with the requesting node.
`
`Mr. Antonov Did Not Render His Own Opinion on Claim Construction
`
`7. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 37, Line 2 through Page 38, Line 25:
`
`Q.
`
`So, for instance, where in your declaration do you provide a
`
`claim construction with respect to the word "on-line"?
`
`A.
`
`Okay. Let me find the exact place. Yes, so that would be
`
`Section 7, "On-line Status Determination."
`
`Q.
`
`So what specific claim element are you providing a definition
`
`for in this section?
`
`A.
`
`’704 patent and declaration of Mr. Mayer-Patel use as a term
`
`"on-line status," which, from my understanding, means if specific client
`
`process or service is available for network communication. And Mr.
`
`Mayer-Patel can trust that this term "registration" are used in NetBIOS
`
`documents and claims that they're substantially different. It is my
`
`opinion that they mean in this context exactly the same thing; namely,
`
`that particular process or service is available for communication. So
`
`there is no substantial difference in meaning.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. So where -- again, I'm trying to figure out specifically if
`
`there's claim language from a particular claim with respect to the word
`
`"on-line" that you are defining and then where you provide that actual
`
`definition in your declaration.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`A.
`
`Okay. Let me find that out. I do not think I explicitly discuss
`
`terminology on its own merits. What I discussed is mechanisms specified
`
`or implied in '704 and in NetBIOS regarding on-line or registered -- let
`
`me start from the beginning. I do not think that I engaged in
`
`terminological discussion on its own regarding on-line versus registered
`
`status. I -- what I do in Chapter 7 of the declaration is I compare and I
`
`contrast specified mechanism of action of ’704 patent and WINS
`
`document -- not WINS -- NetBIOS, NetBIOS standard, to leave them
`
`side by side and see that they are substantially identical. So the term "on-
`
`line" used in ’704 and the term "registration" used in NetBIOS mean
`
`substantially the same thing.
`
`Q.
`
`All right. So just to summarize, your declaration does not have
`
`a terminology discussion on its own with respect to, say, the definition of
`
`on-line status?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. What it has is discussion of mechanism, so it basically
`
`shows it, by laying side by side, that this thing does these steps, and these
`
`things does these steps, and they're substantially identical. So the terms
`
`might mean the same thing.
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 92, Line 19 through Page 93, Line 20:
`
`Q.
`
`So let's back up. So you've got -- there's -- a node can make a
`
`name request, right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes. That is one part.
`
`That is one part. So a node can make a name request. And let's
`
`say the node says, I want to request the name Vadim.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And it turns out that Vadim is already taken. What
`
`happens?
`
`A.
`
`No, no, you're referring to the registration part of it, which is,
`
`again, separate. The registration part is when I go and register a name.
`
`Q. Right.
`
`A.
`
`As a client, I go talk to name server and say, here is my name,
`
`here is my address, please register me. There are two options in
`
`NetBIOS. One of them is when names are shared. Another is when
`
`they're exclusive. If it's an exclusive name, the server may tell me, sorry,
`
`this is a name already taken, go away. In case of shared names, it would
`
`tell me, oh, well, I registered you as one of the shared names. And I
`
`should note that ’704 doesn't seem to provide anything related to shared
`
`names. So this is outside of scope of the present discussion.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Section VII of Ex. 1023, which discusses on-line
`
`status determination. Mr. Antonov’s testimony is also relevant to Pages 25-27 of
`
`Paper No. 30, and Pages 6-11 of Ex. 2018, Dr. Ketan Mayer-Patel’s Declaration, in
`
`which Patent Owner’s Expert offers a claim construction for the term “on-line” and
`
`discusses the difference between “on-line” and registration. Petitioner, through its
`
`expert, has failed to provide a rebuttal to Patent Owner’s claim construction of
`
`“on-line status” as disclosed in the ’704 Patent. Merely responding to Dr. Mayer-
`
`Patel’s statements and equating on-line status with registration does not provide the
`
`Board with a proper basis of construing “on-line status.” In fact, Mr. Antonov’s
`
`testimony even confirms that registration is indeed separate from testing for on-line
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`status, thereby showing a contradiction in Mr. Antonov’s testimony where he
`
`equates the two terms.
`
`Mr. Antonov’s Testimony Offered a New Characterization of the Patent
`
`8. In Ex. 2045, Page 48, Line 21, Mr. Antonov testified that “[a] server is any
`
`persistent process…used to answer questions or accept connections.” On Page 51,
`
`Lines 7-8, Mr. Antonov stated that the second process of the ’704 Patent “is the
`
`server to which -- general-purpose server to which we try to establish
`
`communication.” This testimony is relevant to Section VIII of Ex. 1023, in which
`
`Mr. Antonov discusses the “process” limitation of the challenged claims. Mr.
`
`Antonov does not state in Section VIII, or in any section of his Declaration, that
`
`the “process” referred to in the challenged claims is a server process. The above
`
`testimony also states that Mr. Antonov believes a server is a “persistent process,”
`
`which is not a definition that had been previously offered in his Declaration. Mr.
`
`Antonov’s statement that the second process of the ’704 Patent is a “persistent
`
`process” is relevant because the challenged claims clearly identify a query into the
`
`“on-line status” of the second process. Such a query would be unnecessary if the
`
`second process were a “persistent server process” as stated by Mr. Antonov.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`Mr. Antonov’s Testimony Demonstrates a Connection Between Petitioner’s
`Expert and Stalker Software
`
`9. Mr. Antonov testified:
`
`Ex. 2045, Page 173, Lines 3-20 (objections omitted)
`
` Q.
`
`Do you know a gentleman by the name of Vladimir Butenko?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes, I know him.
`
`How do you know Mr. Butenko?
`
`We studied in the same university on different departments.
`
`And I was at Department of Computer Science. He was at Department of
`
`Physics. And we met because we were both active in systems
`
`programming community. And we kept in contact since then.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Exhibit 1023; Page 1-4 of Paper No. 33; Pages 13 of
`
`Paper 41; Pages 8, 13-14 of Paper No. 8; and Pages 8-16 of Paper No. 30. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that there is a connection between
`
`Petitioner and Stalker Software, the real party-in-interest. Mr. Antonov’s
`
`testimony demonstrates that Mr. Antonov and the CEO of Stalker Software have
`
`known each other since college and are still in contact.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/ Patrick J. Lee /
`Patrick J. Lee (Reg. No. 61,746)
`Alan M. Fisch
`Alicia M. Carney (Reg. No. 44,937)
`Michelle M. Chatelain (Reg. No. 71,435)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue
`Suite 830
`Washington, D.C. 20015
`Telephone: 202-362-3500
`Fax: 202-362-3501
`Email: patrick.lee@fischllp.com
`Email: alan.fisch@fischllp.com
`Email: alicia.carney@fishllp.com
`Email: michelle.chatelain@fischllp.com
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`US Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION was served, by agreement
`of the parties, by electronic mail on counsel for the Petitioner on June 6, 2014 as
`follows:
`
`
`Paul C. Haughey
`Michael T. Morlock
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
`phaughey@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`/ Patrick J. Lee /
`Patrick J. Lee (Reg. No. 61,746)
`Alicia M. Carney (Reg. No. 44,397)
`Michelle M. Chatelain (Reg. No. 71,435)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Suite 830
`Washington, DC 20015
`Telephone: 202-362-3500
`Fax: 202-362-3501
`Email: patrick.lee@fischllp.com
`Email: alicia.carney@fischllp.com
`Email: michelle.chatelain@fischllp.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: June 6, 2014
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
