Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` Friday, May 30, 2014
`
` Deposition of VADIM ANTONOV, 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
`
`9:07 a.m., on Friday, May 30, 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. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` Friday, May 30, 2014
`
` Deposition of VADIM ANTONOV, 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
`
`9:07 a.m., on Friday, May 30, 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. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 2014
`
`Page 3
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`THE WITNESS EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR
`
`VADIM ANTONOV PETITIONER PATENT OWNER
`
`By Mr. Hoffman 5
`
`BY Mr. Hoffman (Resumed) 113
`
` 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. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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 morning. We're on
`
`the video record, ladies and gentlemen, at 9:07
`
`a.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 No.
`
`2013-00246.
`
` This is the beginning of disk 1, volume 1
`
`of the deposition of Vadim Antonov on May 30th,
`
`2014. We're located at Two Embarcadero Center, San
`
`Francisco, California. This is taken on behalf of
`
`the patent owner.
`
` Counsel, would you please identify
`
`yourselves, starting with the questioning attorney.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN: Jason Hoffman on behalf of
`
`the patent owner. I'm joined by Vandana Koelsch.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Michael Morlock on behalf of
`
`petitioner, Sipnet.
`
` VIDEO OPERATOR: Will the court reporter
`
`please swear in the witness and we can proceed.
`
`Whereupon,
`
` VADIM ANTONOV,
`
`called for examination by counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. HOFFMAN
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Good morning.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Could you state your name for the record.
`
` A. Vadim Antonov.
`
` Q. I noticed that you paused before you said
`
`yes to the oath. Why did you pause?
`
` A. I'm nervous.
`
` Q. You're nervous. All right.
`
` Have you ever been deposed before?
`
` A. A very long time ago. And it wasn't in
`
`kind of adversarial setting like that. So it was
`
`friendly position. I was an employee of a company,
`
`so they just wanted to get -- I was an employee in
`
`the company, and they just wanted to get a record
`
`of what I did for the company. That was really
`
`long time ago, like 20 years.
`
` Q. So let me go through a little bit of the
`
`background of the deposition.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. I'm going to ask questions.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` Q. Hopefully you're going to answer
`
`questions.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. If you're ever confused by my questions,
`
`please tell me, and I will attempt to clarify.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. From time to time you may hear your
`
`attorney object, but you're still going to be
`
`required --
`
` A. Thank you.
`
` Q. -- to answer the questions.
`
` We will take breaks from time to time.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. All I ask is that, if we take a break, we
`
`take a break without a question pending.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. That we answer the question and then we
`
`take a break.
`
` A. (Indicates affirmatively.)
`
` Q. We're, I think, set to go for about seven
`
`hours today, so we'll obviously take a bunch of
`
`periodic breaks during the day.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. And if you need to take a break again for
`
`any reason, feel free to take them.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. Is there anything that would stop you from
`
`giving truthful testimony today?
`
` A. I don't think so.
`
` Q. Are you on any drugs or anything else --
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. -- that would affect your testimony?
`
` A. Just sleepy.
`
` Q. Are you sleep-deprived today?
`
` A. To some extent, yes. It's not my normal
`
`time to wake up.
`
` Q. What is your normal time to wake up?
`
` A. Around noon.
`
` Q. You don't know?
`
` A. No, around noon.
`
` Q. Around noon, excuse me.
`
` A. So, yeah.
`
` Q. All right. Are you currently employed?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And who is your employer?
`
` A. A start-up company in San Mateo called
`
`Snowflake Computing.
`
` Q. And what does Snowflake Computing do?
`
` A. Let me figure out how much I can tell
`
`without disclosing proprietary information. They
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`are active in the field of cloud computing. It's a
`
`big data startup, and it's still in stealth mode.
`
`It's a common term meaning that they're not yet
`
`publicly disclosed what exactly companies do. As
`
`you understand, I cannot really tell you without
`
`disclosing certain information as well.
`
` Q. How long have you been with Snowflake
`
`Computing?
`
` A. As bit over a year.
`
` Q. Do you have a title?
`
` A. Founding engineer.
`
` Q. How many employees does Snowflake
`
`currently have?
`
` A. Thirty-three or thirty-four. I don't know
`
`the exact number.
`
` Q. How many other founders were there besides
`
`you?
`
` A. I'm not the founder. I'm a founding
`
`engineer. It's basically one of the first
`
`employees who joined company before they received
`
`funding from venture capitalists.
`
` Q. Who are the founders of Snowflake?
`
` A. Founders of Snowflake are Thierry
`
`Cruanes -- you can find -- that information is
`
`public. Thierry Cruanes, Benoit Dageville, and
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`Marcin Zukowski, if I pronounce that correctly. I
`
`always have trouble with Polish names. And two of
`
`them worked for, like, 16 years for Oracle, and one
`
`of them was founder of company called Teradata.
`
`They're all experts in databases.
`
` So for all purposes, what that company is
`
`doing he has no relationship to the matter we're
`
`going to discuss.
`
` Q. Has -- was it -- is it standard practice
`
`for your company to allow you to serve as an expert
`
`in another pending matter?
`
` A. Yes. The company, he has -- he had no
`
`objections when asked.
`
` Q. Have you ever served as an expert in the
`
`past?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Tell me, how did you become an expert in
`
`this matter?
`
` A. Do you mean circumstances of how I got
`
`involved in this particular case or how I became an
`
`expert in general sense?
`
` Q. How you became involved in this particular
`
`case.
`
` A. I was contacted in -- let me recall. I do
`
`not remember exact date. It was end of March by
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`Julia Pogodina. And I cannot really say how -- how
`
`she decided that I'm a suitable expert, but I'm
`
`known in the community as somebody who worked in
`
`this field.
`
` Q. What community is that?
`
` A. It is basically a community of computer
`
`professionals of European origin.
`
` Q. And did you know Julia Pogodina prior to
`
`her reaching out to you?
`
` A. Only socially. We met at some parties.
`
` Q. So how long have you known Ms. Pogodina?
`
` A. Several years. I cannot really say I
`
`remember when I met her the first time.
`
` Q. And do you know Ms. Pogodina's occupation?
`
` A. Yeah, I knew that she was an attorney
`
`specialize in corporate law.
`
` Q. And --
`
` A. But I didn't know any specifics of what
`
`she's doing. Never expected to work with her in
`
`any professional sense.
`
` Q. So she reached out to you in March of this
`
`year?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did she reach out to you by phone?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` Q. By cell phone?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So she had your cell phone number?
`
` A. Yes. It was funny because one of the
`
`times we met she gave me her card, so -- you know
`
`how that works. You need services of that kind,
`
`please call me. Just never can --
`
` Q. So Ms. Pogodina gave you a call, and what
`
`did she ask you -- tell me the first conversation
`
`she had with you.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, calls for --
`
`potentially calls for privilege. It's beyond the
`
`scope of discovery allowed in this proceeding, and
`
`potentially beyond the scope of Federal Rule 26
`
`work product.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN: Are you instructing him not
`
`to answer?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: I'm instructing him not to
`
`answer as to what Ms. Pogodina said to him. He can
`
`answer as to that they talked, when they talked.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think I'll already
`
`answered this question who contacted whom and when.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Were you retained in that first
`
`conversation as an expert in this matter?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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. We only had the discussion about me being
`
`able to talk as an expert in this case, would I be
`
`available, and would I be willing to review the
`
`documents.
`
` Q. And did you enter into a formal agreement
`
`to be an expert in this matter?
`
` A. No, the agreement was verbal. I trust
`
`her.
`
` Q. What was your verbal agreement?
`
` A. That I will produce my opinion and that I
`
`will be paid no matter what the outcome of the
`
`case, and we agreed on the rate.
`
` Q. And it was a rate of $600 an hour?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And how many hours have you billed to date
`
`on this matter?
`
` A. I do not -- I didn't do the sums. I need
`
`to go to my time-keeping records to get exact
`
`number. My estimate is about from 20 to 25 hours
`
`total.
`
` Q. So you have yet to issue an invoice?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And is Ms. Pogodina paying -- going to pay
`
`your invoice?
`
` A. I'm not sure who is paying in the sense
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`that I do not know if she will sign the check
`
`herself or that would be her company. The only
`
`conversation in this respect was through her.
`
` Q. So have -- would you agree you've been
`
`retained on behalf of a company called Sipnet?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So were you aware of Sipnet prior to your
`
`retention?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Are you aware today what Sipnet does?
`
` A. Only what I learned from reading the
`
`materials related to this case.
`
` Q. What materials did you read from this
`
`matter that informed you about what Sipnet does?
`
` A. There's quite a thick pile of legal
`
`materials. Response -- what was the nicknames of
`
`all that? Okay. Basically I learned about that
`
`from their petition. I see a copy of that right
`
`here. Actually, not that declaration. I haven't
`
`seen this one. Declaration of Kolesnikov -- no.
`
` So I learned about Sipnet and got some
`
`idea of what they're doing. I have no idea what
`
`their business is about. I -- from reading their
`
`petition, what is it called, inter parte? I'm not
`
`legal expert, so I --
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` Q. You just referenced a gentleman by the
`
`name of Yuri --
`
` A. That's what I just read.
`
` Q. -- Kolesnikov.
`
` Do you know who Yuri Kolesnikov is?
`
` A. Yeah, I also know him socially. It's a
`
`small community.
`
` Q. Do you know that he is involved in this
`
`matter as well?
`
` A. I've learned about that about a week ago.
`
` Q. Did you have any discussions with
`
`Mr. Kolesnikov about this matter?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And, I'm sorry, how do you, again, know
`
`Mr. Kolesnikov?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, beyond the scope
`
`of direct.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. You can answer.
`
` A. We go to the same parties. We sail
`
`together.
`
` Q. You sail together?
`
` A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, that what
`
`we did a week ago on the weekend.
`
` Q. This weekend you were sailing together?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, beyond the scope
`
`of direct.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Have you been sailing with Ms. Pogodina as
`
`well?
`
` A. No.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, beyond the scope
`
`of direct.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. How often do you sail with Mr. Kolesnikov?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, beyond the scope
`
`of direct.
`
` THE WITNESS: A few times a year.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. What do you consider yourself to be an
`
`expert in?
`
` A. I'm an expert in computer networks,
`
`operating systems, computer hardware, computer
`
`security, voice over IP telephony. Voice over IP.
`
`IP is Internet Protocol telephony and many other
`
`fields. I'm a generalist.
`
` Q. What was the last word you just said?
`
` A. A generalist.
`
` Q. A generalist?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. Do you have an undergraduate degree?
`
` A. I have a graduate degree.
`
` Q. So you do not have an undergraduate
`
`degree?
`
` A. Well, I graduated from Moscow State
`
`University. And in Soviet Union, at that time,
`
`there was no distinction. So, essentially, it's
`
`always granted, a graduate degrees. So I wrote the
`
`thesis when I graduated, and you have to define it,
`
`so this is a graduate degree.
`
` Q. So the graduate degree that you're
`
`referring to is your Master of Science?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And that was in mathematical computer
`
`science 1987?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. From Moscow State University?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. When did you come to this country?
`
` A. In late 1991.
`
` Q. So you issued a declaration in this case,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yes. Correct.
`
` Q. Did you draft the declaration?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So you typed it up?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection. Again, just
`
`instruct the witness not to answer with regard to
`
`communication with counsel.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I
`
`did typing.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. You did the typing?
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. Did anybody assist you in drafting the
`
`declaration?
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, calls for
`
`privilege. Instruct the witness not to answer with
`
`regard to communication with counsel.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN: I disagree with your
`
`objection. There is no question with respect to
`
`revealing privileged information. Who he worked
`
`with on a declaration is not privileged.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay. I had some help with
`
`legal terms and proper phrasing and as a general
`
`form of the document from Julia.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. From Julia?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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. That's Ms. Pogodina?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So there's a number of case citations.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Objection, calls for
`
`protected material. Instruct the witnesses not to
`
`answer with regard to communication with counsel in
`
`this matter. That's work product under Rule 26.
`
` The Board has specifically instructed
`
`counsel to attempt -- against any attempt to
`
`inquire on cross-examination into how direct
`
`testimony declarations came to be prepared. That's
`
`a cite, Pevarello v. Lan, Patent Interference No.
`
`105394. It's a decision from the Board instructing
`
`counsel not to ask questions into how direct
`
`testimony came to be prepared.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Well, let's turn to your declaration,
`
`then, Mr. Antonov.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. It's been marked as Exhibit 1023.
`
` A. Thank you.
`
` MR. MORLOCK: Thank you.
`
` MR. HOFFMAN:
`
` Q. Can I ask you to turn to Page 5 of your
`
`declaration.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. Paragraph 16 --
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. -- it says, "It is my understanding that
`
`a claim is invalid by anticipation when a single
`
`prior art reference (as defined by 35 U.S.C.
`
`Section 102) existed prior to the claim's priority
`
`date and teaches every element of the claim."
`
` Have you read 35 U.S.C. Section 102
`
`before?
`
` A. I didn't read the section per se. Julia
`
`explained it to me what they mean in layman's
`
`terms.
`
` Q. So you have never actually read the
`
`statute, correct?
`
` A. No, I never actually read the statute, but
`
`I have help from Julia in understanding what it
`
`means.
`
` Q. And do you know if Ms. Pogodina provided
`
`the correct advice to you with respect to what it
`
`means?
`
` A. I have no reason to think that she
`
`provided an incorrect advice.
`
` Q. You do not quote the actual statute in
`
`your declaration, do you not?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` A. From what I understand, you need to
`
`include exact references into the document, so she
`
`provided the reference.
`
` Q. She provided you a copy of the statute?
`
` A. She provided -- she provided explanation
`
`and the reference. I do not think I would be
`
`competent in actually understanding what the
`
`statute means because understanding legal language
`
`requires special training in order to understand.
`
` Q. You're not a lawyer, right?
`
` A. No, I'm not a lawyer.
`
` Q. All right. So what does it mean here
`
`where it says, "Verizon Services Corp. v. Cox
`
`Fibernet Virginia, Inc."?
`
` A. That -- well, that means that there was a
`
`case in which court made some decision.
`
` Q. And what decision did the Verizon Services
`
`Corp. vs Cox Fibernet court make?
`
` A. Basically, from what I understand from
`
`advice of my attorney who helped me in this case,
`
`which is Julia, is that a single prior art
`
`reference is sufficient to invalidate the claim.
`
` Q. So what specifically about a single prior
`
`art reference is used to invalidate a claim?
`
` A. That you do not need multiple instances of
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`prior art to confirm that this is -- some
`
`particular invention is not novel.
`
` Q. And in your declaration, do you provide an
`
`opinion that any piece of prior art teaches each
`
`and every element of any specific claim?
`
` A. Yes, this is correct. Sorry for the
`
`accent.
`
` Q. Where in your declaration do you
`
`demonstrate that each and every claim element is
`
`rendered invalid by a piece of prior art?
`
` A. This is described in subsequent sections,
`
`and basically every section discusses a specific
`
`claim made. And in the patent, in the original
`
`'704 patent, or in declaration of expert witness,
`
`Mr. Mayer-Patel, if I remember the name correctly,
`
`and other of those claims. So the entirety of that
`
`document is basically the answer.
`
` Q. Is there anywhere in your declaration
`
`where you list, say, the claim elements, and you
`
`show in comparison to the claim elements where the
`
`piece -- let me finish my question -- where each of
`
`the alleged elements are taught in the prior art?
`
` A. Can you be more specific? Because there
`
`are several elements, and you may want to ask about
`
`specific elements.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` The reference to verbiage document --
`
`verbiage claim is discussed in the part 6,
`
`"Document Structure," Page 6 and Page 7 and Page 8.
`
` Q. Are you familiar with the concept of a
`
`claim chart?
`
` A. No, I am not.
`
` 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?
`
` 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.
`
` Q. So your declaration fails to provide an
`
`element-by-element basis for why -- let me finish
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`the question -- about why a particular piece of art
`
`might invalidate a particular claim of the '704
`
`patent?
`
` A. No, this declaration contains complete
`
`list of everything, but what I am saying is that
`
`the entire declaration is that list. So you cannot
`
`point to any single section and say here is the
`
`list.
`
` Q. All right. But you admit that there's --
`
`the claims aren't repeated verbatim within your
`
`declaration, correct?
`
` A. They are incorporated by reference in
`
`those cases. So in the cases where I do not copy
`
`the text completely, there is simply a reference to
`
`sections of expert declaration, or specific line
`
`numbers in '704 patent, or references to other
`
`documents. I do not necessarily copy the entire
`
`text.
`
` Q. And I want to just understand the breadth
`
`or the scope of your opinion.
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. If you turn to Page 5 of your
`
`declaration --
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. -- your opinion is that "all of the claims
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
`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.
`
` Q. And then you say in parentheses, "(and
`
`WINS as a NetBIOS Name Server implementation.)"
`
` What do you mean by that?
`
` A. WINS is a commercial product which
`
`implements NetBIOS as a -- W-I-N-S. It's a
`
`Microsoft product which was and still is widely
`
`used. So NetBIOS is a specific API and description
`
`of a protocol as specified in the RFC 1001 and
`
`1002, and WINS is an implementation of that.
`
` Q. Is your opinion with respect to WINS with
`
`respect to the product WINS?
`
` A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`
` Q. And it's the product WINS as you know has
`
`been implemented over the years, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` 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.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 2014
`
`Page 25
`
`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. So your opinion is that the WINS product
`
`invalidates the specific claims of the patent,
`
`correct?
`
` A. As a product, the WINS itself as a product
`
`is obviously a proprietary software code, so it is
`
`impossible by looking outside of the product to say
`
`what it is doing inside.
`
` However, it implements a well-defined
`
`protocol, which is NetBIOS, and this is easy to
`
`tell that it does that because, as a network, it
`
`sends over the traffic -- it implements NetBIOS as
`
`claimed in Microsoft documentation. Because the
`
`traffic sent over the network is visible and can be
`
`analyzed with appropriate tools.
`
` Q. But I still want to understand your
`
`opinion with respect to WINS, is it is the WINS
`
`product, plus the WINS documentation, plus the
`
`NetBIOS documentation or standard that is the basis
`
`of your opinion?
`
` A. Yes, yes. So what I'm saying is that --
`
`that it was a standard document, NetBIOS. There is
`
`a specific implementation of that, which is WINS.
`
`And there are documents which confirm that they are
`
`-- indeed, one of them is implementation of
`
`NetBIOS.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 2014
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
` Both documents, in my personal experience,
`
`confirms that. So I have no reason not to adopt
`
`any claim made by Microsoft in this respect.
`
` Q. I don't understand your last comment.
`
` A. What I'm saying, I have no reason to think
`
`that what Microsoft claims in regard to WINS in
`
`their documentation is incorrect.
`
` Q. So you believe that everything that
`
`Microsoft says --
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. -- in its documentation is correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Besides Ms. Pogodina, were there any other
`
`attorneys involved in helping you draft your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Is there anybody -- any other nonattorneys
`
`involved in helping you draft your declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And then you -- also you mentioned
`
`Mr. Mayer-Patel?
`
` A. Yes. I reviewed his deposition and his --
`
`what is it called -- the document he wrote, which
`
`was in the materials of the case. That was -- what
`
`is the legal term for that?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2045
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Vadim Antonov
`
`San Francisco, CA
`
`May 30, 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
`
` Q. The declaration.
`
` A. Yes, declaration.
`
` Q. Had you been familiar with Mr. Mayer-Patel
`
`prior to reading his declaration?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you review his background at all?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with
`
`Mr. Mayer-Patel's background in terms of him being
`
`able to serve as an expert in this matter?
`
` A. My impression, there is not a lot of
`
`information about his specific background I was
`
`able to find in the documents of this c
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
