Leslie Ehrlich
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
