MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 1
`
`Page 3
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` DISTINCTIVE DEVELOPMENTS, INC.
` Petitioner
`
` VS.
`
` UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case IPR2013-00391
` Patent 6,857,067
`
` WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014
` 9:00 a.m.
`
`Deposition of Michael T. Goodrich, taken on
`behalf of Petitioner, held at the offices
`of Jeffer Mangel Butler & Mitchell,
`3 Park Plaza, Irvine, California, before
`Christy A. Cannariato, CSR #7954, RPR, CRR,
`RSA.
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`Page 4
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`ERISE IP
`BY: ERIC BURESH, ESQ.
`BY: MARK LANG, ESQ.
`6201 COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 300
`OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66211
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`BY: GREGORY S. CORDREY, ESQ.
`3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100
`IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`CALLIE PENDERGRASS, ERISE IP
`SEAN D. BURDICK, UNILOC USA
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`
`67
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`234
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` DISTINCTIVE DEVELOPMENTS, INC.
` Petitioner
`
` VS.
`
` UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case IPR2013-00391
` Patent 6,857,067
`
` DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL T. GOODRICH
` IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
` WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014
`
`REPORTED BY:
`CHRISTY A. CANNARIATO, CSR #7954, RPR, CRR, RSA
`Page 2
`
` I N D E X
`
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`MR. BURESH 5 EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1001
`U.S. Patent 6,857,067 B2 24
`
`Exhibit 1002
`U.S. Patent 7,032,240 B1 12
`
`Exhibit 1004
`U.S. Patent 6,008,737 47
`
`Exhibit 1012
`Petitioners' Notice of Deposition of
`Michael T. Goodrich 6
`
`Exhibit 2002
`Declaration of Michael T. Goodrich in
`Support of Patent Owner's Response 19
`
`1
`2
`
`345
`
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`1 (Pages 1 to 4)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 7
`
` Irvine, California; Wednesday, April 30, 2014
` 9:00 a.m.
`
` MR. BURESH: Eric Buresh, Mark Lang, and
`Callie Pendergrass for Erise IP on behalf of
`Petitioners.
` MR. CORDREY: Greg Cordrey of Jeffer
`Mangels Butler & Mitchell on behalf of the patent
`owner Uniloc.
` MR. BURDICK: Sean Burdick on behalf of
`the patent owner Uniloc.
`
` MICHAEL T. GOODRICH,
` having first been duly sworn, was
` examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BURESH:
` Q. Mr. Goodrich or Dr. Goodrich, could you
`please state your name and current residential
`address for the record.
` A. Michael T. Goodrich, 11 Twain Street,
`T-w-a-i-n, Irvine, California 92617.
` Q. And when I refer to you by name in this
`Page 6
`
`deposition, what's your preference?
` A. I would prefer to be called
`Dr. Goodrich.
` (Exhibit 1012 marked for
` identification.)
` Q. I'm going to hand you what has been
`premarked Exhibit 1012. Have you seen a copy of
`this document before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. It's Petitioners' Notice of Deposition
`to Michael T. Goodrich.
` Q. And are you appearing today pursuant to
`this notice?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Two times prior to this.
` Q. As an expert?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In patent cases?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you remember the name of those cases?
` A. I do not remember the names of the
`
`1
`cases.
`2
` Q. Do you remember the subject matter of
`3
`the patents in those cases?
`4
` A. Yes. One of the subject matters was on
`5
`general computer science technology and storage
`6
`technology, and the other one was on digital rights
`7
`management.
`8
` Q. I'm going to give you a couple of
`9
`instructions. I'm sure you've heard these before,
`10
`so I will keep them brief.
`11
` My job today is to ask questions that
`12
`you can understand and respond to audibly. Do you
`13
`understand that?
`14
` A. Yes.
`15
` Q. If you answer a question, I'm going to
`16
`assume you understood it. Is that fair?
`17
` A. Yes.
`18
` Q. I mentioned audible. This is being
`19
`taken down by a court reporter, so every answer
`20
`can't be a nod. It needs to be a yes or no or a
`21
`verbal response. Is that understood?
`22
` A. Yes.
`23
` Q. Okay. Is there anything today as far as
`24 medical conditions that I should be aware of as you
`25
`testify?
`
`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
`
` A. No.
` Q. Any medications, drugs, alcohol or
`anything else that would prohibit you from
`testifying fully and accurately here today?
` A. No.
` Q. Any questions on your end before we
`start with respect to procedure?
` A. No.
` Q. I will probably take a break about every
`hour. If you need breaks at different intervals,
`feel free to let me know. I will ask you to answer
`any pending questions, and then we can take a break.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Fair enough?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In your two prior depositions, were you
`testifying on behalf of a patent owner or on behalf
`of a defendant in a patent case?
` A. In one case it was the defendant, and
`one case it was a patent owner.
` Q. And which was which? You referred to a
`digital rights management case.
` A. So for the digital rights management
`case, it was for the patent owner.
` Q. Okay. Beyond depositions, how many
`
`1
`2
`
`345
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`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
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`2 (Pages 5 to 8)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 9
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`times have you offered expert analysis in a case for
`2
`instance through an expert report or a declaration?
`3
` A. I've done -- in addition to the two
`4
`cases that I mentioned that include declarations, I
`5
`also had an expert report that was offered in a case
`6
`that did not include a deposition.
`7
` Q. Have you worked as an expert with
`8 Mr. Cordrey before?
`9
` A. No.
`10
` Q. With the firm of Jeffer Mangels Butler &
`11 Mitchell?
`12
` A. No.
`13
` Q. Do you recall the law firms that you
`14 were engaged by in your previous patent cases?
`15
` A. Yes. So the law firms involved with the
`16
`first case that did not have a deposition was Sidley
`17
`Austin.
`18
` With the second case that was on general
`19
`computer science technology, it was Jones Day.
`20
` And with the third that did involve both
`21
`digital rights management and a deposition, it was
`22
`Kirkland & Ellis.
`23
` Q. Did you know Mr. Cordrey prior to your
`24
`engagement in this matter?
`25
` A. No.
`
`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 being paid $500 an hour for your work in this
`case?
` A. Yes, that is correct. And my
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of the
`case or any positions that I would be taking in this
`case.
` Q. Is it the same rate for your declaration
`preparation as it would be for testimony, such as
`the deposition here today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you have a sense of how much you
`have invoiced or charged thus far in your
`engagement?
` A. So far I have invoiced roughly 40 hours.
` Q. And that 40 hours would have been spent
`in review and preparation of your expert
`declaration?
` A. Yes, and also in reviewing the
`documents, various documents.
` Q. But it would not include any time you
`spent preparing for your deposition today?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And how much time did you spend
`preparing for your deposition today?
` A. Roughly 10 hours.
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1
` Q. Have you had the acquaintance of
`2 Mr. Burdick prior to your engagement in this matter?
`3
` A. No.
`4
` Q. How did you become acquainted with
`5 Mr. Cordrey?
`6
` A. He contacted me and inquired into my
`7
`availability as an expert on general topics and then
`8
`retained me for this case.
`9
` Q. Did you review any information prior to
`10
`accepting the engagement?
`11
` A. I believe I scanned the patent that is
`12
`in the suit.
`13
` Q. Which would be --
`14
` A. I think we referred to as the '067
`15
`patent.
`16
` Q. "O" being a zero.
`17
` A. Right.
`18
` Q. Did you review any other information,
`19
`such as the IPR petition?
`20
` A. I don't recall.
`21
` Q. Do you recall whether you reviewed any
`22
`prior art prior to accepting the engagement in this
`23 matter?
`24
` A. I don't recall that either.
`25
` Q. I understand from your declaration you
`
`1
` Q. And how was that time spent?
`2
` A. So that time was spent reviewing all the
`3
`documents again and meeting with Mr. Burdick and
`4
`Cordrey.
`5
` Q. When did you meet Mr. Cordrey and
`6
`Burdick?
`7
` A. Yesterday.
`8
` Q. For how long?
`9
` A. For roughly four hours.
`10
` Q. Was anybody else present?
`11
` A. No.
`12
` Q. As part of your expert engagement,
`13
`including your analysis and preparation, have you
`14
`had conversations with anyone else other than
`15 Mr. Cordrey and Mr. Burdick?
`16
` A. No.
`17
` Q. Have you reviewed any documents not
`18
`listed in your declaration under the Items Reviewed?
`19
` A. No.
`20
` (Exhibit 1002 marked for
`21
` identification.)
`22
` Q. I'm going to start with -- by discussing
`23
`U.S. Patent No. 7,032,240, which has been marked
`24
`previously as Petitioner's Exhibit 1002.
`25
` Are you familiar with Exhibit 1002?
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`3 (Pages 9 to 12)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
`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. And how do you refer to the patent owner
`in this particular reference?
` A. I refer to this patent as the Cronce
`patent.
` Q. How did you become familiar with the
`Cronce patent?
` A. It was one of the documents that I
`reviewed from my declaration being offered as prior
`art for the '067 patent.
` Q. Were you familiar with the Cronce
`reference prior to your engagement in this matter?
` A. No.
` Q. Is it fair to say that you've offered
`some opinions in your declaration with respect to
`the Cronce reference and its applicability to the
`'067 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you generally describe for me your
`process in reaching those conclusions?
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Form.
` A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
` Q. In reaching your conclusions with
`respect to Cronce as compared to the '067 patent,
`did you -- what was your process for comparing the
`Page 14
`
`two?
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Form.
` A. I'm still not quite understanding the
`question. So are you asking how I did the analysis?
`How did the preparation --
` Q. I'm asking what was your analytical
`process.
` MR. CORDREY: Same objection.
` A. So the process included reading both the
`'067 patent and the Cronce patent, studying very
`carefully the claim limitations in the '067 patent,
`also reading the Petitioner's analysis about claims
`of anticipation with respect to the '067 patent on a
`part of the Cronce patent, and then carefully
`reading through the Cronce patent to perform an
`analysis for each of these -- for the -- to answer
`this question of anticipation with respect to the
`claim limitations in '067?
` Q. Did you read the entirety of the Cronce
`patent as part of your analysis?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you understand the entirety of
`your patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you read the '067 patent in its
`
`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
`
`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
`
`entirety?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you understand the '067 patent
`in its entirety?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Turn with me to column 14 of the Cronce
`patent. Beginning at around line 29, you see a
`description of Figure 9 that starts at that point in
`the Cronce patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And would you agree with me that Figure
`9 describes a procedure known as a key exchange
`process?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with the access control
`program in Cronce, which is referred to as 117 on
`line 36?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the access control program 117 is a
`program that resides on the host system 110; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And Cronce describes the access control
`program as initiating and controlling the key
`exchange process; is that correct?
`
`Page 16
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. So a program that resides on the host
`system in Cronce initiates and controls the key
`exchange process described in Figure 9?
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Form.
` A. Could you repeat the question, please.
` Q. Sure. A program that resides on the
`host system of Cronce initiates and controls the key
`exchange process described in Figure 9; is that
`correct?
` A. The operations of the key exchange
`process that are performed on the host are indeed
`initiated and controlled by the access control
`program 117.
` Q. And the key exchange process is
`initiating and controlled by access control program
`117 as well; correct?
` A. The operations of the key exchange
`process that pertain to the actions of the host are
`indeed controlled by the access control program 117.
` Q. Part of the key exchange process
`involves a challenge response transaction; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I'm going to jump to column 15 of
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`4 (Pages 13 to 16)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`Cronce now. And in that beginning at around column
`2
`15, line -- column 15, line 19, the first step in
`3
`the challenge response process is for the host
`4
`authenticator to generate and transmit a challenge
`5 message. Do you see that?
`6
` A. Yes.
`7
` Q. Would you agree that the challenge
`8 message that is so generated includes a randomly
`9
`generated number?
`10
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Form.
`11
` A. Yes.
`12
` Q. And in response to that challenge
`13 message, the information authority of Cronce
`14
`generates and sends back a message that includes a
`15
`fixed secret key 152; is that correct?
`16
` A. No.
`17
` Q. How is it not correct?
`18
` A. What is sent back in the response
`19
`message is a mathematical combination of the
`20
`challenge information and the fixed secret key. The
`21
`fixed key itself is not sent back.
`22
` Q. Information that reflects the fixed
`23
`secret key 152 is returned in the response message?
`24
` A. Yes.
`25
` Q. And the fixed secret key 152 that is
`
`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
`
`reflected in the response message is data that is
`stored in the information authority; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Similarly, there is a fixed secret key
`stored in the portable authorization device of
`Cronce; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the fixed secret key stored in the
`portable authorization device is compared to the
`fixed secret key indicated by the response message
`to determine whether authentication is appropriate;
`is that correct?
` A. I'm not sure I would characterize that
`as a comparison of the secret keys. Instead,
`there's like the description describes, a
`mathematical combination of this random information
`and the fixed secret key, and it is a mathematical
`function that is then performed based on that
`response to do a determination of whether or not to
`authenticate.
` Q. Is it fair to say that where the
`response message indicates that the information
`authority properly contains the same fixed secret
`key as the portable authorization device, that is
`
`1
`the basis for authentication?
`2
` A. Yes.
`3
` Q. And then if that authentication is
`4
`successful, the information authority will translate
`5 what is -- I'm sorry -- will transmit what is
`6
`referred to as a dynamic key selector 171 to the
`7
`portable authorization device; is that correct?
`8
` A. Yes.
`9
` Q. Cronce describes an optional additional
`10
`verification beginning at line 39. Do you see that?
`11
` A. Yes.
`12
` Q. During this optional verification
`13
`described in Cronce, the information authority will
`14
`transmit identification information that is
`15
`associated with a dynamic key selector to the
`16
`portable authorization device; is that correct?
`17
` A. Would it be possible for me to see a
`18
`copy of my declaration? Because I believe I address
`19
`this in my declaration.
`20
` Q. It would be possible. Do you need your
`21
`declaration to answer the pending question?
`22
` A. Yes.
`23
` (Exhibit 2002 marked for
`24
` identification.)
`25
` Q. I'm handing you what has been premarked
`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
`
`as Exhibit 2002, which is a copy of your
`declaration. Can you confirm for me that that is an
`accurate copy of your declaration?
` A. It appears to be an accurate copy of my
`declaration.
` Q. Okay. And my question was whether in
`the optional verification described at line 39,
`column 15 of the Cronce reference whether the
`information authority transmits identification
`information that is associated with the dynamic key
`selector to the portable authorization device.
` A. Sorry, could you repeat the question one
`more time?
` Q. Sure.
` A. I think I'm at the place where I need to
`be.
` Q. During the optional verification
`described at line 39, column 15 of the Cronce
`reference, the information authority will transmit
`identification information associated with the
`dynamic key selector to the portable authorization
`device; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. That identification information is
`stored in the information authority of Cronce?
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`5 (Pages 17 to 20)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 21
`
`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. That is correct.
` Q. And that identification information
`uniquely identifies an item of protected
`information?
` A. Yes.
` Q. This optional verification also uses the
`fixed key ID 151; is that correct?
` A. So this process also uses the fixed key
`ID 151, but not in a way that would be providing
`verification data for verifying the license data,
`which is a claim of the '067 patent, a claim
`limitation of the '067 patent.
` Q. So the answer is: Yes, it does use
`fixed key ID 151 as part of the optional
`verification?
` A. Yes, it does use the fixed key ID 151,
`but not in a way that would be providing for the
`claim limitation of '067 of verification data for
`verifying the license data.
` Q. Fixed key ID 151 is stored in the
`storage medium of the portable authorization device;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And as part of this optional
`verification, a comparison is made between the
`Page 22
`
`1
`identification information that was stored in the
`2
`information authority and the fixed key ID 151 that
`3 was stored in the portable authorization device;
`4
`correct?
`5
` A. Yes, there is this comparison, but not
`6
`in a way that would be providing for verification
`7
`data for verifying the license data.
`8
` Q. In the scenario where both the first
`9
`verification that we looked at starting at line 17,
`10
`and the optional verification where they're both
`11
`used, if both of the comparisons result in
`12
`authentication, then the information authority will
`13
`send a dynamic key selector to the portable
`14
`authorization device; correct?
`15
` A. Yes.
`16
` Q. Referring to column 11 of Cronce, line
`17
`21, you see the reference to fixed key ID 151?
`18
` A. Yes.
`19
` Q. Do you agree that fixed key ID 151 is
`20
`used to indicate the identity of the fixed secret
`21
`key 152?
`22
` A. Yes.
`23
` Q. And that the fixed secret key 152 is
`24
`further described starting at line 23 of Cronce?
`25
` A. Yes.
`
`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
`
`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 referring now to the dynamic key
`selector, it is used in the process of figure 10 to
`authorize the use of the protected information; is
`that correct?
` A. Could you restate the question, please.
` Q. Sure. In fact, I will reframe it
`entirely.
` A. Okay.
` Q. The is the dynamic key selector 171 used
`in the process described in figure 10 to allow the
`host device to use the protected information?
` A. Yes.
` Q. As part of that process, is the dynamic
`key selector used to generate a secret key that
`performs -- that is further used in authorization?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to ask you to refer to your
`declaration now, particularly paragraph 15 of your
`declaration. The third sentence of the paragraph 15
`of your declaration you begin a sentence, "Thus,
`'067 patent discloses generally three methods for
`verifying the license data."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you then describe three methods, all
`Page 24
`
`of which include some comparison to some form of
`license data; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you cite to column 4, lines 5
`through 33 of the '067 patent?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. I'm going to ask you now to go to
`starting at line 34 of column 4.
` A. Wait. Can I have a copy of the '067
`patent in this case?
` Q. If you think that's necessary.
` A. Is that what you're referring to? Thank
`you.
` (Exhibit 1001 marked for
` identification.)
` Q. Handing you a copy of what's been
`previously marked Exhibit 1001. Is this the '067
`patent that you have offered opinions with respect
`to?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now I will ask you to turn to column 4
`once again, and we're going to pick up where your
`cite left off at 33, start with 34.
` Do you see line 34 and continuing
`discussion of registration information including a
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`6 (Pages 21 to 24)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 25
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`random identifier?
`2
` A. Yes.
`3
` Q. Are you familiar with this passage?
`4
` A. Yes.
`5
` Q. And in this passage, verification data
`6
`that's stored in the registration authority may
`7
`include a list of authorized identifiers; is that
`8
`correct?
`9
` A. Yes.
`10
` Q. And here the registration authority may
`11
`provide updated license data to the licensing medium
`12 when the identifier sent with the registration
`13
`information corresponds to one of the authorized
`14
`identifiers; is that correct?
`15
` A. Yes.
`16
` Q. So in this paragraph of column 4,
`17
`starting at line 34, there is a check for
`18
`correspondence between a random identifier that has
`19
`been sent to the registration authority and an
`20
`authorized identifier that is stored in the
`21
`registration authority; is that correct?
`22
` A. Yes.
`23
` Q. And if that comparison shows a
`24
`correspondence, then updated license information may
`25
`be provided by the registration authority to the
`
`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
`
`been tampered with in terms of the license that was
`granted by the registration authority.
` Q. So in your opinion, would claim 1
`encompass a system where the verification data is
`solely the registration -- I'm sorry -- is solely
`the authorized identifier described at column 4,
`lines 34 and following?
` A. No. It needs to be something more than
`just an identifier that identifies a serial number
`or a key that is associated with the license data.
`It has to be a verification of the license data
`itself that, again, that has not been tampered it or
`modified. That was something that is mentioned
`throughout the '067 patent.
` Q. And when the authorized identifier
`described at column 4, lines 34 and following, is
`compared to the random identifier that is sent to
`the registration authority, you would not consider
`that a verification of license data?
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Form.
` A. It is -- it is a verification of
`information that is included in the license data,
`namely this authorized identifiers, but it's not a
`complete verification of the license data, and
`hence, does not meet this limitation of verification
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
`portable licensing medium?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you remember an authorized identifier
`to be verification data in your understanding of
`claim 1 of the '067 patent?
` A. So in the context of the '067 patent,
`claim 1, when it talks about a claim limitation, a
`registration authority configured to communicate
`with an electronic device, the registration
`authority having verification data for verifying the
`license data stored on the license medium.
` What is being referred to here is
`verification data for verifying the license data
`that is stored on the licensing medium.
` So it may include authorizing
`identifiers, but it necessarily has to be more than
`that since the '067 patent teaches away from using
`strictly such identifiers to do such authentication.
`It needs a way for verifying in particular that the
`license data has not been modified or tampered with
`while it's on the authorization -- portable
`authorization device.
` And that claim limitation is addressing
`this issue of verifying that the license data that's
`stored on the licensing medium matches and has not
`
`1
`data for verifying the license data.
`2
` Q. And in terms of the '067 patent, you
`3
`understand that when the correspondence exists
`4
`between the random identifier sent to the
`5
`registration authority and the identifier that's
`6
`contained in the information authority matches,
`7
`license data is provided from the information
`8
`authority to the portable authorization device?
`9
` A. That is correct.
`10
` Q. Do you understand how dependent claims
`11 work in patents, vis-a-vis their independent claims?
`12
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Form.
`13
` A. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you
`14
`have some more specific --
`15
` Q. Sure. Do you understand that a
`16
`dependent claim must necessarily be included within
`17
`the independent claim from a legal perspective in
`18
`patent parlance?
`19
` A. Yes.
`20
` Q. I'm going to refer you to dependent
`21
`claim 11, which depends from 1. In dependent claim
`22
`11 we have an electronic device that's configured to
`23
`send registration information to the registration
`24
`authority. Do you see that?
`25
` A. Yes.
`
`www.midwestlitigation.com
`
`MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
`Phone: 1.800.280.3376
`
`7 (Pages 25 to 28)
`
`Fax: 314.644.1334
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1013 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`
`Page 29
`
`Page 31
`
`1
` Q. Claim 12 then further specifies that the
`2
`registration information comprising a random
`3
`identifier associated with the electronic data. Do
`4
`you see that?
`5
` A. Yes.
`6
` Q. Claim 13 and further specifies that the
`7
`verification data comprises a list of authorized
`8
`identifiers that allow access to electronic data.
`9
`Do you see that?
`10
` A. Yes.
`11
` Q. So the verification data in claim 13,
`12 moving back through 12 through 11 and then to 1,
`13
`tells us that the verification data in claim 1 can
`14
`be a list of authorized identifiers; is that
`15
`correct?
`16
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Misstates the
`17
`document.
`18
` A. No. And the reason for that is that, as
`19
`I state in my declaration, the -- just having
`20
`identifiers alone is something that the '067 patent
`21
`teaches away from as being insufficient to fully
`22
`verify if that license data has not been tampered
`23
`with, has not been modified.
`24
` Moreover, with respect to the claim 13
`25
`that you just mentioned, that's also discussed in
`
`1
` We see that what is being taught in the
`2
`'067 patent is this notion of comparing license data
`3
`in its entirety; that not even one bit has been
`4
`exchanged, omitted or added to the license data as
`5
`compared to the license data that is being stored on
`6
`the registration authority.
`7
` Q. So you would agree with me that the
`8
`verification data of claim 1 can include authorized
`9
`identifiers?
`10
` A. Yes.
`11
` Q. You just think it needs to be something
`12 more than that?
`13
` A. It necessarily must be something more
`14
`than that. '067, as I mentioned in my declaration,
`15
`teaches away from what's called the license module
`16
`approach. Here in column 3, it says the license
`17
`module contains a fixed identification code that may
`18
`be ascertained through analysis of the module.
`19
`Ascertaining the identifying code will allow an
`20
`unauthorized user to duplicate the module.
`21
` Another disadvantage of the licensing
`22
`module approach is that the licensing module is
`23
`vulnerable to tampering. For example, the user may
`24
`seek to increase the number of authorized users for
`25
`a site licensing by changing licensing data stored
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`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 body of the patent, in column 4, starting at
`line 35, where it says "the registration information
`may include a random identifier associated with
`electronic data. The verification data stored in
`the registration authority database may include a
`list of authorizing -- authorized identifiers that
`allow access to the electronic data."
` So what we see here is a clarification
`of that word that's used in the claim language of
`claim 13 of "comprise" to make it clear that what is
`being implied by that word is that it may include.
` And indeed, when you look at the '067
`patent in its entirety, you see that it's teaching
`away from using only authorizing identifiers for
`authorizing access. Also, in several places talking
`in detail about the process about how to verify
`license data, namely either by comparing the license
`data bit by bit to an exact copy that is stored in
`the registration authority; or comparing a hash
`message digest that is computed on a license data
`and comparing that to a digest stored on the
`registration authority; or comparing encrypted
`digest computed from the license data on the device
`to the encrypted hash of license data on the
`registration authority.
`
`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
`
`in the module.
` So we learn here from column 3, 19
`through 28, that simply using identification codes
`to associate with electronic data that you're trying
`to protect is insufficient; that it could allow for
`tampering of the license itself, even while keeping
`that i