UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` _____________________________
` UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
` Petitioners
` v.
` CLOUDING IP
` Patent Owner
` _____________________________
` Case IPR2013-00586
` Case IPR2014-00306
` Patent 6,738,799
` _____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF PRASANT MOHAPATRA, Ph.D.
` Alexandria, Virginia
` June 24, 2014
`
`Reported by: Mary Ann Payonk
`Job No. 81482
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`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
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 1
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` _____________________________
` UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
` Petitioners
` v.
` CLOUDING IP
` Patent Owner
` _____________________________
` Case IPR2013-00586
` Case IPR2014-00306
` Patent 6,738,799
` _____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF PRASANT MOHAPATRA, Ph.D.
` Alexandria, Virginia
` June 24, 2014
`
`Reported by: Mary Ann Payonk
`Job No. 81482
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`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
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 1
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` June 24, 2014
` 9:00 a.m.
`
` Deposition of PRASANT MOHAPATRA, held at
`the offices of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier
`& Neustadt, L.L.P., 1940 Duke Street Underpass,
`Alexandria, Virginia, pursuant to Notice before
`Mary Ann Payonk, Nationally Certified Realtime
`Reporter and Notary Public of the District of
`Columbia, Commonwealth of Virginia, States of
`Maryland and New York.
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 2
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF UNIFIED PATENTS:
` MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER &
` NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
` 1940 Duke Street Underpass
` Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`ON BEHALF OF CLOUDING IP:
` TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
` ASCENDA LAW GROUP
` 84 West Santa Clara Street
` San Jose, CA 95113
`
`ON BEHALF OF SAP AMERICA INC.:
` S. GREGORY HERRMAN, ESQ.
` DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO
` 1825 Eye Street NW
` Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`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
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 3
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`PRASANT MOHAPATRA,
` called as a witness, having been duly
` sworn, was examined and testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. KIKLIS:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Mohapatra.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Am I pronouncing your name correctly?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Good, good. You have been sworn in.
`Do you understand what that means?
` A. Yes.
` Q. That you have an obligation to
`testify truthfully today --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- correct?
` And if you present any false
`testimony, you understand you can be charged
`with perjury?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you testified before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 4
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` A. Twice.
` Q. In what matters?
` A. Patent litigations.
` Q. Which ones?
` A. There was one between Netgear and
`Ruckus, and there was an IPR recently.
` Q. You testified in depositions or at
`trial?
` A. Depositions.
` Q. Depositions. Have you ever testified
`at trial?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you submitted expert reports in
`trial?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In litigation?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And have any of your expert reports
`ever been stricken, to your knowledge?
` A. No.
` Q. So how many times have you been
`deposed all together, sir? Twice?
` A. Including this one, thrice.
` Q. So, this is your second time?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 5
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` A. No, this is third. Thrice.
` Q. There are a couple of rules we should
`follow. First, I would appreciate it if you
`would wait for my question to finish, for me to
`finish my question before you begin answering.
`That will allow us to make sure that our court
`reporter here can have a chance to write
`everything down and make sure there's a very
`clear record. Okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So if you could just kind of wait for
`me to finish my questions, that would be great.
`Also, if you need to take a break at any time,
`just let us know, as long as there isn't a
`question pending. Take a break, stretch your
`legs, whatever. Try to go about an hour or so
`before taking a break if that's okay. And then
`we will take a break for lunch for however long
`you need, then we can resume afterwards. Okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you under the influence of any
`drugs or alcohol or any other intoxicating
`elements at this point, sir?
` A. No.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 6
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. Is there any reason why you could not
`testify truthfully and honestly to the best of
`your ability today?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever been arrested?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever been sued civilly?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you have any relationship to
`Clouding IP?
` A. No.
` Q. And do you have any relationship to
`Symantec?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever seen the '799 patent
`before being involved with this matter?
` A. No.
` Q. Now, I understand you're involved
`with several Clouding IP matters. Is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many?
` A. I don't know. I'll have to look up.
` Q. On your -- would it be helpful for
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 7
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`you to see your --
` A. CV.
` Q. -- CV? I think I have a copy right
`here.
` A. There are four listed here, but I
`think there might be a couple more, so
`somewhere between five to six.
` Q. And how much do you charge
`Clouding IP for your involvement with their
`matters?
` A. $400 per hour.
` Q. 400 per hour? How many hours have
`you worked on this matter?
` A. Probably somewhere around 15 to 20
`hours. Let's make it 25 or so.
` Q. Are you familiar with the PTAB's
`construction for the term "command . . . to
`copy"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is that construction?
` A. The copying is moving the information
`and the data from one location in a storage
`medium to another location in the same storage
`medium or a different storage medium.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 8
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. And do you agree with the PTAB's
`construction for that term?
` A. Yes. I'll have to -- do you have a
`copy of the construction? Let me just have a
`quick look at it.
` Q. Page 10. And you'll see their
`construction at the very bottom, right above 4
`on page 11.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So my question to you, sir, is do you
`disagree with the PTAB's construction of
`"command . . . to copy"?
` A. No.
` Q. So you agree with it then; correct?
` A. Yes.
` MR. KIKLIS: I'm handing you what's
` been marked as Exhibit 1003. There was
` no exhibit number on the institution
` order, so we should probably put a
` number on it. Could we mark that?
` (Mohapatra Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. FAHMI:
` Q. I see you brought a Redweld with you,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 9
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`sir.
` A. Yes.
` Q. What's in that?
` A. These are my declaration and some of
`the patent copies that I was using to read.
` Q. Okay. Can I see them? I've handed
`you what's been marked as Exhibit 1003. Do you
`recognize this?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. This is the patent which I referred
`as Balcha in my declaration.
` Q. Yes, the 6,233,589 patent to Balcha.
`We will just refer to this as Balcha if that's
`okay.
` A. Yes.
` Q. If I could direct your attention to
`figure 1.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you explain relative to figure
`1 how Balcha detects when a file is changed?
` A. If Balcha refers to -- so let me talk
`directly into the figure. If there are copies
`of the same object in 21 and 27, if one of them
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 10
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`is changed, then that change is -- there are
`signature files associated in 20 and 28. I may
`be flipping the numbers that the patent talks
`about. So it looks at the signature file in
`order to detect the changes, and then updates
`the other one.
` Q. So if, for example -- I think you
`referred to 21 and 27 as objects.
` A. Yeah. And one of those -- so, for
`example, within 20 and 21, one is the storage
`object, the other one is the signature file.
` Q. When you refer to object, are you
`referring to a document? What kinds of objects
`are you referring to?
` A. It could be any file.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Could be a document, yes.
` Q. Could be a document? What other
`things could Balcha work for?
` A. Could be a media file or could be --
`you know, in sort of contextural, it would be
`databases, something like that.
` Q. Database?
` A. Yeah.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 11
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. How about software?
` A. It could be a software that could be
`stored over there.
` Q. So could Balcha be used for software
`updates?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And one of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand after reading Balcha that
`Balcha could be used for software updates?
` A. Okay, let me clarify software
`updates. By software updates, I mean that
`there's a software written and stored over
`there and you are updating, let's say, for
`example, you change the code to a newer version
`and you are updating that. The answer is --
` Q. Understood.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in your example, 27 is running on
`a client device.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And 21 is the copy of the software on
`the server.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in your example, the copy of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 12
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`software running on the client 27 would be
`updated by the server by downloading an update
`file of some sort from the server to the
`client; correct?
` A. No.
` Q. No?
` A. When you said 27 running in the
`client, my answer is no to that. It's a copy
`of the software that is residing or that is at
`21. So it's just a software, the copy of that.
` Q. Okay. So it's not executing?
` A. Right.
` Q. It's secondary storage?
` A. Yes.
` Q. But could it be executable software?
` A. In this context, no.
` Q. Okay. Why not?
` A. Because here, Balcha talks about
`stored objects. Executable softwares are
`binary coded from running on the processor
`itself. So in my opinion, this patent is not
`talking about the updates of executables.
` Q. It's not talking about updates of
`executables?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 13
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` A. Yes, of currently running
`executables.
` Q. Currently running?
` A. Yes.
` Q. But executables stored in secondary
`storage?
` A. Executables stored in secondary
`storage, yes.
` Q. So your understanding is that one of
`ordinary skill would recognize that Balcha can
`be used to update executable software in
`executable form located on secondary storage on
`client devices; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, how does Balcha detect when a
`file is changed?
` Thank you, Dr. Mohapatra. Here's
`your files back.
` A. Yeah, thanks.
` Q. Let me repeat my question. How does
`Balcha detect when a file is changed?
` A. It does it on the basis of the
`signature files which I believe are 20 and 28
`in figure 1.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 14
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. Okay. And when -- now, in our
`example, we're referring to 20 and 21 as the
`server, and 27 and 28 as residing on the
`client. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, when the server detects that
`object 21 has changed, what does the server do?
` A. Can I get a copy of my declaration,
`if possible?
` Q. Sure. I will give this to you but
`I'm asking just for a high-level answer. It
`sends an update of some sort, doesn't it?
` A. Right.
` Q. I'm handing the witness what's been
`marked as Exhibit 2009.
` So let me just make sure that we get
`that clear in the record. When the server
`detects that file 21 has changed, it updates,
`sends an update to the client device; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then the client device will take
`the update and ensure that it has -- includes
`the updates that were sent to it; correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 15
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. Now, in the case, in that situation,
`doesn't the server detect that file 21 has
`changed?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Now, Balcha, the purpose of
`Balcha is to keep 21 and 27 in sync; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So that changes made to one are
`reflected in the other.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in the case where file 27 has not
`changed and file 21 has changed, the server
`will detect the change to 21. And in those
`circumstances, wouldn't 21 be the latest
`version of that file?
` A. No, not necessarily. There could be
`multiple updates happening simultaneously
`and --
` Q. But my hypothetical, sir, is that
`there are no updates happening to 27, and 21 is
`updated. At that point when the server detects
`that 21 has been updated, isn't 21 then the
`latest version of that file?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 16
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` A. If in your hypothesis there are no
`other storage locations for that specific file,
`then the answer is yes.
` Q. Well, in my hypothetical, sir, the
`file is stored on server and client as 21 and
`27 in figure 1. Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And in my hypothetical, 21 and
`27 are the same.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Which is the intent of Balcha.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Then 27 remains the same but 21 is
`updated.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you with me?
` A. Yes.
` Q. At that point in time, the change to
`21 renders that file the latest version;
`correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. Are you assuming that there are no
`other clients in the entire system?
` Q. I'm assuming just what's in front of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 17
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`us, sir, that there's 21 and 27 --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- with a client and a server. So
`the answer to my question is in those
`circumstances, when the server detects the
`change to 21, is 21 the latest version of the
`file?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in those circumstances, 27 would
`not be the latest version of the file; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, is it your understanding that
`prior art -- when prior art can operate in more
`than one way, one of those ways in which it
`operates invalidates a claim, and another way
`in which it operates, it does not invalidate
`the claim.
` In those circumstances, does that
`prior art still invalidate a patent claim?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. I don't have any idea about that.
` Q. Okay. So you have no conclusion?
` A. No.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 18
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. Do you understand my question?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. My question is, you understand
`that prior art can invalidate a claim?
` A. Right.
` Q. And what's your understanding of how
`it does that?
` A. If it -- if the prior art describes a
`method that is covered in the patent that we
`are discussing.
` Q. Okay. So it's your understanding
`that if prior art discloses a method --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- covered by a patent claim --
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. -- then that prior art will
`invalidate the patent claim?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, assume with me that the prior
`art discloses two methods, one that is covered
`by the patent claim and one that is not covered
`by the patent claim.
` My question to you, sir, is: Under
`those circumstances, does that prior art
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 19
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`invalidate the patent claim?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. I understand your question, but I
`don't know the answer.
` Q. I'm handing the witness what's been
`previously identified as Exhibit 1001.
` Sir, do you recognize Exhibit 1001?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. This is the '799 patent.
` Q. Have you studied Exhibit 1001?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can we refer to it as the '799
`patent? Are you okay with that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. You understand the '799
`patent; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You've studied it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand the description?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand the claims?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 20
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. And you've provided a declaration in
`this matter on this patent and whether this
`patent is invalidated; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, I'd like to direct your
`attention to column 4, line 30 through 36.
`Could you read that to yourself, sir?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, the section I've directed you to
`in column 4 refers to when the server in the
`'799 patent detects that a file has changed;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And how is that detection done?
` A. Once the -- it's done through the
`signature, matching the signatures. Once the
`detection is done, then this paragraph refers
`to the action.
` Q. Okay. But the update file is what's
`used to send an update from the server to the
`client; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And it says here that the
`update file is only generated when the server
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 21
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`computer determines that the subscription file
`has changed; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. The subscription file refers to the
`file on the server that the client is
`interested in receiving updates for; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that update file is only
`generated when the server computer determines
`that the subscription file is changed; right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, the server computer periodically
`monitors the subscription file; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So my question to you, sir, is that
`both Balcha and the '799 patent both detect
`whether a file on a server has been modified;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then in response to the file on
`the server being modified, both Balcha and the
`'799 patent provide an update to the client;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 22
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. Now, in this section of column 4, the
`'799 patent is checking for whether the file,
`the subscription file has changed; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. It doesn't specifically say that
`that's the latest version, does it?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you aware of anywhere within the
`'799 patent where it explicitly says that a
`modification to the server file ensures that
`it's the latest version, sitting here today?
` A. Yes. Can you give me one minute?
` Q. Sure.
` A. Claim number 37 --
` Q. Actually, sir, I'm interested in some
`place other than the claims.
` A. Okay.
` Q. To be clear, my question is, other
`than the claims, is there anywhere that you can
`recall in the specification of the '799 patent
`where the description ensures that upon
`modification of the subscription file on the
`server, that is the latest version of the file?
` A. Column 3.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 23
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` Q. Okay.
` A. 45. Server computer generates an
`update file for transmission to a client
`computer that permits the client computer to
`generate a copy of a current version of a
`subscription file.
` Q. Now, in Balcha, I think the point
`that you make in your declaration is that the
`client side file can be updated. Is that
`correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. Can you tell me where you are
`referring to?
` Q. Paragraph 16.
` A. Yes.
` Q. My question is: Can the files that
`are downloaded or updated in the '799 patent be
`modified on the client?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So if a file on the client in the
`'799 patent is updated after an update is made
`to the server subscription file, then the --
`when the server sends -- then the server
`version of the subscription file is not the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 24
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`latest version of the file; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You're agreeing with me?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now I'd like to direct your attention
`to paragraph 22 of your declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. I believe the point of paragraph 22
`is that you don't believe that any copying is
`occurring in Balcha; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'd like to direct your attention to
`Balcha, column 5, lines 26 through 40.
`Actually if you look at the very top of that
`paragraph, starting 23, "Multiple versions of
`delta files can be maintained so that any
`particular version of a file can be restored."
` Do you see that, sir?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you read this paragraph to
`yourself?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, at the very, very bottom --
`well, this paragraph refers to an embodiment of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 25
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`the Balcha patent where backup is being done,
`correct, to a backup server?
` A. Yes.
` Q. The very last sentence, "In this
`manner, multiple delta files can be maintained
`to allow the recreation of any version of the
`base file."
` Do you see that sentence?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Doesn't that sentence mean that when
`a version of the base file is created, that you
`would have the -- the system would have to
`maintain the new version of the base file as
`well as the existing version of the base file,
`or the original version of the base file;
`correct?
` Let me say that sentence again, the
`question.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. I'm referring you to the last
`sentence.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Actually, let me start over. I'm
`referring you to column 5, line 38 through 40.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 26
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you see that, sir?
` A. Yes.
` Q. My question is: Doesn't this
`sentence mean that when a version of the base
`file is created, the system would have to
`maintain both that version as well as the
`original version of the base file? Correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. It maintains the delta files, not
`the -- the original files.
` Q. Correct. But when a new version --
`when a version is created using one of the
`delta files, does it erase the base file or
`does it keep the base file?
` A. It doesn't say that here.
` Q. Well, if you erase the base file,
`sir, you could never generate any other
`versions; correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. You can, if you are maintaining the
`delta files.
` Q. But you would understand that -- so
`your testimony, sir, is that column 5, lines 23
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 27
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`through 39, do not specify whether the original
`base file is kept or destroyed when a new
`version is created?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Can this section of the patent be
`interpreted either way?
` A. If -- if it were maintained, given
`that the patent went into the details of
`describing the maintenance of the data files,
`they could have -- it sounds natural that they
`could have mentioned that over here.
` Q. Well, if the purpose -- let's read
`the first sentence. The first sentence says,
`"Multiple versions of delta files could be
`maintained so that any particular version of a
`file can be restored."
` If -- in order to be able to restore
`any version of a particular file, you'd have to
`maintain the original base file; correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. No. You could -- if -- since you
`were maintaining multiple version of data
`files, you could get back the previous version
`from the current version by using the delta
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 28
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`files.
` Q. By going backwards?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Wouldn't that be inefficient? So
`basically your suggestion is that they could
`reverse-engineer?
` A. Yeah, that can be done. But to
`answer your question, they don't explicitly
`specify that multiple versions of the files are
`being maintained, even though they're
`explicitly mentioning that multiple versions of
`data files are being maintained.
` Q. So let's say that there's a base file
`and five versions of updates. Your testimony
`is that this paragraph could be implemented in
`such that the latest base file after five
`revisions is maintained, and if it were needed
`to have the original base file, then you'd have
`to reverse-engineer it five different times?
` A. Yes.
` Q. That's your testimony?
` A. If you want to get back to the
`original file, yes.
` Q. Isn't it much more likely, sir, that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 29
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`the original base file would be maintained?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. No. And I'll give you an example of
`why I'm saying no. If there are 20 revisions,
`if I want the 10th revision, so based on your
`statement, it would be efficient if you had the
`9th one. Then you can easily create the 10th.
`So it will be inefficient, yes, but since you
`don't know which version will be required,
`that's one more reason of not saving all the
`versions.
` Q. In fact, though, sir, the way
`incremental backup systems work is that the
`original base file is stored and then the
`updates are stored with it; isn't that right?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
` A. There are many, many incremental
`backup systems, so it -- yes, there's one type
`in which that methodology is used.
` Q. Right. Isn't that what this
`paragraph in column 5 is referring to?
` A. It doesn't say so the way it's
`written.
` Q. So in your understanding of this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 30
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2013-00586; IPR2014-00306
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` P. Mohapatra
`paragraph in column 5 -- well, what is your
`understanding of how the system works based on
`column 5 that I pointed you to?
` A. So when you get a new data file, you
`create a new base signature file from the
`revised file. And the revised file is now
`called as the -- the current one. And anytime
`you get the new delta files, you revise the
`files. And what this paragraph is saying, that
`you can have -- you can maintain the multiple
`data files, okay? Given the level of details
`they went in describing about the multiple data
`files, if there was a requirement to maintain
`the original base file, in my understanding, it
`is obvious that they could have stated that.
` Q. Obviously could have stated what?
` A. That the original file is stored
`somewhere. I use the term "base file" and
`"original file" interchangeably.
` Q. So your testimony is that when an
`update is sent from the server to the client,
`that update is applied to update the base file
`every single time?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection, form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified Patents-SAP Exhibit 1019, pg. 31
`Unified Patents-SAP v. Clouding IP
`IPR2
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
