Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00636
`Patent 6,424,625
`Title: Method and Apparatus For Discarding Packets In A Data Network Having
`Automatic Repeat Request
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`1
`
`Broadcom v. Ericsson
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2022
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION BY ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`I, Robert Akl, D.Sc., hereby declare, affirm, and state the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. I am
`
`fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Declaration. I
`
`understand that this Declaration is being submitted along with Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend the ’625 Patent in response to the March 10, 2014 institution of
`
`Inter Partes Review of US Patent No. 6,442,625 (hereinafter, “the ’625 Patent”) by
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in IPR No. 2013-
`
`00636.
`
`2.
`
`I was asked to give my opinion on whether the proposed substitute
`
`claim 20 of the ’625 Patent valid over the known prior art. As described further
`
`below, it is my opinion that substitute claim 20 is valid over the known prior art. It
`
`is my further opinion that claim 20 is not anticipated or obvious in view of the
`
`known prior art.
`
`
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`3. My resume, including my qualifications, a list of the publications that
`
`I have authored during my technical career, and a list of the cases in which, during
`
`the previous four years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition, is
`
`attached to this declaration as Attachment A.
`
`4.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment A.
`
`5.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science summa cum laude with a ranking of first in my
`
`undergraduate class from Washington University in Saint Louis in 1994. In 1996 I
`
`earned my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Washington
`
`University in Saint Louis. I earned my Doctorate of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Washington University in Saint Louis in 2000, with my
`
`dissertation on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in Cellular Code Division
`
`Multiple Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`6.
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`2001. In this position, I designed, coded in MATLAB, and simulated Viterbi
`
`decoding, Turbo coding, trellis coded modulation (TCM), and Reed-Muller codes.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`This work further entailed the optimization of soft decision parameters and
`
`interleavers for additive white Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels.
`
`7.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While on this faculty, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`8.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the
`
`University of North Texas, in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I became a tenured
`
`Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
`
`where I continue to focus my research on wireless communication, including 4G,
`
`LTE, and wireless sensor networks. I also teach communications systems and
`
`wireless communication courses.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored and co-authored approximately 65
`
`journal
`
`publications, conference proceedings, technical articles, technical papers, book
`
`chapters, and technical presentations, in a broad array of communications-related
`
`technology, including networking and wireless communication. I have also
`
`developed and taught over 70 courses related to communications and computer
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`system designs, including a number of courses on wireless communication,
`
`communications systems, computer systems design, and computer architecture.
`
`These courses have included introductory courses on communication systems and
`
`sensor networks, as well as more advanced courses on wireless communications.
`
`A complete list of my publications and the courses I have developed and/or taught
`
`is also contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`10.
`
`I hereby incorporate into this declaration the entire contents of my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached as Attachment A to this declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $550 per hour for my work in
`
`connection with this matter. My compensation is not dependent in any way on the
`
`contents of this Declaration, the substance of any further opinions or testimony that
`
`I may provide, or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`12.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed herein, I have reviewed and
`
`considered the following materials:
`
`A. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625 Under 35
`U.S.C. §312 and 37 C.F.R. §§42.104 (Paper No. 3) (“Petition”);
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625 (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1001) and its file
`history;
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,610,595 to Gary W. Garrabrant, Jay C. Cho, and Joseph T.
`Savarese (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1002) (“Garrabrant”);
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`D. Certified translation of Andreas Hettich, Development and performance
`evaluation of a Selective Repeat-Automatic Repeata Request (SR-ARQ)
`protocol for transparent, mobile ATM Access (Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
`1007) (“Hettich”);
`
`E. Certified Translation of Walke et. al., German Patent No. DE 19543280,
`entitled “Process and Cellular Mobile Communication System for Wireless
`Broadband Connection of Mobile Stations with ATM Interfaces to Error
`Protection of an ATM Network” (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1008) (“Walke”);
`
`F. Kemp, U.S. Patent No. 6,621,799, entitled “Semi-Reliable Data Transport”
`(Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1005) (“Kemp”)
`
`G. Bertsekas, et al., DATA NETWORKS, Prentice-Hall, pp. 58-73 (1987)
`(Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1012) (“Bertsekas”)
`
`H. Application No. 09/179,952 (Ex. 2023) (“the ’625 App.”)
`
`I. Petras & Hettich, “Performance Evaluation of a Logical Link Control
`Protocol for an Air Interface,” Int’l J. of Wireless Information Networks,
`Vol. 4, No. 4, 1997 (Ex. 2024) (“Petras & Hettich”)
`
`J. Petras, et al., “Candidate protocol stack (MAC + LLC) for a Wireless ATM
`air interface,” ETSI EP BRAN, WG3 Temporary document wg3td78 (13
`October 1997) (Ex. 2025) (“Petras et al.”)
`
`K. Vornefeld, “Simulative and analytical study of measures supporting the
`quality of service in a radio-based ATM network,” April 1, 1997 (Ex. 2026)
`(“Vornefeld”)
`
`L. Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review—37 C.F.R. §42.108 (IPR2013
`00636, Paper No. 25).
`
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`13.
`
`It is my opinion, based upon a review of the file history of the ’625
`
`Patent and the other evidence addressed herein, that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of the ’625 Patent would have had, as of October 1998, a bachelor’s
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`degree in computer science or a similar technical field and at least two years of
`
`experience in telecommunications and network protocols.
`
`OPINIONS
`
`A. Proposed Substitute Claim
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner is proposing claim 20 as a
`
`proposed substitute for Original Claim 1 of the ’625 Patent in the event that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board determines that Claim 1 of the ’625 Patent is
`
`invalid. It is my opinion that Claim 1 of the ’625 Patent is valid, and my opinion is
`
`unaffected by the proposed substitute claim 20.
`
`Proposed Substitute Claim
`
`20. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 1) A method for discarding packets in
`a data network employing a packet transfer protocol including an automatic repeat
`request scheme, comprising the steps of:
`
`a transmitter in the data network commanding a receiver having a receiver
`window in the data network to
`
`a) receive at least one packet having a sequence number that is not
`consecutive with a sequence number of a previously received packet,
`wherein the sequence number of the at least one packet is outside of
`the receiver window and
`
`b) release any expectation of receiving outstanding packets having
`sequence numbers prior to the at least one packet; and the transmitter
`discarding all packets for which acknowledgment has not been
`received, and which have sequence numbers prior to the at least one
`packet.
`
`15.
`
`I have read the file history of the ’625 Patent, including the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`Application No. 09/179,952 (“the ’625 App.”), which issued as the ’625 Patent. It
`
`is my opinion that the proposed substitute claim 20 has written description support
`
`in both the ’625 App. and the ’625 Patent. In my opinion, the proposed
`
`amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of claim 1 of the ’625 Patent or
`
`introduce new subject matter. Proposed Substitute claim 20 merely adds features
`
`to claim 1 and does not remove any limitation therefrom.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that proposed substitute claim 20 is a contingent
`
`substitute claim to replace original claim 1. In my opinion, Claim 20 adds two
`
`additional limitations to original claim 1. First, claim 20 explicitly recites a “a
`
`receiver having a receiver window.” Second, the amendment recites the phrase
`
`“wherein the sequence number of the at least one packet is outside of the receiver
`
`window.” In my opinion, such a feature is neither anticipated by or obvious in
`
`view of the prior art known to the patent owner. I understand that Claim 20 is
`
`introduced only in the event that original claim 1 is determined to be unpatentable.
`
`I understand that by submitted this proposed amendment, Patent Owner does not
`
`waive its right, and expressly reserves its right, to appeal the Board’s patentability
`
`determination with respect to the original claim 1.
`
`17. Proposed substitute claim 20 introduces the term “receiver window.”
`
`In my opinion, the ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`
`one of skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of this term is: a range
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`of packets that can be accepted by the receiver. Because the specification uses the
`
`term broadly, I understand that the term should be given the full scope of its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, i.e., “a range of packets that can be accepted by
`
`the receiver.”
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that the proposed substitute claim 20 is supported in
`
`the original disclosure of the ’615 App. and ’625 Pat. as shown in the table Below:
`
`Proposed Claim
`
`Descriptive Support (Ex. 2023 (’625
`
`App.) and Ex. 1001 (’625 Pat.))
`
`20. (Proposed Substitute for Original
`
`’625 App. at Abstract (25:1-12); ’625
`
`Claim 1) A method for discarding
`
`Pat. at Abstract. (“Techniques are
`
`packets in a data network employing a
`
`provided for use with automatic repeat
`
`packet transfer protocol including an
`
`request (ARQ) schemes in a data
`
`automatic repeat request scheme,
`
`network to minimize a bandwidth used
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`by a receiver and a transmitter in the
`
`network to transfer data packets, by
`
`discarding outdated packets that have
`
`not yet been successfully transferred.”)
`
`a transmitter in the data network
`
`’625 App. at 8:12-14; ’625 Pat. at 5:16-
`
`commanding a receiver having a
`
`18 (“a communications system wherein
`
`receiver window in the data network to
`
`a transmitter and a receiver are
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`exchanging data packets, at a
`
`packet discard procedure,”); ’625 App.
`
`at 8:21-22; ’625 Pat. at 5:28-29 (“In the
`
`case where the transmitter discards a
`
`packet, it orders the receiver to accept
`
`the next packet,”); ’625 App. at 4:14-17;
`
`’625 Pat. at 2:61-65 (“receiver window
`
`size in a Selective Reject scheme can
`
`include up to 2k-1 positions, instead of
`
`just one position as in a Go-Back-N
`
`scheme. In Selective Reject a range of
`
`packets can be received since the
`
`receiver window can include up to 2k-1
`
`positions.”).
`
`a) receive at least one packet having a
`
`’625 App. at 8:21-25; ’625 Pat. at 5:28-
`
`sequence number that is not consecutive
`
`33 (“In the case where the transmitter
`
`with a sequence number of a previously
`
`discards a packet, it orders the receiver
`
`received packet
`
`to accept the next packet, by setting a
`
`certain Receiver Packet Enforcement Bit
`
`(RPEB) in the ARQ header of the next
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`packet and sending the packet to the
`
`receiver. When the receiver receives the
`
`packet, the RPEB bit will cause the
`
`receiver to accept the packet.”)
`
`, wherein the sequence number of the at
`
`’625 App. at 10:18-21; ’625 Pat. at
`
`least one packet is outside of the
`
`6:32-36 (“If the difference between
`
`receiver window and
`
`N(S) and ESN (for example, ESN1) is
`
`less than 2k-1 and RPEB=TRUE at a
`
`packet reception, then the packet will be
`
`accepted and forwarded to higher layer
`
`as long as the data carried in the packet
`
`is also correct.”); ’625 App. at 4:14-17;
`
`’625 Pat. at 2:60-65 (“The receiver
`
`window size in the Selective Reject
`
`scheme can include up to 2k-1 positions,
`
`instead of just one position as in a Go-
`
`Back-N scheme. In Selective Reject a
`
`range of packets can be received since
`
`the receiver window can include up to
`
`2k-1 positions.”)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`b) release any expectation of receiving
`
`’625 App. at 8:17-19, 13:11-14:28,
`
`outstanding packets having sequence
`
`15:1-5; ’625 Pat. at 5:22-25, 8:4-67, 9:1-
`
`numbers prior to the at least one packet;
`
`6 (“Thus, the receiver can be
`
`commanded to skip or overlook the
`
`packets which have been discarded, or
`
`in other words, to release any
`
`expectation of receiving the packets
`
`which have been discarded.”)
`
`and the transmitter discarding all
`
`’625 App. at 12:11-16, 12:22-26, 15:26-
`
`packets for which acknowledgment has
`
`29; ’625 Pat. at 7:34-41, 7:49-54, 9:32-
`
`not been received, and which have
`
`36 (“Namely, a receive enforcement bit
`
`sequence numbers prior to the at least
`
`such as the RPEB described above with
`
`one packet.
`
`respect to other embodiments, is sent to
`
`facilitate discarding of packets from a
`
`transmitter buffer.”)
`
`
`
`19.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`conclude that the inventors were in possession of the invention claimed in
`
`substitute claim 20.
`
`20. As shown above, the original disclosure of the application relied upon
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had
`
`possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that on September 30, 2013, Broadcom
`
`Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,424,625, proposing six grounds of rejection. On March 10, 2014, the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board issued a decision instituting an inter partes review with respect
`
`three of the grounds of rejection proposed, namely that U.S. Pat. 5,610,595
`
`(“Garrabrant”) and Development and performance evaluation of a Selective
`
`Repeat-Automatic Repeat Request (SR-ARQ) protocol for transparent, mobile
`
`ATM Access (“Hettich”) each allegedly anticipates and German Patent DE
`
`19543280 (“Walke”) allegedly renders obvious claim 1 of the ’625 patent.
`
`Garrabrant, Hettich, and Walke are collectively referred to herein as the “Cited
`
`References.” I agree with the Patent Owner that Hettich is the closest known prior
`
`art.
`
`22.
`
`It is my opinion that substitute independent claim 20 is patentable
`
`over Garrabrant, Hettich, and Walke because none of those references teaches or
`
`suggests “wherein the sequence number of the at least one packet is outside of
`
`the receiver window.” The Cited References each describe Automatic Repeat
`
`Request (ARQ) techniques whereby a receiver accepts only packets having
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`sequence numbers that fall within its receiver window. (Garrabrant at 9:27-31 (“A
`
`message received by a unit in a packet radio communication system of the present
`
`invention will be rejected unless the number stored in the sequence number field
`
`92 is in the ‘valid’ window 142.”); Hettich at 36 (discarding or rejecting cells show
`
`“sequence number is outside the receiver window”); Walke at 5 (referring to an
`
`HDLC-like window mechanism). Hettich employs a window size of n for both Go
`
`Back n and Selective Repeat ARQ (Hettich at 27, 28) to reject cells whose
`
`sequence number falls outside the window n (Hettich at 27 (eq. 5.1) and 28 (eq.
`
`5.7)). Walke also uses a window for rejection of cells having sequence numbers
`
`outside the window. (Walke at 13 (receiver “is able to widen its receive window”
`
`upon acceptance of frame falling within the receive window).) Because none of
`
`the cited references teaches or suggests accepting a packet whose sequence number
`
`is outside the receiver window, substitute claim 20 is patented over the cited
`
`references.
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that the remaining references identified by petitioner
`
`fail to teach or suggest a receiver accepting a packet acceptance whose sequence
`
`number is outside of the receiver widow. Neither U.S. Patent No. 6,621,799
`
`(“Kemp”) nor Bertsekas, et al., DATA NETWORKS, Prentice-Hall, 1987, pp. 58-
`
`74 (“Bertsekas”) disclose a receiver receiving packets whose sequence number is
`
`outside the receiver window. Kemp discloses a TCP/IP system using a window
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`having a variable size. In Kemp, a receiver can only accept packets and a
`
`transmitter can only send packets having a sequence number within the window.
`
`(Kemp at 5:20-27; 7:24-31) Similarly, Bertsekas teaches a transmitter that “cannot
`
`send higher numbered packets” (Bertsekas at 64) and a receiver that if it “receives
`
`a packet containing errors, it cannot accept any of the higher number packets until
`
`the [transmitter] goes back and retransmits the packet that was received in error.”
`
`Id. Accordingly, both Kemp and Bertsekas fail to teach or suggest acceptance of a
`
`packet whose sequence number is higher than the receiver window.
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that by and large, the prior art taught receivers that
`
`could only receive packets having a sequence number with the receiver window.
`
`For example, the Petras (Performance Evaluation of a Logical Link Control
`
`Protocol for an ATM Air Interface), Int’l J. Wireless Inform., vol. 4, No. 4, 1997)
`
`and Petras et al. ETSI (Candidate protocol stack (MAC + LLC) for a Wireless
`
`ATM air interface), ETSI EP BRAN, Oct. 1997) each teach the use of a receiver
`
`window similar to Hettich or Walke.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, the concept of receiving packets outside a receiver
`
`window is not, by itself, novel. For example, in a document dated Aril 1, 1997,
`
`Ulrich Vornefeld disclosed a receiver that can accept packets outside of its receiver
`
`window. (Vornefeld, Simulative and analytical study of measures supporting the
`
`quality of service in a radio-based ATM network.) Apr. 1, 1997). In Vornefeld, a
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`receiver may accept a frame outside its reception window by assuming packets
`
`having previous sequence numbers are discarded. The received packet #3 is
`
`defined to be the last sequence number in the receiver window such that the
`
`receiver now expects to receive cells having sequence numbers lower than the
`
`received cell. (Vornefeld at Fig. 5.6.)
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, Vornefeld teaches accepting a packet whose sequence
`
`number is outside the receiver window and creating expectations of receiving
`
`packets whose sequence numbers are lower than the received packet. Because
`
`Vornefeld creates rather than releases expectation of cells having a lower sequence
`
`number, Vornefeld does not anticipate substitute claim 20. Moreover, even art that
`
`accepts a cell outside the receiver window does not render obvious substitute claim
`
`20. Because a Vornefeld receiver receives a packet outside its window and creates
`
`expectations of receiving cells having lower sequence numbers, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not combine a reference such as Vornefeld that creates
`
`expectations with a reference that releases expectations of receiving cells having
`
`lower sequence numbers.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`27.
`
`It is my opinion that substitute claim 20 is patentable over the known
`
`prior art, including the closest known prior art (Hettich). Because the ’625 patent
`
`was the first invention to conceive of “accepting packets outside a receive
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`window,” along with “releas[ing] any expectation of receiving packets having
`
`sequence numbers prior to the at least one packet,” a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not expect the prior art to teach or suggest substitute claim 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00636
`
`
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
`I further declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that willful false
`
`statements or the like may jeopardize the validity of the patent or any patent
`
`issuing thereon.
`
`FURTHER, DECLARANT SAYETH NOT,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signed in Denton, Texas on June ___, 2014
`
`
`By _______________________________
` Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT “A”
`
`ATTACHMENT “A”
`
`

`

`Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`
`
`
`Professional Summary
`
`Dr. Akl has over 20 years of industry and academic experience. He is currently a Tenured
`Associate Professor at the University of North Texas and a Senior Member of IEEE. He has
`designed, implemented, and optimized both hardware and software aspects of several wireless
`communication systems for CDMA, WiFi, and sensor networks. He has broad expertise in
`wireless communication, Bluetooth, CDMA/WCDMA network optimization, GSM, LTE,
`VoIP, computer architecture, and computer networks. He is a very active researcher and is
`well published and cited. He has given depositions, trial testimony, and has prepared expert
`reports on claim construction, claim invalidity, infringement, and non-infringement. He has
`handled both ITC and district court cases. Dr. Akl was the 2008 recipient of the IEEE
`Professionalism Award and winner of the 2010 Tech Titan of the Future Award.
`
`Areas of Expertise
`
`Wireless Communication, 2G, 3G, 4G, CDMA/WCDMA, GSM, UMTS, LTE, Wireless
`Sensors, VoIP, Multi-cell Network Optimization, Call Admission Control, Channel Coding,
`Ad-hoc Networks, Computer Architecture.
`
`Employment History
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`University of North Texas
`5/2008
`Present Denton, TX
`Position: Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering
`
`Conducting research on cellular networks and wireless sensor
`networks. Teaching wireless communication courses. Advising
`graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`University of North Texas
`9/2002
`Denton, TX
`5/2008
`Position: Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering
`
`Conducting research on WCDMA/UMTS wireless networks. Teaching
`wireless communication and computer architecture courses. Advising
`graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`University of New Orleans
`1/2002
`New Orleans, LA
`8/2002
`Position: Assistant Professor Department of Electrical Engineering
`
`Designed and taught two new courses “Computer Systems Design I
`and II”. Developed a Computer Engineering Curriculum with strong
`hardware-design emphasis. Formed a wireless research group. Advised
`graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`CV of Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`Printed: 06/11/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`10/2000 Comspace Corporation
`12/2001 Coppell, TX
`Position: Senior Systems Engineer
`
`Designed, coded (in Matlab), and simulated Viterbi decoding, Turbo
`coding, trellis coded modulation (TCM), and Reed-Muller codes.
`Optimized soft decision parameters and interleavers for additive white
`Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels. Extended the control and trunking
`of push-to-talk Logic Trunked Radio (LTR) to include one-to-one and one-
`to-many voice and data messaging.
`
`8/1996 MinMax Corporation
`8/2000
`Saint Louis, MO
`Position: Research Associate
`
`Designed software packages that provide the tools to flexibly allocate
`capacity in a CDMA network and maximize the number of subscribers.
`Validated, simulated (logical and timing), and developed the hardware
`architecture for an ATM switch capable of channel group switching.
`
`8/1994 Washington University
`8/2000
`Saint Louis, MO
`Position: Research and Teaching Assistant
`
`Taught, consulted, and graded Circuit Analysis at the undergraduate
`level and Network Design at the graduate level.
`
`
`Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
`
`Date:
`
`
`2014
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2014
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2014
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Sidley Austin LLP
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al.
`Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-00438, 439, 440 and 441
`Patent infringement, subcarrier selection in LTE
`Non-infringement consulting
`
`Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP
`Cell and Network Selection LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al.
`Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-00404-LED-JDL
`Patent infringement, base station selection in LTE
`Non-infringement consulting
`
`Lott & Fischer
`Zenith Electronics, LLC, et al. v. Craig Electronics, Inc.
`Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:13-cv-80567-DMM/DLB
`Patent infringement, HDTV transmission and reception
`Opening expert report, rebuttal expert report
`
`
`CV of Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`Printed: 06/11/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`McKool Smith
`Zenith Electronics, LLC, et al. v. Curtis International LTD.
`Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:13-cv-80568-DMM/DLB
`Patent infringement, HDTV transmission and reception
`Non-infringement consulting, declaration
`
`Gibson Dunn
`Straight Path IP Group v. Sharp Corp. and Sharp Electronics Corp.
`In the Matter of Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication
`Devices and Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation No. 337-
`TA-892
`Patent infringement, point-to-point network communication
`Non-infringement consulting
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`Monec Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility LLC, et al.
`District of Delaware, Case No. 1:11-cv-798-LPS-SRF
`Patent infringement, displaying books on tablets
`Non-infringement expert report for Motorola, non-infringement expert
`report for HTC, deposition
`
`Gartman Law Group
`Lone Star WiFi LLC v. Legacy Stonebriar Hotel, Ltd; et al.
`Eastern Dist. Of Texas, Tyler, Case No. 6:12-cv-957
`Patent infringement, levels of access in WiFi networks
`Infringement expert report
`
`McKool Smith
`ChriMar Systems v. Cisco Systems Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co.
`Northern Dist. Of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-1300-JSW
`Patent infringement, power over Ethernet
`Infringement consulting
`
`White & Case, LLP
`Nokia Corp and Nokia, Inc. v. HTC Corp and HTC America, Inc.
`In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Communication Devices,
`Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, ITC Investigation
`No. 337-TA-885
`Patent infringement, App download and installation
`Non-infringement consulting
`
`Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP
`Rembrandt Wireless v. Samsung; and RIM/Blackberry
`Eastern Dist. of Texas, Marshal, Case No. 2:13-cv-213-JRG-RSP
`Patent infringement, Bluetooth
`Infringement consulting
`
`CV of Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`Printed: 06/11/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2013
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`
`Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
`Comcast v. Sprint; and Nextel Inc.
`Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:12-cv-00859-JD
`Patent infringement, SMS in Cellular Networks
`Infringement consulting
`
`McKool Smith
`Samsung Electronics America v. Ericsson Inc.
`In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and
`Articles Therein, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-866
`Patent infringement, LTE uplink and downlink
`Prior art research, source code review, claim construction, claim
`invalidity expert report, non-infringement expert report, hearing
`testimony
`
`DLA Piper US LLP
`CSR Technology Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
`USDC-San Francisco, Case No. 3:12-cv-02619-RS
`Patent infringement, radio transceivers
`Infringement consulting, claim construction, declaration
`
`Fish & Richardson PC
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.; et al.
`USDC-ND California, Case No. 5:12-cv-02885-LHK
`Patent infringement, resource allocation in wireless networks
`Prior art research consulting
`
`Polsinelli Shughart PC
`Single Touch Interactive, Inc. v. Zoove Corporation
`Northern Dist. of California, Case No. 3:12-cv-00831-JSC
`Patent infringement, abbreviated dialing, information delivery
`Claim construction, Markman hearing tutorial, declaration
`
`K & L Gates
`EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Novatel Wireless, Inc.; et al.
`DC-Tyler, Texas, Case No. 6:11-cv-00015-LED-JDL
`Patent infringement, wireless modem and 3G services
`Non-infringement expert report, deposition
`
`Dechert LLP
`Intellectual Ventures I and II LLC v. AT&T Mobility; et al.
`Dist. of Delaware, Case No. 1:12-cv-00193-LPS
`Patent infringement, cellular 3G services
`Infringement consulting
`
`
`CV of Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`Printed: 06/11/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2012
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2011
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2011
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
`CSR Technology, Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.
`Western Dist. of Texas, Case No. 1:12-cv-297-LY
`Patent infringement, packet identification in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz
`Source code review, Markman hearing tutorial, infringement expert
`report
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
`Wi-LAN v. HTC America, Inc.
`Eastern Dist. of Texas, Case No. 6:10-cv-521-LED
`Patent infringement, CDMA, Orthogonal Codes
`Source code review, non-infringement expert report, deposition, trial
`testimony
`
`Dechert LLP
`Hitachi v. TPV and Vizio, Inc.; and Vizio v. Hitachi, LTD.
`Eastern Dist. of Texas, Case No. 2:10-cv-260
`Patent infringement, HD television transmission and reception
`Prior art research, claim invalidity consulting
`
`Fish & Richardson PC
`InterDigital Commc’n, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc.; et al.
`Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components
`Thereof, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-800
`Patent infringement, channel coding in UMTS, HSDPA
`Non-infringement consultin