UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
`vs. CASE: IPR2014-00044
` PATENT: 6,771,290 B1
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`
` Technology Owner.
`____________________________/
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN STRAWN, Ph.D.
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
` TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2014
`
`BY: ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR
` CSR LICENSE NO. 9830
` JOB NO. 80818
`
`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
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 1
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
`vs. CASE: IPR2014-00044
` PATENT: 6,771,290 B1
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`
` Technology Owner.
`____________________________/
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN STRAWN, Ph.D.
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
` TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2014
`
`BY: ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR
` CSR LICENSE NO. 9830
` JOB NO. 80818
`
`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
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 1
`
`
`
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
` TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2014
` 10:03 a.m.
`
`Page 2
`
`Deposition of JOHN STRAWN, Ph.D., taken at
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 4 Embarcadero Center,
`Suite 3000, San Francisco, California
`pursuant to Notice, before me,
`ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR ~ CSR
`License No. 9830.
`
`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
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 2
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 3
`
` FOR SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.:
` GREENBERG TRAURIG
` By: BARRY SCHINDLER, Esq.
` HEATH BRIGGS, Esq. (Denver Office)
` 200 Park Avenue
` New York, New York 10166
`
` FOR B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.:
` FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG
` By: DANIEL WEINBERG, Esq.
` 350 Marine Parkway
` Redwood Shores, California 94065
`
` ALSO PRESENT: Daniel L. Girdwood, Samsung
`
` ---oOo---
`
`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
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 3
`
`
`
` SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
` TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2014
` 10:03 a.m.
`
`Page 4
`
` JOHN STRAWN, Ph.D.
` having been sworn as a witness,
` by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG
` MR. WEINBERG: Q. Good morning, Dr. Strawn.
` A Good morning.
` Q My name is Dan Weinberg, and I represent
`B.E. Technology, which is the patent owner.
` You understand you're being deposed today as
`an expert witness; is that right?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And you've been retained by Samsung to
`provide an opinion regarding the patentability of
`United States Patent No. 6,771,290; correct?
` A No, sir.
` Q Can you tell me what you've been engaged
`to -- well, let me ask you a question: What about my
`statement is incorrect?
`
`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
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 4
`
`
`
`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
`
` A I've been retained by the law firm, not by
`the client Samsung.
` Q Okay.
` A Otherwise, the statement is correct.
` Q All right.
` And which law firm retained you?
` A GreenbergTraurig.
` Q And you understand that GreenbergTraurig
`retained you to provide an opinion on behalf of
`Samsung; correct?
` A No, sir.
` Q What is your understanding?
` A I provide my own opinion. I don't provide an
`opinion on behalf of anybody.
` Q Do you understand that your opinion is being
`relied upon by Samsung in connection with an
`inner-party's review petition?
` A That's fair, yes.
` Q Have you provided your opinions in this
`matter with knowledge that Samsung would rely upon
`your opinions?
` A Not only Samsung, but yes.
` Q What other entities rely upon your opinions?
` A I understand the patent board did when they
`did their judgment.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, 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
`
`Page 6
` Q Besides the patent board and Samsung, are you
`aware of any other entity that is relying upon your
`opinion in connection with the '290 patent?
` A I'm sure it's not meant as a trick question,
`but I assume that the patent owner is also looking at
`my opinion.
` Q Anybody else that you're aware of relying
`upon your opinion?
` A Not at the present time.
` Q For ease of reference, I'm going to refer to
`Patent No. 6,771,290 as the '290 patent, as I've
`already been doing; is that okay with you?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q You've had your deposition taken before;
`correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And you've testified at trial before as well;
`correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q I'm going to remind you of some familiar
`ground rules related to providing deposition
`testimony.
` You understand that I'll ask you a series of
`questions, and you will provide answers to those
`questions?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 6
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A Yes, sir.
` Q You also understand that Samsung's counsel,
`present today, may pose objections to some of my
`questions? Do you understand that?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q That, in most instances, you will be required
`to answer the question even though an objection has
`been made?
` A I can't address "most instances." It will
`depend on the objections.
` Q You understand that the objections are made
`for the purpose of creating a record as opposed to
`forming your testimony or causing you to answer one
`way or the other; correct?
` A Nothing the attorneys here say will cause me
`to answer a question one way or the other. That would
`include some of their -- that would include their
`objections.
` Q You understand the objections are for the
`purpose of having a complete record; correct?
` A Yes, sir, I do understand.
` Q And that the court reporter will transcribe
`what all of us say here today for the purpose of
`recording your testimony; do you understand that?
` A Yes, sir.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, 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
`
`Page 8
` Q And to make the court reporter's job a little
`easier, I'm going to ask you to wait for me to finish
`my question, and I will wait for you to finish your
`answer before either of us begins speaking, so that
`we're not speaking over each other; is that fair?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q I'll ask you to answer audibly and to answer
`questions "yes" or "no" as opposed to "uh-huh" or
`"huh-uh"; is that fair?
` A I won't use "uh-huh" or "huh-uh."
` Q And you will answer audibly; correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q No shakes of the head up or down or side to
`side; right?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q You understand that you are under oath today
`as if you were testifying in a court of law?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And is there any reason why you are unable to
`provide your best and honest testimony today?
` A No, sir.
` Q I'm going to hand you what has been
`previously marked as Exhibit 1006.
` MR. SCHINDLER: Thank you.
` MR. GIRDWOOD: Thanks.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 8
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. WEINBERG: Q. Dr. Strawn, do you
`recognize what has been previously marked as
`Exhibit 1006?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Could you tell me what it is?
` A It's the version of my resumé dated the 17th
`of April 2013.
` Q Is this a current version of your resumé?
` A Not quite.
` Q What is missing from this version of your
`resumé?
` A There is the case called SmartPhone versus
`ZTE, which I just finished working on.
` Q And is that matter concluded?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q When did you begin working on SmartPhone
`versus ZTE?
` A Sir, I don't have the date memorized, but it
`was mid last year.
` Q So it began in 2013, your work on the -- on
`the matter?
` A I believe that's correct.
` Q And on behalf of which party were you working
`in that matter?
` A ZTE.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 9
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q Were you retained by ZTE or a law firm?
` A By the law firm of Novak Druce.
` Q What was your assignment in SmartPhone v ZTE?
` A Non-infringement and invalidity.
` Q How many patents were -- well, strike that.
` Is this a patent case?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q How many patents were at issue in the
`SmartPhone v ZTE case?
` A Initially five, if I recall correctly.
` Q Did you offer an opinion as to all five
`patents?
` A If I recall correctly, one was dropped before
`the invalidity report. And if I recall correctly, yet
`another was dropped before the non-infringement
`report, so I believe I gave invalidity opinions on
`four patents and non-infringement opinions on three
`patents.
` Q Well, what was the technology of the patents?
` A Broadly speaking, cell phones.
` Q Did the patents relate in any way to
`downloading files?
` A To a certain extent, yes.
` Q How so?
` A You're asking me now to recover data from an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 10
`
`
`
`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
`
`old case, so you have to give me a moment.
` Q Fair enough.
` A One of the patents, called the '459 patent,
`dealt with selected downloading of files. The idea
`was that if you have an app, you can download the app
`in general. And then, in order to save bandwidth when
`the user makes a request, you only send a certain
`amount of data over the network, and you receive back
`an answer that only contains enough information that's
`needed to populate a form that's pre-stored on the
`cell phone.
` Q It was your opinion that this patent was
`invalid?
` MR. SCHINDLER: Just on the question, we are
`not representing you, but you have another case that
`could have been privileged, so make sure that if you
`have -- did render an opinion or did not, that you
`think about this. Again, I'm trying to just caution
`you.
` As I said, Counsel, as you understand, I
`don't represent him in this other, and I don't
`represent him here, but I want to make sure we don't
`do anything that would put him in a box.
` MR. WEINBERG: That's fine.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I can only rely on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, 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
`
`Page 12
`memory at this point. I did not review that case for
`this deposition. But yes, I rendered the opinion that
`the '459 patent was invalid.
` MR. WEINBERG: Q. Do you recall the basis
`for your invalidity opinion?
` What I mean by that is, do you recall whether
`the patent was invalid for anticipation, or whether it
`was obvious, or there was another problem that caused
`you to offer an opinion that it was not valid?
` A There was at least obviousness.
` Q Do you recall specifically whether there was
`anything else that formed the basis for your opinion?
` A Not sitting here, no.
` Q And was that the only patent at issue in the
`SmartPhone v ZTE case that related to the downloading
`of files?
` A The '275 did not, in the sense that you're
`talking about, and I can't remember the '316 patent's
`content sitting here.
` Q Did you testify at deposition in connection
`with the SmartPhone v ZTE case?
` A Yes, sir, at deposition.
` Q How many times were you deposed?
` A Once.
` Q Did you testify at trial in connection with
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 12
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that matter?
` A No, sir. The case settled on eve of trial.
` Q Could you please turn to page 4 of your
`resumé.
` A Yes, sir. I'm at page 4.
` Q So instead of going through each engagement
`listed here on pages 4, 5, 6 and 7, and at the top of
`page 8 as well, because your resumé provides a great
`deal of information, I don't need to ask you about it,
`but I do want to make sure I have a clear
`understanding as to your role in connection with some
`or all of these matters; is that fair?
` A Please proceed.
` Q I want to make sure that when you identify a
`law firm as you do, let's take, for example, the first
`matter here on page 4, this is Adobe v Wowza; is that
`correct? That's the case name?
` A Yes, sir, that's the case name.
` Q Wowza is underlined. Why is Wowza
`underlined?
` A Because I was retained by the law firm
`representing Wowza.
` Q Okay. Above the case name is Fliesler Meyer,
`San Francisco; and Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago.
` Are those the law firms that retained you?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, 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
`
`Page 14
` A Technically speaking, Fliesler Meyer retained
`me. Kirkland & Ellis is also involved.
` Q And those are the lawyers representing Wowza
`in this case?
` A I'm sure it's not meant to be a trick
`question, so yes.
` Q And next to "Project" it states:
` "Deposition related to Markman. Expert
`report and deposition on non-infringement."
` Is it fair to say that that is a complete
`summary in connection with the Adobe v Wowza matter?
` A Well, sir, again, I'm sure you don't mean
`that as a trick question.
` When I'm involved in a case, I feel
`responsible to draw attention to the attorneys and the
`client anything I discover. This summarizes my formal
`activities in the case.
` Q So is it correct then that you did not offer
`an opinion regarding the validity of the asserted
`patents?
` A I did not offer a formal opinion; yes, sir,
`that's correct. And I don't recall even offering
`informal opinions.
` Q The next matter down is SmartPhone v LG, and
`do you recall which party you were offering an opinion
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 14
`
`
`
`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
`
`on behalf of?
` A Right; LG.
` Q And in this matter, were you retained by the
`law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And it states next to "Project: Export
`report and deposition related to invalidity."
` This is not a trick question. Were you
`engaged in order to provide an opinion regarding the
`invalidity or rather the validity of the patents at
`issue?
` A I was retained to give an opinion about the
`validity of the patents at issue.
` Q And you did not do any non-infringement work
`in connection with that matter?
` A Correct.
` Q And if you had, would you have listed it here
`as part of your project?
` A Yes, sir, I would have listed it if I had
`done such work.
` Q Okay. Just so I'm clear, the next matter
`down is the SmartSound v Abbott matter.
` Do you see that?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Did you represent SmartSound -- strike that.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 15
`
`
`
`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
`
` Did you offer an opinion on behalf of
`SmartSound in that matter?
` A This is slightly out of date. It states
`"settlement discussions in progress." The case
`settled before I submitted a report.
` Q I take it you did not have the occasion to be
`deposed in the SmartSound matter; correct?
` A That seems to be the case. I would have
`mentioned it here if I had been.
` Q And is it correct that your work involved
`non-infringement as opposed to validity in the
`SmartSound case?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And the next matter down, LSI v Vizio.
` Is it correct that you offered an opinion on
`behalf of Vizio in that matter?
` A No, sir. I offered no opinion, but I was
`retained by the attorneys who represented Vizio.
` Q And is it the case that the -- the matter was
`resolved before you had an opportunity to offer an
`opinion in that case?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q But you were engaged in order to provide an
`opinion regarding the validity of the patents, as well
`as non-infringement; is that correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 16
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A That's what the document says, yes, sir.
` Q It states the patents involved digital
`memory. Is that in any way related to downloading of
`files?
` A Sir, it's been so long and my involvement was
`so small that I don't remember anymore. I'm sorry.
` Q Okay. Now, below that there's the matter
`Motorola v Apple, and that's an ITC proceeding.
` Is it correct that you were engaged to offer
`an opinion on behalf of Motorola in that matter?
` A I was retained by the attorneys who
`represented Motorola.
` Q And that would be Quinn Emanuel?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And you testified at deposition and at the
`trial in that proceeding; correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And your testimony related to something
`identified here as non-invalidity. Does that mean
`that it was your opinion that the patents were valid?
` A My role changed during the case. I can't
`remember anymore if I got as far as rendering that
`opinion.
` Q When you note here non-invalidity, does that
`mean validity, to address the double negative?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 17
`
`
`
`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
`
` A I see.
` If that's the thrust of your question, yes,
`sir, that's correct.
` Q It was the thrust of my question.
` Now, the next matter down is Move Inc. v Real
`Estate Alliance Limited.
` Is it correct that you were engaged to offer
`an opinion on behalf of the plaintiff Move Inc.?
` A I was retained by the attorneys who represent
`Move Inc.
` Q And those attorneys were with the law firm
`Alston & Bird?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you recall, sitting here today, what the
`scope of your assignment was in the Move Inc. v
`Real Estate Alliance Matter?
` A This had to do with infringement by websites,
`real estate websites.
` Q Did your involvement in that matter involve
`the -- strike that.
` Did your assignment in that matter involve
`offering an opinion regarding validity of the asserted
`patents?
` A No, sir.
` Q And this was a patent case; correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 18
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And the next matter down is HTC v Apple.
` Again, this is an ITC matter, and is it
`correct that you were engaged by the law firm Finnegan
`Henderson to offer an opinion on behalf of HTC, the
`plaintiff?
` A Well, I rendered an opinion. It's not on --
`I hesitate at the words "on behalf of"; I'm sure
`you're not meaning it as a trick question.
` Finnegan retained me. They represented HTC.
` Q Okay. Is it correct that your expert work
`related to the domestic industry prong for proceeding
`in the ITC?
` A Again, I had two different assignments. The
`first was relating to power management, and then the
`second was the domestic industry part which was more
`user interface related.
` Q And it states that you did expert reports
`related to the technical prong of domestic industry,
`and then later on it states that you did consulting
`expert -- or that you were a consulting expert related
`to the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch concerning
`invalidity and power management.
` Were your assignments in that case different?
` A In general, yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 19
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q Did you provide an expert report regarding
`invalidity?
` A No, sir.
` Q Did you testify in this matter?
` A No, sir. The domestic prong aspect settled
`on eve of deposition.
` Q And you did not testify at deposition
`regarding your consulting work regarding invalidity;
`correct?
` A Correct.
` Q Next matter down is Fair ISSAC v Actimize and
`NICE.
` Is it correct that the law firm Robins Kaplan
`engaged you to offer an opinion and Robins Kaplan
`represented Fair Issac?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Is it correct that your work only involved
`infringement as opposed to validity?
` A Again, I always keep my eyes open in a case,
`but my assignment dealt with infringement and source
`code analysis.
` Q Did you testify in connection with the Fair
`Issac matter?
` A No, sir; it settled.
` Q Next matter down is Affinity Labs v Alpine
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, 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
`
`Page 21
`Electronics and JVC Kenwood, and is it correct that
`the Orrick firm retained you to offer an opinion and
`that the Orrick firm represented JVC Kenwood?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you recall the names of the lawyers with
`whom you worked at Orrick?
` A Van Pierce, and sitting here I can't recover
`the other gentleman. I had most of my work with
`Van Pierce.
` Q And you testified at deposition in connection
`with this matter; correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Did you testify at trial?
` A No, sir. Settled on eve of trial.
` Q Okay. And was your work limited to offering
`an opinion regarding non-infringement?
` A That's what the document says, yes, sir.
` Q Did you do any -- did you provide a formal
`opinion related to validity of the patents?
` A No formal opinion.
` Q The next matter is In Re: Apple and ATTM
`Antitrust Litigation. And is it correct that you
`offered an opinion in connection with this matter on
`behalf of a class of plaintiffs? Is that correct?
` A Again, Wolff Haldenstein represented the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`class plaintiffs and Wolff Haldenstein engaged me.
` Q You testified at deposition; correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Did you testify at trial?
` A No, sir.
` Q What was your assignment in this matter?
` A As it says here, I looked at iPhone source
`code, and I wrote an expert report and various
`declarations.
` Q This was not a patent case; correct?
` A Correct.
` Q The next matter down is Konami, K-O-N-A-M-I,
`Digital Entertainment v Harmonix Music Systems.
` Is it correct that you were retained by the
`law firm Paul Hastings to offer an opinion, and
`Paul Hastings represented Konami Digital Entertainment
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And you testified at deposition in that
`matter; correct?
` A Two days, yes, sir.
` Q Did you testify at trial?
` A No, sir. Case settled.
` Q Do you recall your assignment in that matter?
` A Yes, sir. Non-infringement.
` Q You did not offer an opinion regarding
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`validity though; did you?
` A Correct.
` Q Sorry.
` Now, the next matter down is SanDisk v LSI.
` Is it correct that you were retained by the
`law firm Jones Day, and Jones Day represented SanDisk?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you recall your assignment in connection
`with this matter?
` A Again, this was a very short involvement. I
`don't recall anymore exactly my assignment.
` Q It states that your project was to attend the
`tutorial and Markman hearing regarding MP3 patent
`litigation; does that refresh your recollection?
` A Well, it wasn't my assignment. I happened to
`have done those things. Exactly what my assignment
`was, I can't recover sitting here.
` Q And you don't recall testifying in connection
`with that matter; do you?
` A At the Markman hearing, I was in the
`audience, and the judge asked me to stand up and
`introduce myself. It wasn't under oath.
` Q Do you recall the name of the judge?
` A Alsup.
` Q Now, the next matter down is Samsung v Kodak,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`another ITC proceeding, and is it correct that you
`were retained by the law firm Weil Gotshal, and that
`Weil Gotshal represented the claimant Samsung?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you recall your assignment in connection
`with this proceeding?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q What was it?
` A I was a consulting expert. I had access to
`schematics and source code for Samsung cell phones,
`and I was to provide information on the functionality
`of those phones. In particular, regarding the cell
`phone camera, the cell phone processor, and memory.
` Q Did you offer an opinion in connection with
`the proceeding?
` A No report. I offered my information to the
`law firm.
` Q Did you testify in this proceeding?
` A No, sir.
` Q The next matter down is Voice Domain
`Technologies LLC, v Philips Electronics North America,
`Inc., et al.
` And is it correct that you were retained by
`the law firm Finnegan Henderson, and Finnegan
`Henderson represented Philips Electronics?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 24
`
`
`
`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
`
` A Yes, sir.
` Q What was your assignment in that matter?
` A Again, this was a very short assignment. It
`says here that I did a declaration for a Markman
`hearing, and the case settled after that.
` Q Do you have a recollection of being deposed
`in connection with that matter?
` A I'm sure I was not.
` Q Now, skipping the next matter and going down
`to a matter of Nice Systems, Inc., and Nice Systems
`LTD versus Witness Systems, Inc., is it correct that
`the law firm Fish & Richardson retained you and Fish &
`Richardson represented Witness Systems, Inc.?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And you were deposed in connection with this
`proceeding; correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And you testified at trial?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you recall what was the nature of your
`opinions in this matter?
` A I certainly recall non-infringement. I don't
`remember anymore if I was involved in invalidity.
` Q The next matter down is Lucent Technologies,
`Inc., v Gateway, Inc., et al., and Microsoft
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 25
`
`
`
`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
`
`Corporation as intervenor.
` Is it correct that you were retained by
`Fish & Richardson to offer an opinion, and Fish &
`Richardson represented Microsoft Corporation?
` A They represented at least Microsoft. They
`may have represented other of the defendants as well.
` Q And you were deposed in connection with this
`matter; correct?
` A Oh, yes.
` Q Was it memorable?
` A Yes, sir. They did a good job.
` Q And what about -- you also testified at trial
`in connection with this proceeding?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q And it's correct that your work in this
`matter involved both non-infringement and invalidity;
`correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you recall the nature of the technology at
`issue in this proceeding?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q What was it?
` A It had to do with ripping, as it's
`well-known, audio files through Window Media --
`Windows Media Player, I think is the correct term, to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`create MP3 files.
` Q Now, on page 7, at the top of page 7, it
`looks like there's a proceeding here entitled Seer
`Systems v Yamaha; is that correct?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Is it correct that you were retained by
`Morrison & Foerster and Morrison & Foerster
`represented Yamaha?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q What do you mean by your project was "Prior
`art research for music synthesis"?
` A That case was seven years ago. Seer Systems
`had some technology that involved exactly what it
`says, music synthesis. That is to say, how can a
`program create a string of numbers with which, when
`fed through appropriate hardware and a loudspeaker,
`sounds like a musical sound, and Seer Systems filed an
`action against Yamaha.
` Q And your work involved doing prior art
`research; correct?
` A That's what the document says, yes, sir.
` Q Did that result in you offering an opinion
`regarding the validity of the patent?
` A No, sir, it didn't reach that stage.
` Q Now, the next matter down is Digital
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 27
`
`
`
`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
`
`Technology Licensing (DTL) v Cingular Wireless.
` Is it correct that you were retained by the
`law firm Mayer Brown and Mayer Brown represented
`Cingular Wireless?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Do you have a recollection of whether you
`offered an opinion regarding validity in connection
`with this matter?
` A Not formally, no, sir.
` Q Now, skipping down to the matter Digeo, Inc.,
`v Audible, Inc., am I pronouncing that correctly?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Is it correct that you were retained by the
`Black & Lowe firm on behalf of Digeo?
` A Black & Lowe represented Digeo, yes, sir.
` Q And you provided an expert record regarding
`Internet file downloading.
` Can you tell me what that Internet file
`downloading involved?
` A In general, Audible is a company who provides
`such things as books so that one can read them on a
`computer or on a handheld device. So if I recall --
`now this was seven -- gee, this was nine years ago.
`As I recall, I was looking at how the files that had
`been downloaded were stored on the iPhone, if I recall
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2003, Page 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`correctly, but it's been a very long time.
` Q Do you recall --
` A And let me -- let me clarify. The expert
`report, as I recall, was only at the Markman level. I
`don't know anymore if I provided another expert
`report.
` Q You don't have a recollection of whether you
`offered an opinion regarding validity of the patents?
` A I don't recall anymore.
` Q I'll jump through the next two quickly. I
`just want to ask you a question about the MediaTek,
`ASUSTek & ASUS v Sanyo matter.
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Is it correct that you did not offer an
`opinion regarding validity in that matter?
` A As I recall, the claim charts dealt with
`invalidity, but I did not write a report. I merely
`helped the attorneys to prepare plane charts.
` Q Okay. And you did not testify in connection
`with that matter?
` A No, sir.
` Q The next matter down is Information
`Technology Innovation, LLC v Motorola. I'd like to
`know whether your assignment in connection with that
`matter in any way involved validity of the patents?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`B.E. Tec
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
