Transcript of MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`
`Date: October 8, 2014
`
`Case: APPLE, INC., ET AL v. EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`
`Planet Depos
`Phone: 888-433-3767
`Fax: 888-503-3767
`Email: transcripts@planetdepos.com
`Internet: www.planetdepos.com
`
`Court Reporting | Videography | Videoconferencing | Interpretation | Transcription
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`Date: October 8, 2014
`
`Case: APPLE, INC., ET AL v. EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`
`Planet Depos
`Phone: 888-433-3767
`Fax: 888-503-3767
`Email: transcripts@planetdepos.com
`Internet: www.planetdepos.com
`
`Court Reporting | Videography | Videoconferencing | Interpretation | Transcription
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`--------------------------------x
`
`APPLE INC., TWITTER, INC., :
`
`and YELP INC., :
`
` Petitioners, : Case IPR2014-00086
`
` v. : Case IPR2014-00812
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, : Patent 7,010,536
`
`LLC, :
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`--------------------------------x
`
` Deposition of MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`
` Washington, DC
`
` Wednesday, October 8, 2014
`
` 9:58 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 67562
`
`Pages: 1 - 276
`
`Reported By: Lee Bursten, RMR, CRR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
` Deposition of MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D., held
`
`at the offices of:
`
`2
`
` SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
`
` 1501 K Street, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
` (202) 736-8000
`
` Pursuant to Notice, before Lee Bursten,
`
`Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime
`
`Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the District
`
`of Columbia, who officiated in administering the
`
`oath to the witness.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER APPLE INC.:
`
` JEFFREY KUSHAN, ESQUIRE
`
` THOMAS A. BROUGHAN III, ESQUIRE
`
` SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
`
` 1501 K Street, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
` (202) 736-8000
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS TWITTER, INC. AND
`
` YELP INC.:
`
` ROBERT ARTUZ, ESQUIRE
`
` KILPATRICK, TOWNSEND, & STOCKTON, LLP
`
` 1080 Marsh Road
`
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
` (650) 326-2400
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
`
`4
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` ANTHONY PATEK, ESQUIRE
`
` GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
`
` 835 Douglass Street
`
` San Francisco, California 94114
`
` (415) 639-9090
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
`
` SAMUEL A. DILLON
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D. PAGE
`
` By Mr. Kushan 6
`
` By Mr. Patek 273
`
`5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (Attached to transcript)
`
`GREEN DEPOSITION EXHIBIT PAGE
`
` Exhibit 2006 Declaration of Matthew Green 15
`
` Ph.D. Regarding US Patent
`
` 7,010,536 (Corrected)
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBIT PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1001 US Patent 7,010,536 to De Angel 15
`
` Exhibit 1006 US Patent 5,836,529 to Gibbs 159
`
`
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`
` having been duly sworn/affirmed, testified as
`
` follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER APPLE INC.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Green. Can you state
`
`your full name for the record?
`
` A Sure. My name is Matthew Daniel Green.
`
` Q And where do you reside?
`
` A I live in Baltimore, Maryland.
`
` Q And you're the Dr. Matthew Green that has
`
`provided a declaration in IPR proceeding 2014-00812
`
`and others. I'm going to mark this -- we don't mark
`
`exhibits -- but you understand you've given testimony
`
`in this proceeding?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Are there any reasons you can't give
`
`truthful testimony today?
`
` A No. I have a bit of a cold, so you'll hear
`
`my voice and -- but I don't think -- to answer your
`
`question, I don't think that affects your question at
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`all.
`
` Q So no medications that will affect your
`
`7
`
`ability to answer truthfully?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Okay. You understand you're under oath?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Have you testified before as an expert
`
`witness in a patent proceeding?
`
` A Yes, I have.
`
` Q I want to notice, you indicated in your
`
`declaration, and I'll give this to you in a minute,
`
`that you refer to your CV, but I don't believe we
`
`received your CV. So it's not an exhibit in the
`
`proceedings. So what I'll do is I'll try to go
`
`through a few basic questions about your background.
`
` Can you tell me about how many times you
`
`have served as an expert witness in a patent
`
`proceeding?
`
` A Does that include depositions as well as
`
`other --
`
` Q Yes. So we'll start general and then if
`
`there's something I want to ask a followup about.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
` A So without my CV in front of me, I have to
`
`8
`
`give a kind of inexact answer.
`
` Q Sure.
`
` A I would say at least a half a dozen times
`
`as an expert witness.
`
` Q And has that -- and how many times have you
`
`been deposed?
`
` A I don't know exactly. I think probably
`
`seven times would be a good guess.
`
` Q Okay. And can you just give me a rough
`
`description of the types of projects you've done?
`
`And I don't want to go into any confidential
`
`information, of course. But I just want to
`
`understand the nature of the patents, the technology
`
`involved, things of that nature.
`
` A Understood. I was involved as a technical
`
`expert in a case involving smartphone technology,
`
`involving patents on smartphone technology. In
`
`another matter, I was involved in an IPR case
`
`involving virtual machine technology. I've been
`
`involved in cases that involve -- let's see --
`
`computer security technology.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` I think that's kind of a rough summary of
`
`the cases I've been involved with.
`
` Q Can you tell me the companies that you've
`
`been on the side of as an expert?
`
` A Well, it's a few. Let's see. So I'm
`
`currently involved in a case where Samsung is the
`
`employer and the defendant. That's a case involving
`
`computer security, digital rights, management
`
`technology. I'm involved in a case, or I was, excuse
`
`me, in the past, where HTC was the defendant, but I
`
`represented the plaintiff, which was a company called
`
`Smartphone Technologies -- sorry, I didn't represent,
`
`but I was hired by.
`
` Let's see. I have been involved in an IPR
`
`case where Symantec was the employer and I was an
`
`expert -- sorry, I'm just trying to think -- on the
`
`defense side of the IPR case in that particular
`
`instance.
`
` Q So that last one was where you were
`
`offering testimony on the side of the patent owner?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. And have you had any proceedings in
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`which you have been involved where the other side,
`
`the opponent, is Apple?
`
` A So I was involved several years ago in a
`
`consulting case where I was not a technical expert,
`
`where I was just a consultant, where Apple was the
`
`defendant, and I was retained by the plaintiff.
`
` Q And have you ever offered testimony on
`
`behalf of Apple?
`
` A No, I don't believe so.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` MR. PATEK: I was just going to ask, I have
`
`a copy of his CV which I can email to you guys, and
`
`if you would like to use it.
`
` MR. KUSHAN: Sure. I think they found the
`
`CV.
`
` THE WITNESS: Is that a recent copy or is
`
`it from my website?
`
` MR. PATEK: It should be whatever copy you
`
`sent to me.
`
` THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. In that case, it's
`
`fine. I think there's an out-of-date copy on my
`
`website. I don't want to use that.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. ARTUZ: This is Exhibit 2005. If you
`
`want to email it, maybe you guys can print it.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q We'll go back to that in a bit. So what
`
`did you do to prepare for today's deposition?
`
` A Well, in preparation, I read my
`
`declaration. I reread some of the exhibits to the
`
`case. And I also yesterday met with Mr. Patek and
`
`spoke about the case a bit.
`
` Q And so did you review any particular
`
`documents in the course of preparing for the
`
`deposition?
`
` A Well, again, I reviewed the declaration. I
`
`looked at some of the prior art references. I looked
`
`at the deposition testimony by I believe Apple's
`
`expert and so on. I more or less reviewed all of the
`
`exhibits in the case.
`
` Q And can you give me a rough estimate of the
`
`amount of time you spent during that?
`
` A Oh, I spent most of yesterday reviewing,
`
`and maybe a couple of hours, you know, in addition to
`
`that.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q And then let's go back to the time when you
`
`prepared your declaration. Can you give me a rough
`
`estimate of how much time you spent in the aggregate
`
`preparing your declaration?
`
` A So off the top of my head, I can't. But I
`
`think it would have been, I don't know, maybe less
`
`than 40 or 50 hours. That's the best guess I can
`
`give.
`
` Q And when you did that, were you given any
`
`particular documents to review by counsel?
`
` A So in that case, I was given a copy of the
`
`Board decision, the exhibits. I believe I was given
`
`deposition testimony and so on, if it existed at that
`
`point. I'm not sure. I think it did, yes.
`
` Q And did you do any research outside of the
`
`documents that you were given to look for other
`
`information?
`
` A No. In this case, I primarily focused on
`
`the documents in the case.
`
` Q Was there any particular instruction that
`
`you were given as to the scope or topics you were
`
`supposed to address in your declaration?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A Well, I understood that the purpose of my
`
`declaration was to support a response made by the
`
`patent owner to the Board's decision. I believe
`
`that's -- that was pretty much the instruction I was
`
`given.
`
` Q Did you write the entire declaration?
`
` A So I wrote the declaration, but I certainly
`
`worked with Mr. Patek. He gave me some assistance,
`
`fixed some typos, helped me a lot with the legal
`
`language and kind of smoothed the declaration over a
`
`lot.
`
` Q And just as a -- I don't want to go into
`
`any details of your communications with Mr. Patek,
`
`but just, would you say that you were -- if you were
`
`to look at the declaration in its totality, about how
`
`much of the declaration do you think you might have
`
`been the original author for as opposed to editing
`
`something that was provided to you?
`
` A I don't know. I think that I'm responsible
`
`for the majority of the declaration. I think that
`
`there are certain sections where, you know, there was
`
`some major editing. But I think that, you know,
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`really, it's my declaration.
`
` Q Can you recall what those areas of major
`
`editing might have been?
`
` A So I'm not an attorney, so in certain
`
`places where I expressed my understanding of legal
`
`opinions, I think that I had assistance in correctly
`
`formulating those legal opinions so that I was not
`
`saying something incorrect into the record.
`
` Q And for those legal opinions, would they be
`
`topics such as what the claims meant under the
`
`Board's standard?
`
` A So for example, the standards, the legal
`
`standards, and essentially certain -- certain
`
`technical arguments that I think had legal
`
`components, were I think in those cases, you know,
`
`some of my -- the way that I expressed myself was
`
`probably not very precise. And so that was helped.
`
` Q Can you recall any particular claim terms
`
`that you might have had to revise based on this input
`
`from Mr. Patek?
`
` A So I don't think that I can name anything
`
`specific. But I think this is more of a question
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of -- I don't think there was anything that I had to
`
`revise as a result of those changes. I think it was
`
`just sort of correctly expressing what I was trying
`
`to say.
`
` Q So there would be a revision, but am I
`
`understanding you correctly that you didn't change
`
`your opinion, you just changed the way you were
`
`expressing it by these types of edits?
`
` A So I think for the most part that was the
`
`case. Certainly there were some arguments that we
`
`discussed, and ultimately, you know, those perhaps,
`
`you know, I had some assistance in kind of, you know,
`
`formulating those in my head. That's sort of what
`
`I'm thinking about.
`
` (Petitioner Apple Inc. Exhibit 1001 was
`
`previously marked for identification and attached to
`
`the deposition transcript.)
`
` MR. KUSHAN: Off the record.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
` (Petitioner Apple Inc. Exhibit 2006 was
`
`marked for identification and attached to the
`
`deposition transcript.)
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q So the first exhibit I handed you is
`
`Exhibit 1001. That's US patent 7,010,536. And you
`
`understand that's the patent that is the subject of
`
`16
`
`the IPR proceeding?
`
` A Yes, I do.
`
` Q All right. And then Exhibit 2006 as it's
`
`been marked is your declaration that you filed in
`
`this proceeding; is that correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And this is actually the second
`
`declaration, second version of your declaration that
`
`was filed in this proceeding; are you aware of that?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q Can you describe what the differences are
`
`between the first and second versions?
`
` A So I believe there were a couple of
`
`significant but hopefully obvious typos in the first
`
`version that were corrected in this version.
`
` Q Do you remember what those typos were?
`
` A So I believe that at a certain point in the
`
`drafting, some text was copied and pasted kind of as
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I was working through an argument, from the
`
`declaration I believe of Dr. Houh. I left it in the
`
`body and sort of then worked through, and then I left
`
`this text that was obviously just not reflective of
`
`my opinions.
`
` I think there's a piece in the conclusion
`
`and elsewhere. And these just said almost exactly
`
`the opposite of my conclusions. So, you know,
`
`actually the attorneys noticed this and informed me
`
`and said they would file a correction.
`
` Q And you reviewed the corrected version
`
`before it was filed?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Do you understand that Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence has sued Apple in the District Court
`
`proceeding?
`
` A I do understand there's litigation. That's
`
`about all I know.
`
` Q So you're not acting as an expert or in any
`
`other capacity to Evolutionary Intelligence in the
`
`District Court litigation?
`
` A I am not.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q And you've not been given any information
`
`from the District Court litigation; is that correct?
`
` A I haven't been given any documents or
`
`anything more than kind of the knowledge that this is
`
`going on.
`
` Q Are you aware of what Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence has said the patent covers in the
`
`District Court litigation?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Now, do you understand that in the
`
`proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`at the Patent Office that they use a different
`
`standard for interpreting the claims than what
`
`district courts might use?
`
` A So I understand they have one standard, and
`
`it's not always the same as other court standards,
`
`yes.
`
` Q Can you just describe to me what your
`
`understanding of that PTAB standard is?
`
` A It might be helpful if I can just pull up
`
`my report and read it to you.
`
` Q Sure.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A Give me one second and I'll find it. So I
`
`believe that the correct standard in this proceeding
`
`is that the claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification and how it would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
` Q And do you know what the difference is
`
`between that standard and what district courts might
`
`use?
`
` A Well, I don't know exactly what district
`
`courts might use in this case. But I understand that
`
`this is a very, fairly broad standard.
`
` Q And is it fair to say that in your
`
`understanding, the breadth that you just referred to
`
`is referring to the words that are used in the patent
`
`claims?
`
` A Well, again, I understand that they are
`
`referring to -- well, again, the claims are given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
`
`the specification and how it would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. So it refers to
`
`the understanding of the patent claims, but it's
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`informed by these other things.
`
` MR. PATEK: I'm sorry. I'm just going to
`
`lodge a late objection to form on the last question.
`
`20
`
` MR. KUSHAN: Okay.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q When you did your review of the patent
`
`claims of the '536 patent, did you attempt to
`
`determine if the words being used in the claims had
`
`been given a specific definition in the patent?
`
` A So obviously I read the patent
`
`specification. As you can see in my report, in fact
`
`there's an entire section that talks about claim
`
`construction. And I believe that begins on page 12.
`
` I attempted to find definitions in the
`
`specification. Where definitions were explicit,
`
`definitions were not given, I attempted to find
`
`descriptive text that helped me understand what the
`
`patent authors, the inventors were using, were
`
`thinking when they used these terms.
`
` Q If you could go to paragraph 29 of your
`
`declaration.
`
` A Give me one second.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Yes.
`
` Q So you're giving an example here of what
`
`you're calling an explicit definition, where you have
`
`a word followed by a meaning of that word, correct?
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q So when you use this kind of an approach,
`
`you went back into the specification of the '536
`
`patent to see if there had been definitional
`
`statements for particular words; is that right?
`
` A Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q So if you found a passage in the '536
`
`patent that said something like "a container is," and
`
`then a string of text, you're looking at that
`
`statement as being a definitional statement?
`
` MR. PATEK: Objection to form.
`
` A If I think it's explicitly defining the
`
`term. Sometimes you have statements like that where
`
`there are, you know, multiple statements that say
`
`different things. And in that case, I'm not sure you
`
`could so easily read a definition. But in general,
`
`you're looking for that kind of explicit definition.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
` Q So if you could go down to paragraph 31 of
`
`your declaration. And you start by stating that "The
`
`'536 patent does not expressly define the term
`
`22
`
`'container.'"
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Let me just read the full paragraph.
`
` Yes.
`
` Q So you see in the middle of your paragraph
`
`31, you have a sentence which is part of a quote, out
`
`of the '536 patent, that starts with the words "A
`
`container is," and then there's a string of text
`
`after that.
`
` A I do see that, yes.
`
` Q So when you read that sentence that said "A
`
`container is" and then had a description of a
`
`container, you believe that was not an explicit
`
`definition of "container"?
`
` A So as I note in this paragraph, I believe
`
`that statement helps to shed light on what
`
`"container" is being used to represent in this
`
`patent. But as I noted later in this report, there
`
`are other sentences that describe "container." So I
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`felt like this one statement could not be viewed as a
`
`pure definition of the term.
`
` Q Did you view the word "container" to be
`
`broader than this example?
`
` A I'm not sure that I viewed it to be broader
`
`or narrower. I worked with the understanding that I
`
`was able to get from the totality of the
`
`specification and from the Board's constructions.
`
` Q Just so I understand how you came to the
`
`view that this wasn't a definition, I just want to
`
`make sure I understand that clearly. This is a
`
`statement that appears to be giving a description of
`
`attributes of a container; is that a fair statement?
`
` MR. PATEK: Objection to form.
`
` A I'm sorry. When you say "attributes," are
`
`you referring to the minimum set of attributes?
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q I'm referring to just the things that are
`
`listed in the patent specification. So it says "A
`
`container is an interactive nestable logical domain
`
`configurable as both a subset and superset." So for
`
`that part of the sentence, is that a fair statement
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of what you understand a container to be?
`
` A So I believe this describes one aspect of
`
`"container."
`
` Q And what are the other aspects of a
`
`container?
`
` A Well, I mean, if you read basically
`
`starting with paragraph 31 and moving forward, you'll
`
`see that there are several places in the
`
`specification where certain aspects of containers are
`
`described. They don't always -- they're not all in
`
`this one quotation in the first paragraph here.
`
` I mean, I can read -- I kind of feel like
`
`maybe the best answer is just to read these several
`
`paragraphs into the record, but I don't want to do
`
`that to you right now.
`
` Q Well, they're already in the record, so you
`
`don't necessarily need to read them again. But I
`
`want to just make sure I understand, when you
`
`approach the task of understanding what was inside or
`
`outside the term "container," you referenced this
`
`passage of the Exhibit 1001, which is the patent,
`
`that's at column 3, lines 25 to 35. That's in
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`paragraph 31 of your declaration.
`
` And then you cite in paragraph 32 some
`
`additional observations about attributes of
`
`25
`
`containers.
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q So with all of these references you're
`
`making in 31 and 32 to the attributes of containers,
`
`I wanted to make sure that these were things which
`
`were not putting an ultimate boundary on the meaning
`
`of "container" as you understood the term.
`
` MR. PATEK: Objection to form.
`
` A Well, I didn't view this as putting any
`
`kind of ultimate boundary. I mean, I simply didn't
`
`evaluate that question. But I did look at these
`
`statements in aiding me in my understanding of what
`
`"container" means.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Could you determine from these passages
`
`something which is not within the meaning of
`
`"container"?
`
` A Well, in terms of my opinion, I looked both
`
`at these -- sorry, both of these passages and at the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Board's construction. So that was sort of how I did
`
`my analysis.
`
` Q When you did your analysis, did you then
`
`take that understanding of "container" and see if
`
`there was a container within that meaning in the
`
`prior art patents in the proceeding?
`
` A Well, in general, my goal was to look at
`
`the prior art patents and determine whether they
`
`disclosed the invention. And so as we get into later
`
`sections of my report, we can talk about that, maybe.
`
` Q The word "container" is a fairly central
`
`element of the patent claims in this proceeding,
`
`right?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So I'm just trying to make sure I
`
`understand where you drew the line as to the meaning
`
`of "container" before you began to compare it to the
`
`prior art.
`
` A Well, again, I used the Board's
`
`construction, which is a logically defined data
`
`enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital
`
`segment, text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`other, or a set of digital elements.
`
` Q So under that definition, a container could
`
`27
`
`be a logically defined data structure?
`
` A I think the word was "data enclosure."
`
` Q Data enclosure. So "logically defined"
`
`means that the data enclosure can refer to other
`
`sources of the data that are integrated into that
`
`enclosure?
`
` MR. PATEK: Objection to form.
`
` A So I don't know about that. I think that's
`
`a bit more of an interpretation than I gave in my
`
`report.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q So would you say that all of the elements
`
`of data that are recited in the Board's construction
`
`have to be physically located in a single file?
`
` A I didn't say that either. I'm just -- I'm
`
`not sure that the definition you gave for "logically
`
`defined" is precisely the definition I would give if
`
`I thought about the question.
`
` Q So what's your understanding of "logically
`
`defined" as it's being used in the Board's
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2009 - Deposition Transcript of Matthew Green
`
`IPR 2014-00086
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DANIEL GREEN, PH.D.
`CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
`
`construction?
`
` A So as I say in the report in paragraph 35,
`
`my understanding of "logically defined" meant defined
`
`28
`
`through a software mechanism.
`
` Q And is it fair to say that when a data
`
`enclosure that is logically defined does not
`
`necessarily have to include in that physical file
`
`structure all of the data that is being logically
`
`defined to be part of the data in the enclosure?
`
` MR. PATEK: Objection to form.
`
` A So I'm a bit confused by the use of the
`
`word "physical" when it comes to file structures,
`
`because oftentimes files are also logical or software
`
`defined. I suppose there are cases where you could
`
`have files that are physically located in one place.
`
`
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
