·1· · · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·GOOGLE INC., and MOTOROLA
`· · ·MOBILITY LLC,
`·5
`· · · · · · · · · Petitioners,
`·6
`· · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2014-00452
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 6,323,853
`· · ·ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·9· ·____________________________/
`
`10· ·GOOGLE INC.
`
`11· · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`12· ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2014-00450
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 7,921,356
`13· ·ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`14· · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·____________________________/
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHN LEVY, Ph.D.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·Thursday, January 8, 2015
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· ·Reported By:
`
`23· ·ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR, CLR
`
`24· ·CSR LICENSE NO. 9830
`
`25· ·Job No.: 10014108
`
`Google Inc. 1017
`Google Inc. 1016
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·GOOGLE INC., and MOTOROLA
`· · ·MOBILITY LLC,
`·5
`· · · · · · · · · Petitioners,
`·6
`· · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2014-00452
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 6,323,853
`· · ·ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·9· ·____________________________/
`
`10· ·GOOGLE INC.
`
`11· · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`12· ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2014-00450
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 7,921,356
`13· ·ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`14· · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·____________________________/
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHN LEVY, Ph.D.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·Thursday, January 8, 2015
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· ·Reported By:
`
`23· ·ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR, CLR
`
`24· ·CSR LICENSE NO. 9830
`
`25· ·Job No.: 10014108
`
`Google Inc. 1017
`Google Inc. 1016
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·GOOGLE INC., and MOTOROLA
`· · ·MOBILITY LLC,
`·5
`· · · · · · · · · Petitioners,
`·6
`· · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2014-00452
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 6,323,853
`· · ·ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·9· ·____________________________/
`
`10· ·GOOGLE INC.
`
`11· · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`12· ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. IPR2014-00450
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 7,921,356
`13· ·ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`14· · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·____________________________/
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · · Videotaped Deposition of JOHN LEVY, Ph.D.,
`
`18· · · taken on behalf of the Petitioners, at TURNER BOYD
`
`19· · · LLP, 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640, Redwood City,
`
`20· · · California, Pursuant to Notice, before me,
`
`21· · · ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR, CLR ~ CSR
`
`22· · · License No. 9830.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · FOR THE PETITIONERS:
`
`·5· · · · · ·TURNER BOYD LLP
`
`·6· · · · · ·By:· ROBERT J. KENT, Esq.
`
`·7· · · · · ·702 Marshall Street, Suite 640
`
`·8· · · · · ·Redwood City, California 94063
`
`·9· · · · · ·Phone:· (650) 521-5930· Fax: (650) 521-5931
`
`10· · · · · ·kent@turnerboyd.com
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`14· · · · · ·SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`
`15· · · · · ·By:· ROBERT M. ASHER, Esq.
`
`16· · · · · ·125 Summer Street
`
`17· · · · · ·Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1618
`
`18· · · · · ·Phone:· (617) 443-9292
`
`19· · · · · ·rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`20
`
`21· · · · · ·ALSO PRESENT:· Lynn Mari, Videographer
`
`22
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·DEPOSITION OF JOHN LEVY, Ph.D.
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · MR. KENT· · · · · · · · · 7, 168
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · MR. ASHER· · · · · · · · · · 165
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
`
`10· ·EXHIBIT· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`11· ·Exhibit Levy '853-1001· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·28
`
`12· · · · · ·Hedloy United States Patent 6,323,853;
`
`13· · · · · ·28 pgs.
`
`14· ·Exhibit Levy '853-2008· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·54
`
`15· · · · · ·Declaration of John V. Levy, Ph.D.;
`
`16· · · · · ·16 pgs.
`
`17· ·Exhibit Levy '853-1003· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 100
`
`18· · · · · ·Goodhand United States Patent 5,923,848;
`
`19· · · · · ·52 pgs.
`
`20· ·Exhibit Levy '853-17· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·74
`
`21· · · · · ·Patent Owner Arendi S.A.R.L.'s Response
`
`22· · · · · ·Under 37 C.F.R. 42.120; 55 pgs.
`
`23· ·Exhibit Levy '356-1001· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·28
`
`24· · · · · ·Hedloy United States Patent 7,921,356;
`
`25· · · · · ·30 pgs.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · E X H I B I T S· (Continued.)
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·EXHIBIT· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·4· ·Exhibit Levy '356-2001· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·54
`
`·5· · · · · ·Declaration of John V. Levy, Ph.D.;
`
`·6· · · · · ·22 pgs.
`
`·7· ·Exhibit Levy '356-1009· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 131
`
`·8· · · · · ·Tso United States Patent 6,085,201,
`
`·9· · · · · ·10 pgs.
`
`10· ·Exhibit Levy '356-1004· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 141
`
`11· · · · · ·Pandit United States Patent 5,859,636;
`
`12· · · · · ·16 pgs.
`
`13· ·Exhibit Levy '356-16· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 111
`
`14· · · · · ·Patent Owner Arendi S.A.R.L.'s Response
`
`15· · · · · ·Under 37 C.F.R. 42.120; 47 pgs.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2015
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·9:32 A.M.
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Good morning.· We're on
`
`·8· ·the record.
`
`·9· · · · · ·This is the video recorded deposition of
`
`10· ·Dr. John Levy.· In the matter of Google, Inc., et al.,
`
`11· ·versus Arendi S.A.R.L.· Case Nos. IPR 201400450 and
`
`12· ·IPR 201400452.· Taken on behalf of petitioners.
`
`13· · · · · ·This deposition is taking place at
`
`14· ·Turner Boyd LLP, at 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640,
`
`15· ·Redwood City, California 94063, on January 8, 2015, at
`
`16· ·9:32 a.m.
`
`17· · · · · ·My name is Lynn Mari.· I'm the videographer
`
`18· ·with Aptus Court Reporting.
`
`19· · · · · ·Video and audio recording will be taking
`
`20· ·place unless all counsel have agreed to go off the
`
`21· ·record.
`
`22· · · · · ·Would all present please introduce
`
`23· ·themselves, beginning with the witness.
`
`24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm John Victor Levy, the
`
`25· ·deponent.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·MR. ASHER:· Robert Asher on behalf of Arendi.
`
`·2· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Robert Kent of Turner Boyd on
`
`·3· ·behalf of Google and Motorola, the petitioners.
`
`·4· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The certified court
`
`·5· ·reporter is Andrea Ignacio.
`
`·6· · · · · ·Would you please swear in the witness.
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · ·JOHN LEVY, Ph.D.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · ·having been sworn as a witness
`
`10· · · · · · by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·testified as follows:
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION BY MR. KENT
`
`14· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Q.· Good morning, Dr. Levy.
`
`15· · · ·A· ·Good morning, Mr. Kent.
`
`16· · · ·Q· ·You're under oath today just as if you were
`
`17· ·in court.
`
`18· · · · · ·Do you understand that?
`
`19· · · ·A· ·I do.
`
`20· · · ·Q· ·And you need to speak clearly and answer
`
`21· ·questions verbally, not by saying "uh-huh" or things
`
`22· ·like -- of that nature.
`
`23· · · · · ·Do you understand?
`
`24· · · ·A· ·Yes, I do.
`
`25· · · ·Q· ·We can take a break whenever you'd like, but
`
`
`
`·1· ·I just want to make sure that if there is a question
`
`·2· ·pending, you answer the question before we start the
`
`·3· ·break.
`
`·4· · · · · ·Is that fair?
`
`·5· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·We're going to be discussing technical
`
`·7· ·subject matter, and there may be times when you don't
`
`·8· ·understand the question I've asked.· If that happens,
`
`·9· ·I'll be glad to try and clarify.
`
`10· · · · · ·Will you let me know if you don't understand
`
`11· ·my question?
`
`12· · · ·A· ·I will.
`
`13· · · ·Q· ·Similarly, you may realize some additional
`
`14· ·information you forgot to mention or -- or just
`
`15· ·recently realized related to a question from a few
`
`16· ·minutes or even hours ago.· We can always go back to
`
`17· ·clarify things like that.
`
`18· · · · · ·Will you let me know if you need to change or
`
`19· ·clarify any of your previous answers?
`
`20· · · ·A· ·Yes, I will.
`
`21· · · ·Q· ·Are there any circumstances that would
`
`22· ·prevent you from offering full and accurate testimony
`
`23· ·today?
`
`24· · · ·A· ·No.
`
`25· · · ·Q· ·Any medications or illnesses?
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· ·No.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· ·Dr. Levy, we're here to discuss two
`
`·3· ·inter partes review proceedings, IPRs, today.
`
`·4· · · · · ·Do you understand that?
`
`·5· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·Throughout the course of the questioning, it
`
`·7· ·may be more logical or efficient to discuss some
`
`·8· ·matters that are in common or general and may apply to
`
`·9· ·both proceedings.
`
`10· · · · · ·If at any time you're unclear which IPR or
`
`11· ·patent I'm referring to, just let me know, and I'll
`
`12· ·try to clarify, if necessary; okay?
`
`13· · · ·A· ·Okay.
`
`14· · · ·Q· ·Could you describe your education for me,
`
`15· ·please.
`
`16· · · ·A· ·Yes.· I earned an undergraduate degree in
`
`17· ·engineering physics from Cornell University.· Graduate
`
`18· ·degrees of master's in electrical -- master of science
`
`19· ·in electrical engineering from California Institute of
`
`20· ·Technology, and a Ph.D. in computer science from
`
`21· ·Stanford University.
`
`22· · · ·Q· ·Could you tell me the dates or approximate
`
`23· ·dates for all of those.
`
`24· · · ·A· ·Yes.· They were, respectively, 1965, 1966,
`
`25· ·and 1973.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· ·Did you have any professional or industry
`
`·2· ·experience after you completed your education?
`
`·3· · · ·A· ·Yes.· I was employed by a number of firms,
`
`·4· ·beginning with Digital Equipment Corporation in 1972.
`
`·5· ·Subsequently with Tandem Computers in Cupertino,
`
`·6· ·California beginning in 1977.· Apple Computer in 1979.
`
`·7· ·And after Apple, I was an independent consultant for
`
`·8· ·ten years.· And then I was employed for six years by
`
`·9· ·Quantum Corporation in Milpitas, California.· And then
`
`10· ·after that, I became a consultant again.
`
`11· · · ·Q· ·Can you tell me the date range for your work
`
`12· ·at Quantum.
`
`13· · · ·A· ·Yes.· I had done consulting for Quantum prior
`
`14· ·to my employment there.· But I became an employee in
`
`15· ·January 1993 and was employed there through October of
`
`16· ·1998.
`
`17· · · ·Q· ·Let's discuss your consulting there before
`
`18· ·you became a formal employee.
`
`19· · · ·A· ·Okay.
`
`20· · · ·Q· ·What was the approximate date range on that?
`
`21· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· I was introduced to Quantum
`
`22· ·shortly after I became a consultant in 1983.· And I
`
`23· ·did various consulting jobs for Quantum between 1983
`
`24· ·and 1992, but not continuously.· So I had multiple
`
`25· ·engagements there, but I was not continuously engaged.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· ·Do you know approximately what proportion of
`
`·2· ·your work was done for Quantum in the years leading up
`
`·3· ·to your commencement as a formal employee?
`
`·4· · · ·A· ·Well, Quantum was one of my -- the three
`
`·5· ·largest clients or major clients that I had during
`
`·6· ·that ten-year period.· I would estimate that, compared
`
`·7· ·to full time, not more than 10 percent of my time in
`
`·8· ·that ten-year period was dedicated to Quantum.
`
`·9· · · ·Q· ·So let's discuss the period when you were a
`
`10· ·formal employee beginning in, I think you said, 1993
`
`11· ·and going through 1998; is that right?
`
`12· · · ·A· ·That's right.
`
`13· · · ·Q· ·What were your tasks at Quantum during that
`
`14· ·period?
`
`15· · · ·A· ·Well, I had proposed to Quantum's VP of R&D
`
`16· ·that we -- that Quantum create a new department called
`
`17· ·systems engineering.· And essentially, they hired me
`
`18· ·to create and manage that department.
`
`19· · · · · ·So that department had three different
`
`20· ·aspects to its engineering work.
`
`21· · · · · ·It was managing the evolution or development
`
`22· ·of the hardware interfaces, which were ATA and SCSI --
`
`23· ·that's SCH -- S-C-S-I -- interfaces.
`
`24· · · · · ·We also were developing firmware testing
`
`25· ·tools and exercisers, if you like, for the hard disk
`
`
`
`·1· ·drive firmware.
`
`·2· · · · · ·And we also managed all of -- anything that
`
`·3· ·had to do with software and performance for the hard
`
`·4· ·disk drives, including working with Microsoft and
`
`·5· ·others on hard disk drivers and caching and things
`
`·6· ·like that.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· ·And just to provide some context, actually,
`
`·8· ·can you describe for me what sort of company Quantum
`
`·9· ·was at that time.
`
`10· · · ·A· ·It was a hard disk drive manufacturer.
`
`11· ·Sorry.
`
`12· · · ·Q· ·And what was the nature of soft -- the
`
`13· ·software that was needed for Quantum?· What kind of
`
`14· ·soft- -- software did they need you and your team to
`
`15· ·design and build?
`
`16· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· Aside from the firmware
`
`17· ·aspects which were embedded in the hard disk drive,
`
`18· ·the software things we did were a number of things.
`
`19· · · · · ·One was a simulation of the hard disk drive
`
`20· ·performance using a discrete event simulator.· And so
`
`21· ·we would use a parametric model of the disk drive
`
`22· ·mechanics and electronics, and then run industry
`
`23· ·standard benchmarks against that model in order to
`
`24· ·predict the performance of disk drives that had not
`
`25· ·yet been built.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·We also were involved in understanding the
`
`·2· ·operating system context of the disk drives in both
`
`·3· ·Macintosh and Windows type environments, and deal with
`
`·4· ·software issues that might be helped by someone with
`
`·5· ·disk drive knowledge when those inquiries came in.
`
`·6· · · · · ·There were some other aspects I personally
`
`·7· ·dealt with later where we were developing a hard disk
`
`·8· ·drive design for use with a -- in the consumer space,
`
`·9· ·which would record and play back video streams without
`
`10· ·a computer involved.· So it had a command set that
`
`11· ·would allow it to receive streams over the FireWire
`
`12· ·interface and respond to them.
`
`13· · · ·Q· ·Going back to the operating system context
`
`14· ·you referred to, what is the operating system context
`
`15· ·for a hard drive, generally speaking?
`
`16· · · ·A· ·Well, the operating systems, of course, have
`
`17· ·what they call drivers for their peripherals.· And
`
`18· ·hard disk drives are a very important peripheral
`
`19· ·because so much of the system storage is there.
`
`20· · · · · ·Those drivers are written by people at the
`
`21· ·various operating system companies, and also some --
`
`22· ·some of them by independent people.
`
`23· · · · · ·Those drivers are really a couple of levels
`
`24· ·on -- one at file system level and another at a very
`
`25· ·low level, which is dealing with the hardware.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·And so we would consult with and sometimes
`
`·2· ·actually help the people at places like Microsoft with
`
`·3· ·design or refinement of those hard disk drivers.
`
`·4· · · ·Q· ·And to be clear, Microsoft provided at least
`
`·5· ·one of the operating systems that your team was
`
`·6· ·concerned with?
`
`·7· · · ·A· ·Yes.· I mean, in terms of the -- the
`
`·8· ·mid-1990s, the Windows operating system was the most
`
`·9· ·prevalent one in the commercial world.
`
`10· · · ·Q· ·And that was one of the operating systems
`
`11· ·that your -- you and your teams were working with then
`
`12· ·at that time?
`
`13· · · ·A· ·We worked with it in the sense that I just
`
`14· ·described, yes.
`
`15· · · ·Q· ·Can you tell me more about your specific
`
`16· ·tasks at Quantum, you personally.
`
`17· · · ·A· ·Well, I did all of the hiring of the initial
`
`18· ·dozen or so employees.· Later when the group grew, I
`
`19· ·hired managers to -- or promoted managers to run
`
`20· ·three -- the three separate parts of it.· So I was
`
`21· ·managing three managers plus a small staff when the
`
`22· ·group got to a total of 27 people.
`
`23· · · · · ·So in the early days, I was personally
`
`24· ·involved with pretty much all of the design aspects of
`
`25· ·things like firmware testing tools.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·I was directly involved in the evolution of
`
`·2· ·the ATA hardware interface and had some other
`
`·3· ·consultants I brought in on analog electronic issues.
`
`·4· · · · · ·But we developed the -- what was called the
`
`·5· ·Ultra ATA or 33, which was a whole redesign of the
`
`·6· ·hardware interface of the ATA system.
`
`·7· · · · · ·So let's see.· And I generally worked with
`
`·8· ·the hard disk drive design people, particularly the
`
`·9· ·controller aspects of the hard disk drive, the things
`
`10· ·that move the data in and out, and did the caching in
`
`11· ·the disk drive, things like that.· So I was kind of an
`
`12· ·internal consultant for those people at Quantum.
`
`13· · · ·Q· ·So you were saying in the early days, you
`
`14· ·were involved in all aspects of several of those
`
`15· ·projects?
`
`16· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`17· · · ·Q· ·Did you personally do the programming?
`
`18· · · ·A· ·No.
`
`19· · · ·Q· ·Did you supervise others who were doing the
`
`20· ·programming?
`
`21· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · ·Q· ·Did you do the software design or part of it?
`
`23· · · ·A· ·Some of it.
`
`24· · · ·Q· ·And in your understanding, how -- what is the
`
`25· ·breakdown between software design and programming?
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· I think we would need to
`
`·2· ·establish some context there.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· ·Well, in the context of your work at Quantum
`
`·4· ·and, for instance, the hard drive input/output
`
`·5· ·software.
`
`·6· · · ·A· ·Well, in my mind, the term "programming"
`
`·7· ·refers to the -- the overall process of actually
`
`·8· ·laying down code and testing it and making sure it
`
`·9· ·works properly.
`
`10· · · · · ·Software design can include anything from
`
`11· ·high-level architecture down to the actual
`
`12· ·flowcharting of low-level code.· So that covers a fair
`
`13· ·range of possibilities.
`
`14· · · ·Q· ·And I'm sorry.· I think you said you started
`
`15· ·with a dozen employees, approximately, in that
`
`16· ·division?
`
`17· · · ·A· ·What I said was, I know that I was directly
`
`18· ·involved in the selection and hiring of at least the
`
`19· ·first dozen employees.
`
`20· · · ·Q· ·Okay.
`
`21· · · ·A· ·And after that, there were managers
`
`22· ·involved -- other managers involved that I hired.
`
`23· · · ·Q· ·Do you know about how many programmers there
`
`24· ·were implementing the designs that you and your team
`
`25· ·came up with?
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· ·At Quantum?
`
`·2· · · ·Q· ·Yeah, in your division.
`
`·3· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· I had about three or
`
`·4· ·four individuals who I would call software specialists
`
`·5· ·of one sort or another.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·And even if you didn't program yourself, did
`
`·7· ·you supervise their programming work?
`
`·8· · · ·A· ·Sometimes.
`
`·9· · · ·Q· ·Was part of their task to implement the
`
`10· ·designs that you came up with?
`
`11· · · ·A· ·Well, I typically didn't do the initial
`
`12· ·designs.· I usually did the conceptual work of, here's
`
`13· ·what kind of a simulator we want, or here's what kind
`
`14· ·of a driver we need to run this suite of tests against
`
`15· ·the firmware, that kind of thing.
`
`16· · · · · ·But that was just overall guidance, kind of
`
`17· ·the way a research director might advise people on
`
`18· ·developing things.
`
`19· · · ·Q· ·So there was another layer of design maybe
`
`20· ·below your conceptual overview before it got to
`
`21· ·programming?
`
`22· · · ·A· ·Well, I think that depended on the individual
`
`23· ·and the task.
`
`24· · · · · ·For example, I had one very capable young
`
`25· ·Russian programmer who would not report to anyone
`
`
`
`·1· ·else.· And so he directly reported to me, and I
`
`·2· ·supervised his work.· So that means that I reviewed
`
`·3· ·his algorithms and his flowcharts and his code and
`
`·4· ·things like that.
`
`·5· · · · · ·Whereas for other people, I allowed the --
`
`·6· ·there was a little more latitude, or there was another
`
`·7· ·manager in between me and the individual doing the
`
`·8· ·programming.
`
`·9· · · ·Q· ·And with regard to the programmers and
`
`10· ·software engineers in your department, what specific
`
`11· ·kind of tasks do they do -- did they do at that time?
`
`12· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· They ranged from firmware
`
`13· ·specialists who were helping to develop the tests for
`
`14· ·our firmware to be used by the firmware developers in
`
`15· ·the product divisions.· One particular software guy
`
`16· ·who developed the simulation programs for the
`
`17· ·parametric model I described.· The Russian fellow I
`
`18· ·referred to was doing development of caching
`
`19· ·algorithms to be -- to help optimize the performance
`
`20· ·of the disk drives.
`
`21· · · · · ·There was at least one more, but I think he
`
`22· ·had to do with the -- the testing tools.· We developed
`
`23· ·a mobile cart with two PCs on it that would run the
`
`24· ·firmware emulator on one of the systems and a test
`
`25· ·generator and driver on the other system so that the
`
`
`
`·1· ·firmware developers could test their code.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· ·And when those engineers and programmers were
`
`·3· ·doing their jobs, could they simply follow a manual or
`
`·4· ·a set of rules to do all of their tasks?
`
`·5· · · ·A· ·Well, I think that's a subject that we could
`
`·6· ·spend a lot of time debating.· I'm not quite sure what
`
`·7· ·the intent of that question is.
`
`·8· · · · · ·Are you asking whether they -- it should be
`
`·9· ·an exempt position or -- or not?
`
`10· · · ·Q· ·Well, were they given tasks and required to
`
`11· ·do tasks that required creativity and problem solving,
`
`12· ·or was it all rote implementation of a set of rules?
`
`13· · · ·A· ·Within my group, I tended to -- I hired
`
`14· ·people who were capable of doing the creative and
`
`15· ·design work needed to implement solutions.
`
`16· · · ·Q· ·Did you work with any people who were
`
`17· ·pretty -- pretty recently out of school with an EE or
`
`18· ·CS degree?
`
`19· · · ·A· ·In the last year at Quantum -- in my last
`
`20· ·year at Quantum, I did hire a second Russian
`
`21· ·programmer who had just received a master's degree in
`
`22· ·Moscow.
`
`23· · · ·Q· ·But prior to that, how much experience did
`
`24· ·your team have when you worked with them?
`
`25· · · ·A· ·Well, that varied by the individual.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· ·Could you give me an approximate range, if
`
`·2· ·you recall?
`
`·3· · · ·A· ·I actually don't recall right now.· This was
`
`·4· ·quite a while ago.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· ·How many times have you been engaged as a
`
`·6· ·litigation consultant?
`
`·7· · · ·A· ·At least 50.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· ·And how many times have you had your
`
`·9· ·deposition taken?
`
`10· · · ·A· ·I think it's around 20.
`
`11· · · ·Q· ·And how many times have you testified at a
`
`12· ·trial or other hearing?
`
`13· · · ·A· ·Seven.
`
`14· · · ·Q· ·And going back to your engagements as a
`
`15· ·litigation consultant overall, what proportion of
`
`16· ·those were for patent-related cases?
`
`17· · · ·A· ·I think about 95 percent.
`
`18· · · ·Q· ·How about among the ones where you had your
`
`19· ·deposition taken?· What proportion were related to
`
`20· ·patent cases?
`
`21· · · ·A· ·I think all of them -- no, I take that back.
`
`22· ·There was a personal injury case where I was deposed.
`
`23· · · ·Q· ·And of the times where you testified at a
`
`24· ·trial or other hearing, what proportion of those were
`
`25· ·related to patent cases?
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· I know of one example that
`
`·2· ·was a contract dispute, so that was not a patent case.
`
`·3· ·I believe that all the rest were patent cases.
`
`·4· · · · · ·I'm sorry.· The -- there was one that was an
`
`·5· ·arbitration proceeding, and that was also a contract
`
`·6· ·dispute.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· ·Can you please tell me what work you've done
`
`·8· ·in the IPRs of the '356 and '853 patents.
`
`·9· · · ·A· ·What work I've done?· Could you clarify that,
`
`10· ·please.
`
`11· · · ·Q· ·Sure.
`
`12· · · · · ·Have you reviewed any documents?
`
`13· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`14· · · ·Q· ·Which ones?
`
`15· · · ·A· ·The patents at issue, the documents that were
`
`16· ·cited in the petition that have been sustained for the
`
`17· ·review.
`
`18· · · ·Q· ·What else?
`
`19· · · ·A· ·My own declaration.
`
`20· · · ·Q· ·Anything else?
`
`21· · · ·A· ·Nothing that I recall at the moment.
`
`22· · · ·Q· ·Did you rely on any of those documents you
`
`23· ·reviewed in forming your opinions that you stated in
`
`24· ·the declarations?
`
`25· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· ·Which ones that you recall?
`
`·2· · · ·A· ·The patents and the -- the cited patents and
`
`·3· ·the patents at issue.
`
`·4· · · ·Q· ·Anything else?
`
`·5· · · ·A· ·I don't recall at the moment.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·Did you review the declarations of Dennis
`
`·7· ·Allison associated with these IPRs?
`
`·8· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·9· · · ·Q· ·Did you conduct any experiments in
`
`10· ·association with these IPRs?
`
`11· · · ·A· ·Let's see.· I believe there was one, yes.
`
`12· · · ·Q· ·Was there anything -- any experiments besides
`
`13· ·the one mentioned in your declaration?
`
`14· · · ·A· ·No.
`
`15· · · ·Q· ·And as we discussed, there are two IPRs that
`
`16· ·we're discussing today, and so there's two
`
`17· ·declarations that you filed.
`
`18· · · · · ·Do you understand that?
`
`19· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`20· · · ·Q· ·How much time, approximately, did you spend
`
`21· ·preparing each of those declarations?
`
`22· · · ·A· ·Oh, I'm sorry.· I meant to look up my billing
`
`23· ·records before I came in today, and I neglected to do
`
`24· ·that.
`
`25· · · · · ·I would estimate ten to 15 hours for the two.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· ·Ten to 15 hours combined for --
`
`·2· · · ·A· ·Yeah.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· ·-- both of them?
`
`·4· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· ·Other than your preparation of those
`
`·6· ·declarations -- oh, and -- I'm sorry.· Actually,
`
`·7· ·strike that question.
`
`·8· · · · · ·So --
`
`·9· · · ·A· ·Oh, by the way -- I'm sorry -- I presume
`
`10· ·you're referring to the -- the current declarations,
`
`11· ·as opposed to anything prior to my previous
`
`12· ·declarations?
`
`13· · · ·Q· ·Could you clarify what you mean "current" and
`
`14· ·"prior," please.
`
`15· · · ·A· ·Well, I believe that there is a declaration
`
`16· ·of mine that was dated October something, 20th.
`
`17· · · · · ·And so I -- I believe -- I assumed you were
`
`18· ·asking about since that time, how much time did I
`
`19· ·spend preparing these declarations?
`
`20· · · ·Q· ·Okay.· So I'm going to -- so when I was
`
`21· ·referring to "these," I meant the -- the two
`
`22· ·declarations for the '853 patent and the '356 patent.
`
`23· · · ·A· ·Okay.· Then we were in accord in our
`
`24· ·understanding.
`
`25· · · ·Q· ·Okay.· But I was a little concerned by your
`
`
`
`·1· ·answer just now because it seemed like you were maybe
`
`·2· ·giving me the number of hours after preparing those
`
`·3· ·depo -- declarations.
`
`·4· · · · · ·I meant, how much time did you spend
`
`·5· ·preparing the declarations themselves?
`
`·6· · · ·A· ·I understand that.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· ·Okay.
`
`·8· · · ·A· ·And I was answering with regard to a prior
`
`·9· ·declaration which is not at issue in this deposition.
`
`10· · · ·Q· ·Okay.· So does your ten- to 15-hour estimate
`
`11· ·hold then for the two that are at issue here?
`
`12· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`13· · · ·Q· ·Okay.· And I actually did want to follow up
`
`14· ·on that concerning the experiment that you referred
`
`15· ·to.
`
`16· · · · · ·Is that included in the ten- to 15-hour time
`
`17· ·window?
`
`18· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`19· · · ·Q· ·Other than preparing the declarations, how
`
`20· ·much time did you spend preparing for this deposition?
`
`21· · · ·A· ·About six hours.
`
`22· · · ·Q· ·When was that?
`
`23· · · ·A· ·Monday and yesterday.
`
`24· · · ·Q· ·And without disclosing the contents of any
`
`25· ·communications you've had with your counsel, what did
`
`
`
`·1· ·you do to prepare for the deposition?
`
`·2· · · ·A· ·Well, on Monday I reviewed my two
`
`·3· ·declarations and the documents referred to by them,
`
`·4· ·made some notes.· And then on -- yesterday, which was
`
`·5· ·Wednesday, I reviewed them with counsel.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·Did you review any documents other than your
`
`·7· ·declarations and the documents referred to therein?
`
`·8· · · ·A· ·No -- oh, I'm sorry.· I did also in -- on
`
`·9· ·Monday review the transcript of my prior deposition.
`
`10· · · ·Q· ·When you say your "prior deposition," are you
`
`11· ·referring to the one taken by Apple a couple of months
`
`12· ·ago?
`
`13· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`14· · · ·Q· ·You were speaking of taking some notes during
`
`15· ·your preparation this -- this week.
`
`16· · · · · ·Did you -- did you rely on those notes at all
`
`17· ·in forming any opinions about this case?
`
`18· · · ·A· ·No.
`
`19· · · ·Q· ·Are you aware that Arendi has asserted
`
`20· ·infringement of the '853 and '356 patents by several
`
`21· ·parties?
`
`22· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`23· · · ·Q· ·Did you review Arendi's infringement
`
`24· ·allegations at any time?
`
`25· · · ·A· ·No.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q· ·Do you know whether you're applying the claim
`
`·2· ·language in the '853 and '356 patents in the same way
`
`·3· ·that Arendi does in its infringement case?
`
`·4· · · ·A· ·I don't know.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· ·The '853 and '356 patents are related; right?
`
`·6· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·7· · · ·Q· ·And they're part of the same patent family?
`
`·8· · · ·A· ·I think that's a fair way to put it.
`
`·9· · · ·Q· ·In your understanding, what does it mean for
`
`10· ·patents to be related or part of the same family?
`
`11· · · ·A· ·Well, I don't know of any technical or legal
`
`12· ·meaning to that.· But in my mind, they're related when
`
`13· ·they either share a dis- -- a specification, or they
`
`14· ·have a lot of common features in terms of the
`
`15· ·technology or inventions disclosed.
`
`16· · · ·Q· ·So sharing a specification is one way for
`
`17· ·patents to be related, in your understanding?
`
`18· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`19· · · ·Q· ·Do you know -- do you happen to know how many
`
`20· ·patents there are in the family that includes the '356
`
`21· ·and the '853 patents?
`
`22· · · ·A· ·Well, let's see.· I've -- since I've been
`
`23· ·involved in, I think, five IPRs, I really -- I believe
`
`24· ·that there are at least five patents, although I'm not
`
`25· ·sure of that.· At least four, anyway, but I don't know
`
`
`
`·1· ·the exact number.
`
`·2· · · ·Q· ·How many of them have you personally seen?
`
`·3· · · ·A· ·The patents?
`
`·4· · · ·Q· ·The patents in this family.
`
`·5· · · ·A· ·I think it's been four.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·The disclosure of both the '853 and
`
`·7· ·'356 patents included a couple of flow diagrams; is
`
`·8· ·that right?· Do you recall that?
`
`·9· · · ·A· ·I -- I'll take your word for it.· It would be
`
`10· ·better if I checked to take a look at them.
`
`11· · · ·Q· ·Okay.· It's probably as good a time as any to
`
`12· ·enter the patents then.
`
`13· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· So I will mark two exhibits.· They
`
`14· ·are both denoted Exhibit 1001 in the respective
`
`15· ·proceedings.· As we discussed earlier off the record,
`
`16· ·they'll be labeled as Levy '853-1001 and Levy
`
`17· ·'356-1001.
`
`18· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry, Counsel.· I need
`
`19· ·clarification.
`
`20· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Okay.
`
`21· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· The first one, is it this one?
`
`22· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· This is Exhibit '853-1001, and the
`
`23· ·second one is Exhibit '353-1001.
`
`24· · · · · ·MR. ASHER:· '356.
`
`25· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Sorry.· That's right.· '356.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·(Documents marked Exhibit Levy '853-1001 &
`
`·2· · · · · · Levy '356-1001 for identification.)
`
`·3· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Q.· Dr. Levy, you have before you
`
`·4· ·the two patents at issue in these IPRs; is that right?
`
`·5· · · ·A· ·I have the '356 and the '853 patents, yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q· ·And to be clear, do you understand those to
`
`·7· ·be the ones that are at issue in these two IPRs that
`
`·8· ·we're discussing today?
`
`·9· · · ·A· ·Yes, I do.
`
`10· · · ·Q· ·And the -- my question prior to marking these
`
`11· ·as exhibits was that -- is whether or not the two
`
`12· ·patents have a couple of flow diagrams as part of the
`
`13· ·figures; is that right?
`
`14· · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`15· · · · · ·And the answer to that is yes, they do.
`
`16· · · ·Q· ·And is it your opinion that the claims of
`
`17· ·these patents cannot deviate from the diagrams?
`
`18· · · · · ·MR. ASHER:· Objection; foundation.
`
`19· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm not quite sure I understand
`
`20· ·that question.
`
`21· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Q.· Well, do the claims of the
`
`22· ·patents have to hew [sic] exactly to the flowcharts of
`
`23· ·the diagram?
`
`24· · · ·A· ·Well --
`
`25· · · · · ·MR. ASHER:· Objection.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· My understanding of the
`
`·2· ·flowcharts is that those are the portion of the
`
`·3· ·specification which describe an embodiment.· And,
`
`·4· ·therefore, they're not the same as the claims.· And
`
`·5· ·the claims are not constrained to an embodiment.
`
`·6· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Q.· Does a claim have to have all
`
`·7· ·the steps that are depicted in that figure?
`
`·8· · · · · ·MR. ASHER:· Objection; foundation; vague.
`
`·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I -- I guess I don't understand
`
`10· ·that, either.
`
`11· · · · · ·My understanding of the claims is the claims
`
`12· ·depict the claimed invention, whereas the figures and
`
`13· ·the specification describe various embodiments for --
`
`14· ·and essentially, the technology.· So they're --
`
`15· ·they're distinct.
`
`16· · · · · ·MR. KENT:· Q.· And I'm trying to kind of
`
`17· ·elucidate some of those distinctions.
`
`18· · · ·A· ·Okay.
`
`19· · · ·Q· ·And I'd like to know, in your own
`
`20· ·understanding, if the claims of a patent need to
`
`21· ·include all the steps that are depicted in the
`
`22· ·figures?
`
`23· · · · · ·MR. ASHER:· Objection; foundation; relevance.
`
`24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, let's see.· My
`
`25· ·understanding is that the -- you know, one could put
`
`
`
`·1· ·in any number
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
