In The Matter Of:
`
`SAMSUNG
`v.
` BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - Vol. 1
`January 15, 2015
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG
`v.
` BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - Vol. 1
`January 15, 2015
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL BOARD
`
`----------------------------------------------------
`
`IN THE MATTER OF:
`
`SAMSUNG,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`----------------------------------------------------
`
`Patent Number 8,050,652 Case Number IPR 2014-00737
`
`Patent Number 8,050,952 Case Number IPR 2014-00740
`
`----------------------------------------------------
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D.
`
` Taken by the Defendant
` Chapel Hill, North Carolina
`
` January 15, 2015
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF SAMSUNG:
`
`ANDREA G. REISTER, ESQUIRE
`COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW Washington DC 20001 202.662.5141
`
`ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC:
`
`THOMAS J. ENGELLENNER, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW W. SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE
`PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`617.204.5100
`
` Videotaped deposition of KEVIN
`
`JEFFAY, Ph.D., taken by the defendant at Aloft, 1001
`
`South Hamilton Road in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
`
`January 15, 2015 at 8:34 a.m., before Audra M. Smith,
`
`RPR, FCRR, Stenographic Reporter, and Scott Swing,
`
`Videographer.
`
`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
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
`THE WITNESS: KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D PAGE
`
` Examination by Mr. Engellenner 6
`
` Examination by Ms. Reister 193
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1 Deposition Notice 7
`
`Exhibit 2 Deposition Notice 7
`
`Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent 8,050,652 8
`
`Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent 8,045,952 9
`
`Exhibit 5 Curriculum Vitae 10
`
`Exhibit 6 Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
` of '652 patent 26
`
`Exhibit 7 Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
` of the '952 patent 26
`
`Exhibit 8 Expert report from ITC 33
`
`Exhibit 9 Petition for Inter Parte's Review
`
` U.S. Patent 8,050,652 47
`
`Exhibit 10 Petition for Inter Parte's Review
`
` U.S. Patent '952 47
`
`Exhibit 11 Culbertson patent 77
`
`Exhibit 12 Board's opinion 102
`
`Exhibit 13 Microsoft Windows Media Player 7
`
` handbook 131
`
`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
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 14 Hacker excerpt of publication 136
`
`Exhibit 15 White patent 156
`
`Exhibit 16 Berman patent 157
`
`Exhibit 17 U.S. Patent 6,199,076 172
`
`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
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Starting of Number
`
`1 on the record at 8:34 a.m. This is the videotaped
`
`deposition of Kevin Jeffay. This is in the United
`
`States Patent Trial Board two patent numbers. Case
`
`Number IPR 2014-00737, Patent Number 8,050,652. The
`
`second one is Case Number IPR 2014-00740. Patent
`
`Number 8,045,952. Today's date and time are
`
`indicated on the video screen. We're located today
`
`at 1001 South Hamilton Road in Chapel Hill, North
`
`Carolina. The court reporter today is Audra Smith.
`
`My name is Scott Swing. I'm the videographer.
`
`We're both here on behalf of Merrill Corporation,
`
`Boston in Boston, Massachusetts.
`
` At this time, counsel will verbally
`
`introduce themselves starting with the noticing
`
`attorney first, please.
`
` MR. ENGELLENNER: Thomas Engellenner,
`
`Pepper Hamilton representing the patent owner in
`
`both instances.
`
` MR. SCHULTZ: Andrew Schultz with
`
`Pepper Hamilton on behalf of the patent owner.
`
` MS. REISTER: Andrea Reister with
`
`Covington Burling representing the petitioner
`
`Samsung in both cases.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: At this time, our
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`court reporter will swear the witness for the
`
`record, please.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Would you please
`
`raise your right hand please.
`
` Do you swear or affirm the testimony
`
`you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth
`
`and nothing but the truth?
`
` THE WITNESS: I do.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We may proceed,
`
`counselors.
`
` * * * * *
`
` KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D.,
`
`was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Thank you for coming, Professor Jeffay.
`
`Could you state your full name and residential
`
`address.
`
` A. My full name is just Kevin Jeffay, and my
`
`address is 207 Faison in Chapel Hill, North
`
`Carolina.
`
` Q. I'm going to mark a few exhibits. I'd ask
`
`the court reporter to mark a few exhibits and
`
`question you on them, if you don't mind.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
` (Exhibit No. 1 and 2 were marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` MS. REISTER: Are you going to mark
`
`these sequentially? Are we going to use any of the
`
`exhibits from the --
`
` MR. ENGELLENNER: My plan is to mark
`
`them sequentially and attach them to the deposition
`
`and file it.
`
` MS. REISTER: Okay.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. So you have before you two exhibits marked
`
`1 and 2, and they are deposition notices. You
`
`received these notices?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. Were you told by counsel that you -- that
`
`they have been served with these notices?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You understand you're appearing here today
`
`pursuant to these notices?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I'm going to take a break every hour or so
`
`if that's okay with you?
`
` A. Perfect.
`
` Q. But if you need a break at any point in
`
`time, please feel free to let me know. I'll be
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`happy to break. I only ask you to answer any
`
`question that's been posed before we break.
`
` A. Sure. Thank you.
`
` Q. Is there any reason why you cannot testify
`
`fully and accurately today?
`
` A. None that I know of.
`
` Q. Two more documents I'm going to ask the
`
`court reporter to mark.
`
` MS. REISTER: Could you please let me
`
`know which patent is which exhibit number?
`
` MR. ENGELLENNER: Sure.
`
` (Exhibit No. 3 was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. The court reporter has marked as Exhibit
`
`3, U.S. Patent 8,050,652. Do you recognize this
`
`patent, Professor Jeffay?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And is it a patent on which you have
`
`opined?
`
` A. It appears to be, yes.
`
` Q. And would you agree it is the patent at
`
`issue in the inter parte's review proceeding
`
`2014-00737?
`
` A. If you'll forgive me, but I haven't
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`internalized that number, but I understand this is
`
`one of the patents for one of the proceedings.
`
` Q. To make it a little easier, I'm going to
`
`take the proceedings one at a time. The first
`
`proceeding I'll just refer to as the last three
`
`digits of the numbers, so the '737. And just for
`
`the record, it does concern the patent that I will
`
`also refer to simply by its last three digits '652.
`
` A. Yes, I understand that.
`
` Q. And you have before you also a second U.S.
`
`Patent, Exhibit Label 4. It's U.S. patented
`
`8,055 -- excuse me '045,952; is that correct?
`
` (Exhibit No. 4 was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And do you recall also opining on this
`
`patent?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And this patent is the patent at issue in
`
`the other proceeding that we're going to be
`
`examining you on today, the '740 proceeding; is that
`
`your understanding?
`
` A. That is my understanding.
`
` Q. Thank you. One more document and then
`
`we'll get started in earnest. Did I give you all
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`three?
`
` A. No, this one is just one, I think.
`
` Q. Exhibit 5 that the court reporter has just
`
`marked is your CV; is that not correct?
`
` (Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. And this CV was attached to -- or
`
`submitted with each of your declarations in these
`
`two proceedings; is that correct?
`
` A. That's my understanding.
`
` Q. Okay. You've been retained by Samsung or
`
`counsel as an expert in these '737 and '740
`
`proceedings; is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Were you retained by Samsung directly or
`
`were you retained by counsel?
`
` A. I would say my understanding is my
`
`agreement is with Covington, so I think that's
`
`through counsel.
`
` Q. And so you submit your bills to Covington?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. What is your hourly rate?
`
` A. I think -- for this matter, I think it's
`
`$550 an hour.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
` Q. And do you have any sense as to how many
`
`hours you've worked on this project up until the
`
`point where your declarations were submitted?
`
` A. That's certainly a noble -- there's a
`
`noble answer there, and I keep track of the hours.
`
`I don't have a number in my head.
`
` Q. I'm just looking for a ballpark number.
`
`Was it several days, several weeks?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Compound.
`
` A. My recollection is it's certainly far
`
`closer to several days than several weeks.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Thank you. And I believe your declaration
`
`states you served as an expert in patent proceedings
`
`before; is that correct?
`
` A. I don't recall if the declaration states
`
`that, but that is a true statement.
`
` Q. Okay. Your CV -- Exhibit Number 5 --
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. -- includes -- starting on page 2 and
`
`continuing to most of page 3 -- a list of patent
`
`proceedings of one sort or another in which you have
`
`served as an expert; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. And it appears that you've served as an
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`expert witness or testifying witness in at least 16
`
`different engagements during the past four years; is
`
`that correct?
`
` A. If you're representing that -- if you
`
`count these it's 16, then, yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. I believe it's 16. I could be off by one
`
`or two.
`
` A. I -- the sense of your question is yes.
`
` Q. How many times have you been deposed in
`
`the past in connection with your role as an expert
`
`in patent litigation?
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: In connection
`
`with your what?
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Your role as an expert in patent
`
`litigation.
`
` A. If you're referring to just patent
`
`litigation, unfortunately that's a number I don't
`
`retain in my head.
`
` Q. Ballpark figure, if there were 15 or 16
`
`proceedings, were you deposed 16 times?
`
` A. I've certainly -- on all of these matters
`
`I was deposed on, and I've been deposed in other
`
`matters as well.
`
` Q. And did you testify during trials in these
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`matters also?
`
` A. By "these matters," you're referring to --
`
` Q. On 16 on page 2 and 3 of Exhibit 5.
`
` A. Sure. My understanding is that testifying
`
`is understood to include both deposition and trial,
`
`then the answer is yes. In all of these cases on
`
`pages 2 and 3, I provided testimony.
`
` Q. Are you normally on one side of patent
`
`disputes?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Vague.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. By that I mean, do you typically -- are
`
`you typically engaged to represent the defendant in
`
`a patent infringement suit?
`
` A. I don't know that there is a typical. I
`
`certainly have worked for patent owners, is the way
`
`I think of it, and people who have having patents
`
`asserted against them.
`
` Q. Uh-huh. Those would typically be the two
`
`options. I'm just wondering if you can recall any
`
`instances where you represented -- where -- were you
`
`retained by the patent owner?
`
` A. Yes, absolutely.
`
` Q. Anything on this list that comes to mind?
`
` A. If we look on page 3, the fourth full
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`entry that is Extreme Networks v. Enterasys, in that
`
`matter, Enterasys was the patent owner, and I
`
`provided expert services on behalf of Enterasys.
`
` The one right below that, Alcatel Lucent.
`
`Alcatel -- Alcatel Lucent was the patent owner, and
`
`I provided testimony on behalf of Alcatel Lucent.
`
` The next one F5 versus A10, I provided
`
`expert testimony on behalf of A10, and A10 was the
`
`patent owner, and I believe that is it.
`
` Q. So the majority of the time you've been
`
`asked to serve as an expert, it's been on behalf of
`
`the defendant or respondent in patent litigation?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Form.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. No, I would not agree with that.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Well, you've just identified three on this
`
`list of 16. It seems the remainder of the 13 is
`
`greater than three, so the majority of the time, did
`
`you represent the defendant or respondent in the
`
`patent litigation?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Excuse me. Not represent, were you
`
`engaged by the --
`
` A. The answer is still no.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
` Q. And why is that?
`
` A. I would just simply point out on page 2
`
`that this is an excerpt of a longer vitae. This is
`
`providing the experience within the last four years,
`
`and over the course of my career doing this sort of
`
`consulting, I'm pretty sure it's probably close to
`
`half and half, between patent owners and folks that
`
`have had patents asserted against them.
`
` Q. Okay. But during the past four years,
`
`would you agree with me that you have been
`
`predominantly representing the defendants in patent
`
`litigation, patent infringement litigation or
`
`respondents in ITC actions?
`
` A. I would have to go check some alternate
`
`documents to confirm. Again, this is -- these are
`
`just simply matters in which I provided testimony.
`
`These are not all the matters in which I have
`
`consulted in.
`
` Q. Okay. Now, one of the matters that's
`
`listed here is in a proceeding before the
`
`International Trade Commission, which I may refer to
`
`throughout this as ITC; is that okay with you?
`
` A. Perfectly fine.
`
` Q. And do you recall that proceeding?
`
` A. Well, I think there's a couple on here.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
` Q. The first one.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. In that proceeding, did you -- were you
`
`engaged by Samsung?
`
` A. I don't believe -- I would have to check.
`
`What I can say I was initially retained by LG, and
`
`then later there was a desire for other defendants
`
`to retain me. Some of them actually had formal
`
`agreements and some did not, and I don't remember
`
`which bucket Samsung was in.
`
` Q. So in addition to LG, can you remember any
`
`of the others that utilized your testimony in this
`
`ITC action?
`
` A. I believe I listed them. In terms of
`
`using my testimony, I listed them on page 2 of the
`
`vitae, so all of the Samsung companies, the LG
`
`companies that were in the proceedings, Panasonic
`
`companies, Toshiba and Google.
`
` Q. And who paid your bills in these
`
`proceedings?
`
` A. The law firm of Finnegan Henderson.
`
` Q. Do you have a sense who they then billed
`
`your services to?
`
` A. I had some understanding they were working
`
`it out amongst the parties here. How that was done,
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`I have no idea.
`
` Q. So it could have been LG, it could have
`
`been Samsung, it could have been Google?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection to form.
`
` A. In theory, yes.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Now, this ITC proceeding, it involved the
`
`same patents that we're going to be examining you on
`
`today; is that correct?
`
` A. That's my recollection, yes.
`
` Q. And were the same issues raised?
`
` A. I'm not sure I understand what you're --
`
`exactly what you're referring to when you say "the
`
`same issues."
`
` Q. In your declarations -- which we haven't
`
`made a record yet, I'm sorry you opine on the
`
`invalidity of both of the patents here, the '652 and
`
`the '952. Just wondering if those opinions were
`
`also presented to the International Trade
`
`Commission?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Form.
`
`Compound.
`
` A. So I would say that my view is that I'm
`
`not opining on the ultimate question of validity
`
`here in these declarations; that my task was
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`narrower to just simply opine on some of the
`
`disclosures in these references. So in my mind, the
`
`analysis that was done in the ITC case was quite
`
`different from what was done for these declarations.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. So in the ITC proceedings, did you draw
`
`any conclusions as to the obviousness of the '652 or
`
`'952 patents?
`
` A. My recollection is I absolutely drew
`
`opinions about the validity of these two patents. I
`
`don't -- there were a larger number of references, a
`
`larger number of issues at stake, and I don't recall
`
`precisely which claims were -- whether -- I don't
`
`recall precisely all the conclusions in that
`
`analysis as to which claims, which patents were
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by which reference.
`
` Q. Do you understand that there is an overlap
`
`between the claims that are at issue in these
`
`proceedings before the Patent Office and the claims
`
`that were asserted by the complainant in the ITC
`
`action?
`
` A. Yes, I understand that.
`
` Q. And on those claims where there was an
`
`overlap, did you form an opinion of obviousness as
`
`to at least some of those claims?
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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. Again, I recall rendering opinions on all
`
`the claims that were asserted there, and I just
`
`don't recall which ones netted out as being obvious
`
`and which ones were anticipated.
`
` Q. What did you mean by "netted out"?
`
` A. The final conclusion of the analysis, of
`
`my analysis.
`
` Q. So you may have concluded that some of the
`
`claims in the ITC action were not obvious?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection.
`
`Mischaracterizes testimony.
`
` A. What I'm saying is I don't recall which
`
`claims were anticipated -- where my conclusion was.
`
`For each claim, I can't -- sitting here today
`
`without having reviewed that, I can't tell you
`
`precisely which claims I rendered an opinion as to
`
`anticipation or obviousness. I remember rendering a
`
`conclusion with respect to references that I used
`
`and to all the claims. I just don't know which ones
`
`were anticipated and which ones were obvious.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. What did you do to prepare for your
`
`testimony here today?
`
` A. I reviewed the declarations, I reviewed
`
`the -- whatever it's called, the preliminary
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`decision, the board's ruling, reviewed the prior art
`
`references at issue, and had meetings with Samsung's
`
`counsel.
`
` Q. You said "meetings" plural?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you have more than one meeting?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. In preparation for this deposition, you
`
`had more than one meeting?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Did you review your expert report in the
`
`ITC case in preparation for this deposition?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. Do you recall who you consulted with in
`
`preparing your expert report in the ITC action?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Outside the
`
`scope of the proceeding.
`
` A. I can certainly recall several of the
`
`individuals. I can -- I can start with the primary
`
`and work my way down, but there will certainly be
`
`others that were involved and names I'm not going to
`
`remember.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. I believe you testified that you were
`
`working with the Finnegan law firm at the time.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. So -- thank you. Sorry to speak over you.
`
` So apart from the Finnegan attorneys, was
`
`there anyone else that you can recall in the ITC
`
`action that you consulted with?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Outside the
`
`scope.
`
` A. So in the ITC proceedings, I believe each
`
`one of the entities -- each one of the collections
`
`of entities -- all the Samsungs being one entity,
`
`all the LGs being one entity -- that are listed on
`
`page two of my vitae, each one of them had their own
`
`attorney except for Google, and so I did meet -- or
`
`was -- participated in meetings where there was an
`
`attorney present for each of the defendants, each
`
`one of the collection of defendants.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. And Google did not have its own attorney?
`
`Was it relying upon the Finnegan firm?
`
` A. I --
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Scope.
`
` A. So -- so I won't actually say for certain
`
`Google -- my recollection is that Google did not
`
`have an attorney. In the meetings I was involved
`
`with, I don't believe there was a Google attorney
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`present.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Now, in connection with this -- the two
`
`proceedings that we're talking about today in which
`
`you were engaged by the Covington & Burling firm,
`
`was it your understanding that this engagement was
`
`on behalf of Samsung?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And by the word "Samsung," when I use it,
`
`I'm referring to the collection of entities that are
`
`listed in the proceedings. For the record, I could
`
`recite all their names, but if you understand what
`
`I'm talking about, I'll just continue to refer to
`
`the petitioner here as Samsung, if that's okay with
`
`you.
`
` A. I'm perfectly comfortable with you
`
`referring to them collectively as Samsung.
`
` Q. And apart from the attorneys at Covington
`
`& Burling, did you meet with anyone from Samsung in
`
`the preparation of your declaration testimony in
`
`these two proceedings?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you meet with anyone else or consult
`
`with anyone else in connection with your expert
`
`report for these proceedings?
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. What other engagements have you had on
`
`behalf of Samsung? I guess on behalf of Samsung.
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
` A. The one that comes to mind most clearly is
`
`the second entry on the list of testifying
`
`experience and page 2 of my vitae, and beyond that
`
`entry, I'd have to go back and consult all of the
`
`other matters that I worked on where there was no
`
`testimony. But I believe -- I believe it's a fair
`
`statement that I think there's just been that Apple,
`
`Samsung litigation and this -- this patent
`
`proceedings.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Okay. And this Apple versus Samsung case,
`
`that didn't turn out that well for Samsung, did it?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. I don't believe I'm at liberty to say.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. But there was a judgment of infringement
`
`and damage awards, correct?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. That's my understanding.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. And what was your role in that proceeding?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. I was an expert on behalf of Samsung for
`
`one patent in that case.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. And did you opine that the patent was
`
`anticipated or obvious?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. I did -- or some claims of patent were.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. And what was the outcome in that regard?
`
`Did the court find your opinions persuasive or were
`
`the Samsung defendants found to be infringers?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. I don't believe the court opined on the
`
`persuasiveness of my testimony.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Well, the court must have ruled that the
`
`patent was either invalid or not invalid?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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. Perhaps. I'm just not fully understanding
`
`your question, but my understanding is that it's --
`
`the ruling entity is the jury.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. Okay. So the jury must have found that
`
`the patent that you opined on was either valid or
`
`invalid; is that correct?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. Sorry. Correct.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. And in that particular instance, did they
`
`find that the patent was valid?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance
`
`and scope.
`
` A. For the claims at issue, they found that
`
`they were valid.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. I should correct myself, they probably
`
`found they were not invalid?
`
` MS. REISTER: Same objection.
`
` A. I'm going to -- I'm going to clip my mic
`
`back on. You obviously would know better than I
`
`what the -- what a typical charge would be to the
`
`jury. I just responded the way I internalized it.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. And you internalized it just -- again, to
`
`be perhaps say in layman's terms, the jury didn't
`
`accept your views?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope. Mischaracterizes the testimony.
`
` A. You know, the way I always view these
`
`things is the jury -- it's not about me. They're
`
`not being asked to opine on me or my views.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. But you're presenting testimony as an
`
`expert; isn't that correct?
`
` MS. REISTER: Objection. Relevance.
`
`Scope.
`
` A. It is.
`
`BY MR. ENGELLENNER:
`
` Q. I've asked the court reporter to mark as
`
`Exhibits 6 and 7, two documents that are entitled
`
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. Could you
`
`identify these documents for us?
`
` (Exhibit No. 6 and 7 were marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` A. Sure. Exhibit 6 is a declaration that was
`
`submitted with regard to the inter parte's review of
`
`the '652 patent, and Exhibit 7 is a declaration that
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`IPR2014-00737 BHM Ex. 2014
`
`
`
`KEVIN JEFFAY, Ph.D. - 1/15/2015
`
`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
`
`was submitted in regards to the inter parte's review
`
`of the '952 patent.
`
` Q. Did you write these expert declarations
`
`yourself?
`
` A. What I would say is the text in here is my
`
`text. I did not put the text into this document.
`
` Q. What was the process for drafting these
`
`declarations?
`
` A. I worked with attorneys at Covington to
`
`draft the declaration. The starting point, I
`
`believe, was documents that I had generated in
`
`the -- that were public that were generated in the
`
`ITC matter, and that was used to make a first draft
`
`of the declaration, and from there we iterated on
`
`the contents.
`
` Q. I'm not sure I understood you there. Did
`
`you say that you started from your opinions in the
`
`ITC expert report?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Maybe we could just read back that
`
`question and answer.
`
` I believe your answer was, The starting
`
`point, I believe, was the
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
