throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
` TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01102 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,228,077 )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01103 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,552,917 )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01104 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,414,761 )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01106 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,255,313 )
`--------------------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF THOMAS GAFFORD
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
` MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015
`
`Job No. 2103506
`Reported by:
`RICKI Q. MELTON, RPR
`CSR No. 9400
`PAGES 1 - 122
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
` TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 2
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01102 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,228,077 )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01103 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,552,917 )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01104 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,414,761 )
`--------------------------------
`Case No: IPR2014-01106 )
`U.S. Patent No: 5,255,313 )
`--------------------------------
`
` DEPOSITION of THOMAS GAFFORD, taken at 1840 Century
`Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, California,
`commencing at 9:07 A.M., Monday, July 13, 2015,
`before Ricki Q. Melton, CSR 9400, RPR 45429.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L :
`
` F O R T H E P E T I T I O N E R :
`
` S I D L E Y A U S T I N L L P
`
` B Y : P E T E R H . K A N G , E S Q .
`
` 1 0 0 P a g e M i l l R o a d
`
` B u i l d i n g 1
`
` P a l o A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 3 0 4
`
` ( 6 5 0 ) 5 6 5 - 7 0 0 6
`
` p k a n g @ s i d l e y . c o m
`
` F O R T H E P A T E N T O W N E R :
`
` G R E E N B E R G T R A U R I G L L P
`
` B Y : E R I C J . M A I E R S , E S Q .
`
` 7 7 W e s t W a c k e r D r i v e
`
` S u i t e 2 5 0 0
`
` C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 1
`
` ( 3 1 2 ) 4 5 6 - 1 0 3 6
`
` m a i e r s e @ g t l a w . c o m
`
` A L S O P R E S E N T :
`
` F E R E N C P A Z M A N D I
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
` I N D E X
`
`MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015
`
`Page 4
`
`WITNESS: EXAMINATION
`
`THOMAS GAFFORD
`
` (By Mr. Maiers) 7
`
` (P.M. Session) 97
`
` (By Mr. Wang) 100
`
` UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
`
` (None)
`
` INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
` (None)
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
`
` THOMAS GAFFORD
`
`Page 5
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
`
`Exhibit 1063 Declaration of Thomas A. 17
`
` Gafford, Patent No.:
`
` 5,552,917.
`
`Exhibit 1063 Declaration of Thomas A. 17
`
` Gafford, Patent No.:
`
` 5,414,761.
`
`Exhibit 1063 Declaration of Thomas A. 17
`
` Gafford, Patent No.:
`
` 5,255,313.
`
`Exhibit 1063 Declaration of Thomas A. 17
`
` Gafford, Patent No.:
`
` 5,228,077.
`
`Exhibit 1007 Declaration of Stephen D. 21
`
` Bristow, Patent No.:
`
` 5,552,917.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
`
` THOMAS GAFFORD
`
`Page 6
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
`
`Exhibit 1061 United States Patent 63
`
` Number: 4,623,887.
`
`Exhibit 1005 Article by Steve Ciarcia 68
`
` entitled "Build a
`
` Trainable Infrared Master
`
` Controller."
`
`Exhibit 1004 United States Patent 76
`
` Number: 4,667,181.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 7
`
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, JULY 13, 2015
`
` 9:07 A.M.
`
` -o0o-
`
` THOMAS GAFFORD,
`
` the witness, having been first administered
`
` an oath in accordance with CCP section 2094,
`
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Good morning, sir. My name is Eric Maiers.
`
`I represent the patent owner Universal Electronics in
`
`these matters.
`
` Can you please state your full name and
`
`spell it for the record.
`
` A Thomas Austin Gafford, G-a-f-f-o-r-d.
`
` Q Mr. Gafford, do you understand that you are
`
`here to testify concerning four separate inter partes
`
`reviews matters?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Do you have a preference on how I refer to
`
`those matters, either by the case number or the
`
`patent number?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`
`Page 8
`
` A If you want to talk about the patents
`
`individually, then the last three digits is fine.
`
` Q So you are here to testify as to your
`
`opinions in the declarations you submitted for the
`
`'917 patent, the '077 patent, the '716 patent, and
`
`the '313 patent; is that correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q As stated in your CV, you have been deposed
`
`previously; correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So I won't belabor very much with kind of
`
`the ground rules of depositions, but you know, we
`
`will just kind of go over a few quick things.
`
` First, are you on any medications, or is
`
`there any reason you wouldn't be able to testify
`
`truthfully today?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Okay. So in terms of just real quick ground
`
`rules, please let me finish my questions so we're not
`
`talking over each other.
`
` Also, please avoid nonverbal responses --
`
`head nods, head shakes -- which don't transcribe
`
`well. Similarly, please avoid responses like
`
`"uh-huh" and "huh-uh," which again don't and
`
`transcribe very well.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
` Is that fair?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. Mr. Gafford, did you prepare for your
`
`Page 9
`
`deposition today?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What did you do to prepare?
`
` A Reread my report --
`
` MR. KANG: Objection to the extent it calls
`
`for privileged information.
`
` THE WITNESS: Read my report, read
`
`Mr. Cook's record, read the reply brief from
`
`petitioner, read parts of other documents in the
`
`matter like file histories and so on, and met with
`
`counsel yesterday.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Specifically which counsel did you meet with
`
`yesterday?
`
` A Mr. Kang and Mr. Pazmandi.
`
` Q For roughly how long did you meet with
`
`Mr. Kang and Mr. Pazmandi?
`
` A About eight hours.
`
` Q Mr. Gafford, roughly when were you retained
`
`in these proceedings?
`
` A Some months ago and I don't remember when
`
`because the first work I did wasn't until June, but I
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`think it would have been perhaps two months before
`
`June. Perhaps April. I don't think it was any
`
`sooner than March.
`
` Q Okay. Who approached you?
`
` A A broker whom I know named Rob Cahn.
`
` Q And ultimately did he put you in touch with
`
`counsel for petitioner?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Was it explained to you what your assignment
`
`would be?
`
` A Roughly. It was to -- they actually weren't
`
`sure how they would use me at that point but to fill
`
`in for an expert who had passed away and probably
`
`work in some rebuttal capacity later in the -- later
`
`as the case progressed.
`
` Q And so you mentioned to serve in some
`
`rebuttal capacity.
`
` Did you seek to rebut the opinions of
`
`Mr. Cook?
`
` A Ultimately that was the assignment that I
`
`got, yes.
`
` Q Okay. And did you also seek to rebut
`
`arguments made by patent owner in its responses?
`
` A I sought to do what is in my report. Right
`
`now I couldn't give you a bright line between what in
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 11
`
`my report addresses things Mr. Cook said and what
`
`addresses positions patent owner has taken that are
`
`not part of any presentation Mr. Cook made.
`
` Q Okay. But in any event, in providing
`
`rebuttal opinions, it was your job to explain why at
`
`a minimum Mr. Cook's arguments were wrong?
`
` MR. KANG: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: That was certainly part of it.
`
`To the extent that I found them incorrect, it was my
`
`job to present what I thought was a correct view of
`
`the facts in light of skill in the art.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q You were not asked to explain why Mr. Cook
`
`or patent owner's arguments were correct, were you?
`
` A I think that's usually not part of any
`
`rebuttal assignment I've ever had. So no.
`
` Q So you wouldn't have been much use to
`
`petitioner if you had agreed with Mr. Cook's and
`
`patent owner's positions, would you?
`
` MR. KANG: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can't tell you what would
`
`have been useful to them. That would require knowing
`
`their mental process.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Mr. Gafford, were any documents provided to
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 12
`
`you in advance of your retention?
`
` A I'm pretty sure I looked at a representative
`
`patent to see that it was a subject matter on which I
`
`had expertise.
`
` Q Okay. Prior to retention were you provided
`
`any copies of petitioner's petitions?
`
` A I don't think so.
`
` Q Were you provided any copies of patent
`
`owner's responses?
`
` A Again, I don't believe so.
`
` Q Were you provided any copies of Mr. Cook's
`
`declarations?
`
` MR. KANG: Objection. Assumes facts.
`
` THE WITNESS: No, I don't think so. I think
`
`it was limited to looking at the patent for subject
`
`matter that was within my wheelhouse.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q And you mentioned you -- I think you said
`
`you didn't start work on this -- actually start work
`
`on this until June.
`
` A That's right.
`
` Q So since your retention, roughly how much
`
`time have you spent working on this -- these matters?
`
` A The first month I worked was the month of
`
`June, in which I worked 33 hours, and this month I
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 13
`
`have to date something under 16.
`
` Q Is this your first time consulting for
`
`Universal Remote Control?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Is this your first time consulting for the
`
`law firm Sidley Austin?
`
` A It is.
`
` Q Is this your first time consulting for the
`
`law firm Ostrolenk Faber?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Have you ever consulted on a matter for
`
`Greenberg Traurig?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Now, you mentioned part of the reason why
`
`you were retained is because the previous expert had
`
`passed away.
`
` A That's my understanding.
`
` Q Okay. Are you aware of the name of that
`
`individual?
`
` A I believe his last name was Bristow.
`
` Q Stephen Bristow?
`
` A That sounds right.
`
` Q Have you ever met Mr. Bristow?
`
` A No.
`
` Q So you haven't discussed the subject matter
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`of these proceedings with him?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Actually I want to go back to your
`
`preparation for the deposition.
`
` In preparation for your deposition, did you
`
`meet with any nonattorneys?
`
` A Other than Mr. Pazmandi, no. I understand
`
`he's --I don't know whether you call him an attorney
`
`before the patent bar or not. I understand he is a
`
`member of the patent bar, but other than Mr. Kang and
`
`Mr. Pazmandi, no.
`
` Q Have you ever discussed the subject matter
`
`of these IPRs with any attorneys who are not retained
`
`by Universal Remote Control?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Have you ever discussed the subject matter
`
`of these IPRs with any nonattorneys that aren't
`
`employees of Sidley Austin or Ostrolenk Faber?
`
` A Subject matter of IPRs I'm sure I would have
`
`had some conversation with Mr. Cahn about the subject
`
`matter, at least of the patent, when he called me,
`
`because he thought this might be a case I could help
`
`with.
`
` Other than speaking with Mr. Cahn, no.
`
` MR. KANG: Can I clarify? For the record,
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 15
`
`he is not referring to me.
`
` THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, C-a-h-n. It's Rob
`
`Cahn, not Mr. Kang. Mr. Cahn.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Who is Mr. Cahn?
`
` A Mr. Cahn, Rob Cahn, is the broker I
`
`mentioned.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` A Let's see. I've just spoken with only one
`
`other person in the matter, and that's Keith Barkaus,
`
`and I don't know if that's responsive to any of your
`
`questions or not, but just so we don't leave his name
`
`out. I have spoken to him, I think, only once or
`
`twice.
`
` Q Okay. What was the substance of your
`
`conversation with Mr. Kahn, K-a-h-n?
`
` A C-a-h-n --
`
` Q C-a-h-n?
`
` A -- is the broker. K-a-n-g, as in the evil
`
`warlord from Star Trek -- I'm sure he gets that a
`
`lot -- is this guy.
`
` Q So what was the substance of your
`
`discussions with Rob Cahn?
`
` A Whether I could be of assistance in the case
`
`and then he said you are going to have a conference
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 16
`
`call, which I joined, which included Mr. Barkaus and
`
`Ferenc, and I don't know if Peter was on that call or
`
`not.
`
` Q Did you share any initial opinion with Rob
`
`Cahn?
`
` A No.
`
` MR. MAIERS: Peter, I know you guys were
`
`doing a lot of exhibit marking and numbering. I
`
`don't know that it's really necessary here, unless
`
`you tend to disagree, since a lot of the exhibits are
`
`already stamped with an exhibit number.
`
` MR. KANG: If they had an existing number, I
`
`don't think we need to mark one. I think we only
`
`created and marked exhibits if they were actually new
`
`and put it in the record.
`
` MR. PAZMANDI: Except when it was a paper as
`
`opposed to exhibit. So --
`
` MR. MAIERS: Okay. Do you want me to run
`
`these through you?
`
` THE REPORTER: The previously marked you
`
`don't have to, no.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q I'm going to hand you what was previously
`
`marked as Exhibit 1063 in the '917 patent IPR, which
`
`is your declaration in that matter.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
` I'm also going to hand to you what is
`
`previously marked as Exhibit 1063 in the '761 patent
`
`IPR and what has been previously been marked as
`
`Exhibit 1063 in the '077 patent IPR matter, and
`
`finally, what has previously been marked as
`
`Exhibit 1063 in the '313 patent IPR.
`
` (Exhibits 1063 ('917 '761, '077, '313)
`
` were previously marked for identification
`
` and are attached hereto.)
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Mr. Gafford, let's start with the
`
`Exhibit 1063 from the '917 patent matter.
`
` Do you recognize that document?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q What is that document?
`
` A It's my declaration with regard to the '917
`
`patent.
`
` Q All right. Just to get all the formalities
`
`out of the way, then, can you turn your attention to
`
`the Exhibit 1063 from the '761 IPR.
`
` Do you recognize that document?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What is it?
`
` A It's my declaration regarding the '761
`
`matter.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`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 Please turn your attention to Exhibit 1063
`
`from the '077 IPR.
`
` Do you recognize that document?
`
`Page 18
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What is that?
`
` A That's my declaration for the '077 IPR.
`
` Q Okay. And finally, Exhibit 1063 from the
`
`'313 patent IPR matter.
`
` Do you recognize that document?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What is that document?
`
` A My declaration on the '313 case.
`
` Q Okay. I would like to talk to you a little
`
`bit about your work flow and drafting process.
`
` Mr. Gafford, after you were retained, can
`
`you please explain the process by which your
`
`declarations were prepared.
`
` A After discussions with Mr. Pazmandi where we
`
`reviewed the topics that he would like me to address,
`
`if I could, I wrote a paragraph or so for each topic,
`
`and he -- sent them to him, and he combined those
`
`into a draft skeleton which contained the legal
`
`framework and background boilerplate, and then we
`
`passed that larger draft back and forth until it was
`
`complete.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
` Q So you said Mr. Pazmandi told you the topics
`
`Page 19
`
`he wanted you to address.
`
` MR. KANG: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q What were those topics?
`
` A I couldn't give them. You will find them in
`
`my report. I can't give you a memory recall on
`
`those, but I addressed every one of the ones he was
`
`interested in my opining on.
`
` Q And you said you wrote a paragraph or two on
`
`each topic?
`
` A Right.
`
` Q If you could turn your attention to your
`
`declaration in the '917 matter.
`
` Are you able to identify in your declaration
`
`specifically which paragraphs you would have written?
`
` A 1 through 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, the content
`
`but not the form of 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
`
`28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42,
`
`43, 44, 45 -- oh, looks like -- I thought there was a
`
`paragraph miscontinuity, but it's format.
`
` Q I thought that originally too.
`
` A Right.
`
` 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`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
`
` Those are all the paragraphs that I
`
`initiated.
`
` Q Okay. Now, you said you prepared paragraph
`
`Page 20
`
`15.
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Did you review Mr. Bristow's declaration in
`
`that matter? In the '917 patent matter?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Have you reviewed his declaration in the
`
`other three matters as well?
`
` A Briefly. I understand they were similar,
`
`but I read one of them in full.
`
` Q Okay. Are you aware that your paragraph 15
`
`is verbatim to Mr. Bristow's paragraph 11 from his
`
`declaration?
`
` MR. KANG: Foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not, but this is my
`
`opinion, and it's clear from the patents that's a
`
`very simple phrase, "remote controls and consumer
`
`electronics," and that's a relevant field, and it's a
`
`field in which I have some experience.
`
` As I said, "initiated." I may not have
`
`written. The first version of 15 I wrote may have
`
`been not much more than remote controls and consumer
`
`electronics.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 21
`
` As to the "I have been informed the relevant
`
`time frame," that's a legal -- I suspect that legal
`
`input would have come from counsel.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Mr. Gafford, I'm going to place in front of
`
`you what has been marked as Exhibit 1007 in the '917
`
`patent IPR.
`
` (Exhibit 1007 ('917) was previously
`
` marked for identification
`
` and is attached hereto.)
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q Do you recognize that document?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What is that document?
`
` A That's the declaration of Stephen D. Bristow
`
`filed September 20th, '94, in the '917 petition.
`
` Q Can you please turn to paragraph 11 of
`
`Mr. Bristow's declaration.
`
` A Yes, I have it.
`
` Q Can you confirm for me that, in fact, the
`
`text of paragraph 11 in Mr. Bristow's declaration is
`
`the same as the text of paragraph 15 of your
`
`declaration?
`
` A Yes, it is.
`
` Q And then with respect to paragraph 18 of
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 21
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 22
`
`your declaration, I believe you said you didn't
`
`prepare the form but you prepared the substance or
`
`something along those lines.
`
` A In the sense of Bachelor's degree or
`
`equivalent industry experience, yes.
`
` Q I'm sorry. What does that answer mean?
`
` A What -- I'm sorry. What is your question?
`
` Q So let me start over again.
`
` So which portion of paragraph 18 did you
`
`prepare?
`
` A Bachelor's and two years with the elements
`
`and/or absent a degree, ten years of relevant
`
`experience.
`
` Q Okay. Could you turn to paragraph 13 of
`
`Mr. Bristow's declaration. It starts off "I have
`
`been informed..."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q It continues onto the next page. Second
`
`sentence starts "person of ordinary skill," and about
`
`halfway through that sentence, there's a comma right
`
`after the word "education."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. Can you -- can you read everything
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 22
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`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
`
`out loud up to that comma after "education" from
`
`Page 23
`
`paragraph 13 of Mr. Bristow's declaration.
`
` A "I have been informed that a person
`
` of ordinary skill in the relevant"
`
` art -- "relevant field is a
`
` hypothetical person to whom an
`
` expert in the relevant field could
`
` assign a routine task with
`
` reasonable confidence that the task
`
` would be successfully carried out.
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the
`
` art at the time, the '917 patent's
`
` priority date, would have a
`
` Bachelor's degree in electrical
`
` engineering or computer science or
`
` the equivalent education, and
`
` training in consumer electronics
`
` and remote control systems,
`
` including at least two years of
`
` practical experience."
`
` I'm sorry. I kept reading after "education"
`
`comma. That's where you wanted me to stop.
`
` Q Can you confirm for me whether the text of
`
`that section that you read up to the comma is
`
`identical to the same portion of your paragraph 18?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 23
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 24
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. And can you also confirm for me the
`
`sentence of paragraph 13 of Mr. Bristow's declaration
`
`that starts with "Alternatively" is identical to the
`
`sentence that starts with the word "Alternatively"
`
`from your paragraph 18?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So independently of Mr. Bristow with respect
`
`to those two sections of paragraph 18, you came up
`
`with those opinions?
`
` A The substance of them, yes. The words, no.
`
` Q You have no difference at all between
`
`yourself and Mr. Bristow's opinions with respect to
`
`those two sections?
`
` A No. All of these topics on which I opined I
`
`discussed with counsel first, and the discussion I
`
`had with counsel would have been in terms of the
`
`substance of, in this case, Bachelor's, two years.
`
` That's an extremely common level of skill
`
`for patents that aren't wildly complex, and I think
`
`the counsel asked me if I thought --
`
` MR. KANG: I'm going to object.
`
` THE WITNESS: Right.
`
` MR. KANG: To the extent the question is
`
`asking for privileged information, I instruct you not
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 24
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Page 25
`
`to answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Right. The -- a discussion --
`
`declarations usually have Bachelor's degree plus
`
`three to five, Bachelor's degree plus two. Depends
`
`on the field.
`
` This is a relatively simple field of
`
`endeavor. Bachelor's plus two is reasonable in this
`
`field, and the declarations usually say "or the
`
`equivalent industry experience," and I thought for a
`
`bit about equivalent industry experience and thought
`
`ten years was a reasonable number so that those items
`
`of substance went into my first cut at this topic,
`
`and the wordsmithing that came out of this is what
`
`you see.
`
` I didn't do the wordsmithing. The substance
`
`of the opinion here is mine.
`
`BY MR. MAIERS:
`
` Q So just to clarify, did you first review
`
`Mr. Bristow's declaration and then decide that you
`
`agreed with his opinions, or did you independently
`
`come with your own opinions that just happened to
`
`match his opinions?
`
` A I first looked at the topic and thought of
`
`my own experience and other patents I had read in
`
`similar levels of complexity, and then I looked -- I
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 25
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 26
`
`don't think I came up with -- I had two -- I probably
`
`would have had two, maybe three years. Then I looked
`
`at Mr. Bristow and decided that what he had was
`
`reasonable.
`
` So I saw no reason to create any controversy
`
`here, and agreeing with him was fine. I can support
`
`this range of experience in being more of a person of
`
`skill in the art in this subject matter.
`
` Q Similarly, did you independently come up
`
`with the "ten years of equivalent experience"
`
`portion?
`
` A My general feeling about the equivalence of
`
`industry experience and to a Bachelor's degree and
`
`design experience following a Bachelor's degree is
`
`it's something in excess of five years, and ten years
`
`that Mr. -- the ten years that Mr. Bristow
`
`specifically opined seemed reasonable able to me. So
`
`I adopted it.
`
` Q Mr. Gafford, were there multiple drafts of
`
`your declarations?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And in terms of process, did you work on and
`
`finalize one of the four declarations first and then
`
`replicate that for the other three, or did you work
`
`on four in parallel?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2045, Page 26
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`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 One.
`
` Q Now, at the time you were -- actually, if I
`
`can direct your attention to your signature page on
`
`Page 27
`
`the '917 declaration.
`
` Are you there?
`
` A I am.
`
` Q Okay. Right above your signature, do you
`
`see where it says "Todos Santos, BCS, Mexico"?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So at the time you were finalizing these
`
`declarations, you were in Mexico at the time?
`
` A I was.
`
` Q How did you go about signing the
`
`declarations from Mexico?
`
` A I signed it, and in the version you see
`
`here, I printed, signed, and scanned the document,
`
`the last page, and after some struggle got that sent
`
`off to counsel.
`
` Q So you physically -- you physically

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket