Page 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` B. Maggs
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________________
` LG ELECTRONICS, INC., et al
` Petitioners
` v.
` STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
` (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS
` TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)
` Patent Owner
` _____________________________
` Case IPR2015-00196
` Patent 6,131,121
` Case IPR2015-00198
` Patent 6,009,469
` Case IPR2015-00209
` Patent 6,108,704
` _____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF BRUCE M. MAGGS, Ph.D.
` Washington, D.C.
` August 6, 2015
`Reporter: Mary Ann Payonk
`Job No. 95058
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 1
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` B. Maggs
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` SHARIF JACOB, ESQUIRE
` KEKER & VAN NEST
` 633 Battery Street
` San Francisco CA 94111
`
` RAJEEV GUPTA, Ph.D., ESQUIRE
` FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW
` GARRETT & DUNNER
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
` MICHAEL NEWMAN, ESQUIRE
` NICHOLAS ARMINGTON, ESQUIRE
` MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
` GLOVSKY and POPEO
` One Financial Center
` Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` B. Maggs
`
` August 6, 2015
` 9:04 a.m.
`
` Deposition of BRUCE M. MAGGS, Ph.D.,
`held at 901 New York Avenue, N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., pursuant to Notice before
`Mary Ann Payonk, Nationally Certified
`Realtime Reporter and Notary Public of the
`District of Columbia, Commonwealth of
`Virginia, States of Maryland and New York.
`
`1
`
`2345
`
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 5
`
` B. Maggs
`APPEARANCES (Cont'd.)
`ON BEHALF OF VIZIO:
` RICHARD WELLS, ESQUIRE
` BAKER & McKENZIE
` 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`ON BEHALF OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.:
` JASON LISS, ESQUIRE
` WILMERHALE
` 60 State Street
` Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
` B. Maggs
` MR. NEWMAN: For the record, the
`parties have an agreement with respect
`to this deposition. The parties have
`agreed that a single consolidated
`deposition would be used for three
`related IPRs. Those IPRs are IPR
`2015-00196, IPR 2015-00198, and IPR
`2015-00209. The parties agree that this
`deposition can be used in each of those
`three separate IPRs.
` In exchange, the parties have
`agreed to attempt to limit depositions
`in this matter to a single day; however,
`the parties have agreed to reserve a
`second day in the unlikely event that
`more time is reasonably required. That
`said, the parties will make every effort
`to complete depositions in a single day.
` MR. JACOB: That agreement is a
`reciprocal arrangement and also applies
`to any experts that Straight Path
`furnishes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
` B. Maggs
`BRUCE M. MAGGS, Ph.D.,
` called as a witness, having been duly
` sworn, was examined and testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Maggs.
` A. Good morning, Mr. Newman.
` Q. Are you aware that this deposition
`has now begun and that you may not consult with
`counsel during any break regarding the
`substance of your testimony --
` A. Yes, I do. Thank you.
` Q. -- that you have given or you expect
`to give today?
` A. Yes, I am. And thank you for the
`reminder.
` MR. JACOB: And that instruction is
` not quite right. At the point at which
` you pass the witness, I'm permitted to
` consult with him. But before, before he
` passes the witness, we're not permitted
` to consult during any breaks.
` MR. NEWMAN: That's not my
`
`Page 8
`
` B. Maggs
`owned by eBay, and I was deposed after
`providing an expert report for a district
`court.
` Q. Do you still have the expert report
`from the 2008 litigation IDT versus Skype?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Do you have the testimony or the
`transcript from that deposition?
` A. I don't know. Whatever I was
`instructed to do about materials after that
`case settled, I complied with. And it's been a
`long time. I would have to go look and see
`what I was permitted to retain.
` Q. But you did not rely on either that
`expert report or the deposition testimony in
`the IDT versus Skype case in forming your
`opinions as expressed in your declaration in
`these IPRs?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. When was the second time you were
`deposed with respect to these patents?
` A. I was deposed last year by Mintz
`Levin in a -- I don't know what you call it,
`but a case before ITC that was brought against
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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 7
`
` B. Maggs
` understanding of the rules, but we can
` have a discussion off the record with
` respect to that.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Can you please state your name for
`the record?
` A. My name is Bruce MacDowell Maggs.
` Q. Your date of birth, please?
` A. May 9, 1963.
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Have you been deposed before with
`relationship to any of the asserted patents at
`issue in these IPRs?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. How many times have you been deposed
`with respect to the patents at issue in these
`IPRs?
` A. Twice prior to this deposition. This
`will be the third.
` Q. When was the first time?
` A. The first time was in -- I believe
`was in 2008. There was litigation by -- I
`believe it was IDT versus Skype, which was
`
`Page 9
`
` B. Maggs
`Sony and other respondents.
` Q. Was that the 892 investigation at the
`ITC?
` A. I don't remember the number. I'd
`have to look that up.
` Q. And do you still have your expert
`reports from that ITC investigation?
` A. I have a redacted copy of my expert
`report.
` Q. And do you have the deposition
`transcript from the ITC investigations
`deposition?
` A. No, I don't.
` Q. So you didn't rely on the deposition
`transcript in the ITC to inform your opinions
`in your declaration --
` A. No.
` Q. -- submitted here?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you rely on your expert report
`submitted in the ITC in forming your opinions
`in the declaration you've submitted in these
`IPRs?
` A. No, I did not.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`3
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
` B. Maggs
` Q. So I just handed you an exhibit
`that's marked LG Electronics Exhibit 1002. It
`goes from page 1, ends at page 75. Do you
`recognize this document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And what is it?
` A. This is one of the three declarations
`that I submitted. This one concerns what we
`call the '704 patent. It was submitted as part
`of this IPR.
` Q. Did you draft this declaration?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. And do you understand that the '704
`patent is the parent to the '121 and the '469
`patents?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Are the statements in this
`declaration true to the best of your knowledge?
` A. They are. I noticed one small
`typographical error. I don't think it's of any
`import, and I'm happy to point that out to you.
`But yes, I believe these statements are true.
` Q. Is it the WINSWINSWINS?
` A. Actually, I didn't even count that
`
`Page 12
`
` B. Maggs
`that, but it isn't the basis of my conclusions
`regarding obviousness.
` Q. Do you think the Perkins reference
`could have been reasonably raised with PTAB?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, legal
` conclusion, foundation.
` A. I think the Perkins reference is
`interesting because it was once before the
`patent examiner, and the inventors or their
`counsel explained to the examiner that Perkins
`did not support point-to-point communications
`because packets passed through gateways. I
`think that that's an interesting issue. I
`think depending on how that's resolved, this
`reference could very well anticipate the
`patents, but it's not the basis of my opinions
`in this declaration.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. So you think that it could have been
`brought before a PTAB?
` MR. JACOB: Legal conclusion,
` foundation.
` A. I don't know all the rules about what
`can be brought before PTAB. It's a written
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
` B. Maggs
`one, but that was a little exuberance there.
`May I point it out to you?
` Q. Yes, please.
` A. There's a figure on page 11, and in
`paragraph 13 above the figure, it says, near
`the bottom, it says "LANS 3 and 4." I believe
`that should say "LANS 2 and 3." It's a minor
`typo. It's just summarizing a figure from
`another document.
` Q. In paragraph 13, that's summarizing
`the figure from a reference called Perkins;
`correct?
` A. That's correct. And I think this
`typographical issue is in all three of my
`declarations.
` Q. Did you rely on the Perkins reference
`in coming up with your opinion in this
`declaration?
` A. No. Perkins is here as an
`illustration of the state of the art at the
`time.
` Q. So the Perkins reference is not
`before PTAB in this matter; correct?
` A. Well, I don't know the answer to
`
`Page 13
`
` B. Maggs
`reference, so as far as I know, you can bring
`written references before PTAB. It's prior
`art. But otherwise, I can't answer that
`question.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. So where do you currently work?
` A. My full-time position is at Duke
`University in Durham, North Carolina.
` Q. Proud of the Blue Devils this year?
` A. That was a nice basketball season. I
`also hold a part-time position one day a week
`with Akamai Technologies, a company that I
`helped create.
` Q. And at Duke you teach classes to
`undergraduates?
` A. Yes, I teach classes to both
`undergraduates and graduate students. I
`typically teach an undergraduate course in the
`fall and a graduate course in the spring.
` Q. What courses do you teach to the
`undergraduates?
` A. Well, this fall I'm going to teach a
`course on computer security. I did that also
`last fall. In the past, I've also taught
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`4
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` B. Maggs
`courses on algorithms, discrete math for
`computer scientists. Before joining Duke at
`Carnegie Mellon I taught courses on computer
`networking, computer systems, computer
`programming. I like to say that one of the
`advantages of being a professor is that
`eventually, you get a thorough undergraduate
`education in your field.
` Q. What's a computer system?
` A. Well, it's a broad term, but when I
`say "computer systems," talking about the
`hardware that -- computer hardware. Also,
`issues like operating systems. Some people
`would view computer systems even more broadly
`to include issues like computer networking,
`databases. But in the computer systems courses
`I taught, we began by explaining at a low level
`how the processor works, what the instruction
`set for a processor looks like, and then worked
`our way up explaining, you know, how an
`operating system would manage multiple tasks
`running simultaneously, a little bit about how
`compilers try to optimize the code so that it
`runs faster. Systems courses are about what
`
`Page 16
`
` B. Maggs
`well defined. In some sense, an operating
`system is an application. There are many
`devices where you would say that the only thing
`running on the device is the operating system,
`and yet it's providing some application
`functionality. So, you know, typically, those
`are separate things, but not always.
` Q. In paragraph 4 of your declaration,
`which is page 6, you mention that you teach
`courses on basic computer systems and
`undergraduate courses on operating system
`design and implementation.
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. In your course regarding operating
`system design and implementation, what sort
`of -- what do you teach during that course?
` A. Well, I taught that course four times
`at Carnegie Mellon, and in this course, we
`guide the students through the programming of
`an operating system. So they write a program
`that acts as an operating system, and it's --
`it's not in a simulator. It really runs on a
`bare PC hardware.
` And so, for example, they start out
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` B. Maggs
`the platform looks like on which you then build
`applications.
` Q. What are applications?
` MR. JACOB: Legal conclusion.
` A. On a very high level, applications
`are computer programs that are designed to help
`users solve different tasks or provide
`different capabilities or services for users.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. And what is an operating system?
` A. Well, that's a complicated question,
`but an operating system can be viewed as
`providing an interface between the hardware and
`application programs. It -- the operating
`system helps manage application programs and it
`provides them, when necessary, with access to
`the hardware.
` Q. An operating system is distinct from
`an application program; correct?
` A. Well, we would normally view those
`two things separately. You know, there's a
`technical sense in which an operating system
`runs with privileges and applications don't,
`but at the same time, the line is not super
`
`Page 17
`
` B. Maggs
`by writing some code that can manipulate the
`computer display. So you can tell it, you
`know, draw some characters at this location on
`the screen. They write some code for receiving
`input from the keyboard. And then they move on
`to write code to manage tasks that are running.
`And then they write code for managing threads,
`and there's a lot of focus on concurrency, how
`would an operating system support multiple
`programs running simultaneously on the
`operating system or multiple threads running
`within a single program.
` Q. The multiple programs that you're
`referencing there are multiple application
`programs?
` A. They could be, yes.
` Q. What are the components of an
`operating system?
` MR. JACOB: Form.
` A. So there's no fixed answer to that in
`the sense that there are different ways that
`you could write an operating system. I could
`give an example. In the operating system that
`the students prepare, one component is or one
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`5
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
`Page 19
`
` B. Maggs
`set of components are device drivers, ways of
`managing the display, the keyboard, or if it
`was a commercial operating system, they would
`probably have device drivers for lots of other
`things such as a mouse, maybe a printer and so
`on. Then there is a component for managing the
`scheduling of processes or threads, and typical
`operating system also has a component for
`managing the file system, for managing storage.
`The -- in the class, the students didn't
`actually do that. There wasn't enough time in
`a one-semester class to also do that.
` Those are sort of the most
`fundamental components, but we could go on and
`on about all sorts of different bells and
`whistles that could be added to an operating
`system.
` MR. JACOB: I'll just note for the
` record I don't see my form objection on
` the transcript.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Dr. Maggs, do you have an interest in
`the outcome of this IPR?
` A. No, I don't.
`
`Page 20
`
` B. Maggs
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you know if Hulu uses Akamai
`servers?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation.
` A. No, I don't know.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. To the extent that any of those
`parties I just mentioned do use Akamai servers,
`do you think you can maintain a neutral
`position in this litigation?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation,
` form, relevance.
` A. Yes, I'm sure that I can.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. In paragraph 6 you mention a number
`of terms, and one is "peer-to-peer networks."
`What is a peer-to-peer network?
` A. Well, a peer-to-peer network is a --
`let me try to break this down a little bit. A
`peer refers to an end user computer typically,
`for example, somebody's personal computer in
`their home. Peer-to-peer applications or
`networks or computing are applications in which
`as users join, they contribute some resources
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` B. Maggs
` MR. JACOB: Objection, form.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. In paragraph 5 of your declaration
`you mention that you helped launch Akamai
`Technologies and you retain a part-time role at
`Akamai. Do you know that Akamai was subpoenaed
`with respect to these patents?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation.
` A. I didn't know that.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you know if LG uses Akamai
`servers?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation.
` A. I don't know.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you know if VIZIO uses Akamai
`servers?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation.
` A. I don't know.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you know if Toshiba uses Akamai
`servers?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation.
` A. No, I don't know.
`
`Page 21
`
` B. Maggs
`so that the resources available scale as the
`number of users grow. And peer-to-peer
`applications or networks are often contrasted
`with client server applications where some
`party has established a server and provides for
`server capacity, and then clients who may be
`end user machines connect and ask for services.
`So it's a case of the resources being
`contributed by the end user machines themselves
`rather than by some party who allocates a
`server.
` Q. I'd like to look at the material that
`you reviewed and considered with respect to
`this declaration, and if you turn to paragraph
`N, there is a table there. Is this table a
`full description of all the materials that you
`reviewed?
` A. To the best of my knowledge, it is.
` MR. JACOB: Form.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Did you review any of the appellate
`pleadings in the Sipnet appeal?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, attorney
` work product. To the extent that your
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`6
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
` B. Maggs
` attorney selected documents for you to
` review to prepare for deposition, I
` instruct you not to answer. But you may
` answer as to any documents that you
` reviewed in preparing your declaration
` in this matter.
` A. Could you repeat that question,
`please?
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Have you reviewed the pleadings in
`the Sipnet appeal?
` A. Can you explain to me what a pleading
`is? I'm just not familiar with that term.
` Q. There's an appellate brief and
`there's an appellee brief, and there was an
`amicus brief. Have you reviewed those three
`federal circuit filings?
` MR. JACOB: I object on attorney
` work product grounds. To the extent
` your attorney chose documents for you to
` review in preparation for a deposition,
` I instruct you not to answer, but you
` may answer to the extent you reviewed
` those documents in preparing your
`
`Page 24
`
` B. Maggs
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- is a final written decision in
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. versus Straight Path.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you --
` A. I have reviewed that.
` Q. You have reviewed that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand that that final
`written decision has been appealed by Straight
`Path to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals?
` A. Yes. I do know that.
` Q. Have you read Straight Path's brief
`in that matter?
` MR. JACOB: Objection. I object on
` attorney work product grounds and I
` instruct you not to answer that question
` to the extent you reviewed those
` documents in preparation for this
` deposition and they were selected by
` your attorney.
` To the extent that you reviewed
` documents in preparing your opinions in
` this matter, you may answer that
`
`Page 23
`
` B. Maggs
` opinions for these declarations.
` MR. NEWMAN: Whether he reviewed
` documents or not, Sharif, is not
` privileged. Whether you've instructed
` him to, I agree would have a note of
` privilege, but whether or not he
` reviewed documents in a memo is not
` entitled to privilege.
` MR. JACOB: We apparently disagree.
` If you have questions about the
` privilege, we can take a break to
` discuss them.
` A. No, I don't have a question about a
`privilege. I'm actually -- I'm still not sure
`I understand and I'm -- which documents we're
`talking about. So this is a proceedings in a
`district court, right, separate from IPR?
`You're asking about briefs from appellate court
`is district -- is --
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Let me back up and see if I can help
`you out. Exhibit 1024 in this table in your
`declaration, which is in paragraph 10 of your
`dec --
`
`Page 25
`
` B. Maggs
` question.
` A. I did not review that document in
`preparing this declaration or in forming my
`opinions. I'm not -- I guess based on that
`instruction I'm not answering the question of
`whether I reviewed that document in preparation
`for this deposition.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Did you review Sipnet's appellee
`brief in response to Straight Path's appellate
`brief?
` MR. JACOB: I object on attorney
` work product grounds and I instruct you
` not to answer that question to the
` extent that you reviewed documents
` selected by your attorney in preparation
` for this deposition. You may, however,
` answer the question to the extent that
` you reviewed those documents in
` preparing your opinions in the
` declaration.
` A. I did not review that document in
`preparing this declaration. And based on the
`instruction I have been given, I'm 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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`7
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
` B. Maggs
`answering the question about whether I've
`reviewed it in preparing for the deposition.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. So you're taking your attorney's
`advice, you're taking your attorney's
`instruction not to answer?
` A. For the moment. I assume you guys
`will sort this out and I'm happy to answer once
`I'm given guidance.
` Q. But you know the answer?
` A. I know the -- I know the answer, yes.
` Q. And did you review Samsung's amicus
`brief in that appeal?
` MR. JACOB: I'm not going to give
` you an instruction on that. You may
` answer that.
` A. No.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you understand that Samsung has
`also filed IPRs challenging the '704, the '121,
`and the '469 patents?
` MR. JACOB: Foundation.
` A. I -- I think I knew that. I'm not
`sure.
`
`Page 28
`
` B. Maggs
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Have you heard of a person named
`Dr. Houh who is an expert witness with respect
`to the Samsung IPRs?
` MR. JACOB: I object on attorney
` work product grounds. To the extent
` that you obtained any information about
` Dr. Houh from your attorneys, I instruct
` you not to answer. But if you have
` information from another source, you may
` answer that question.
` A. Based on that instruction, I'm not
`going to answer the question.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you have any reason to disagree
`with Dr. Houh's positions taken in the Samsung
`IPRs?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation,
` legal conclusion, compound.
` A. I think you'd have to put his
`opinions before me and we'd have to go through
`them if you wanted me to evaluate them.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Do you agree with the proposition
`
`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
`
`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 27
`
` B. Maggs
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Have you reviewed any documents from
`Samsung IPR challenging the '121, '704 or '469
`patents?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, foundation.
` Objection, attorney work product. To
` the extent that you reviewed documents
` in preparation for today's deposition
` that were selected by your attorney, I
` instruct you not to answer. But you may
` answer to the extent that you reviewed
` documents in preparing your opinions in
` this matter.
` A. I did not review any documents from
`the Samsung IPR in preparing this declaration.
`And based on the instruction from counsel, I'm
`at the moment not answering the question about
`whether I reviewed any such documents in
`preparation for this deposition.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. But you know the answer?
` A. Yes, I know the answer.
` Q. Have you heard of a person named
`Dr. Houh, H-O-U-H?
`
`Page 29
`
` B. Maggs
`that Windows Workstation is a separate product
`from Windows NT Server?
` A. I'm not sure that question is well
`formed. I'm not aware of a product called
`Windows Workstation.
` Q. Let me try that again. Do you agree
`with the proposition that Windows NT
`Workstation is a separate product from Windows
`NT Server?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, relevance.
` A. You -- I think the answer is that
`Microsoft did sell separate products. They
`typically also had a version number, but, for
`example, I believe there was a Windows NT
`Workstation version 3.5 and a separate product
`called Windows NT Server version 3.5, and that
`may have been true for other versions of
`Windows NT as well.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. In the Windows NT Workstation,
`version 3.5 was for a client machine; is that
`correct?
` A. At a high level, I would say that's
`correct.
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`8
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
` B. Maggs
` Q. And Windows NT Server version 3.5 was
`for a server; correct?
` A. Well, Windows NT Server 3.5 could act
`as either a client or a server. The
`administrator of the system could decide
`whether or not to configure the operating
`system to provide server functionality or
`whether it should just act as a client, in
`which case it would act much like or perhaps
`even identically to Windows NT Workstation
`version 3.5.
` Q. Do you agree with the statement that
`a gateway is not a server?
` A. I'm not sure how to answer that
`question. I know that the inventors and their
`counsel distinguished Perkins on the grounds
`that packets were passing through a gateway and
`therefore were not point-to-point. So it seems
`to me based on Straight Path's arguments that
`they would argue that indeed a gateway is not
`only a server but a connection server. It's a
`tricky issue, but I -- apparently, regardless
`of whether a gateway is really a server or not,
`packets passing through a gateway are not
`
`Page 32
`
` B. Maggs
`that appears in the claims, "point-to-point."
`And in order to answer that, I would have to --
`these are -- that is also a term that has been
`the subject of contention as far as claim
`construction goes. So if you want me to answer
`that, I have to have some idea about which
`claim construction you would like me to apply
`in order to answer the question.
` Q. Let's get into that in a minute. Let
`me ask you this. Does your analysis of the
`WINS and the NetBIOS references, does it turn
`on whether or not LG's construction of
`point-to-point is adopted?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, form.
` A. No, it doesn't.
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. In your declaration, you state that
`you have adopted the claim constructions as put
`forth in LG's petitions; correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And your declaration does not offer
`an alternative opinion with respect to
`Straight Path's constructions; correct?
` A. That's correct. As you said, 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
`
`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 31
`
` B. Maggs
`making a point-to-point connection.
` Q. And is that the same with respect to
`the WINS reference, W-I-N-S?
` MR. JACOB: Objection, legal
` conclusion.
` A. I don't understand the question. Is
`what the same with respect to WINS?
`BY MR. NEWMAN:
` Q. Would you agree that if WINS
`discloses only connections between client
`computers that pass through a gateway, that it
`would not be a point-to-point connection?
` A. This is a hypothetical, because WINS
`doesn't disclose that, but I suppose that if
`packets are passing through a gateway, that
`it's not a point-to-point connection.
` Q. Let's go back to your declaration.
`Paragraph 11, you mention a router. Are
`packets that pass through a router between two
`computers, would that still be a point-to-point
`connection?
` A. I'd like to ask for a little
`clarification. It seems to me that you are
`asking me questions that are related to a term
`
`Page 33
`
` B. Maggs
`assert that I have applied the -- I guess LG's
`constructions, but I have not opined on any
`constructions, whether they are LG's or
`Straight Path's. And I don't believe that my
`analysis actually -- I think the phrase you
`used was turns on whether either one or the
`other is adopted.
` Q. With respect to point-to-point;
`correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And when I mention LG, I mean
`petitioners.
` A. I understood.
` Q. Your declaration doesn't offer any
`support for the petitioner's constructions,
`correct? It just adopts them?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Back to your materials reviewed and
`considered. In conjunction with your
`declaration you reviewed some RFCs; correct?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Which RFCs? Were there any RFCs that
`are not mentioned here that you reviewed in
`conjunction with your opinion, your
`
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`9
`
`LG v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00198
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2037 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Page 34
`
` B. Maggs
`declaration?
` A. Not that I remember. I note that
`Exhibit 1004 contains two RFCs, RFCs 1001 and
`1002, and I certainly reviewed those and rely
`on them.
` Q. And RFCs 1001, 1002 are the NetBIOS
`RFCs; correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Did