·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE HOWARD BLANKENSHIP
`
`·6
`
`·7· ·SYMANTEC CORPORATION,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·9· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · · ) No. IPR 2015-00372
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· · · · ·2015-00374
`10· ·THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA· · · · · )· · · · ·2015-00378
`· · ·UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF· · · · ·)
`11· ·NEW YORK,· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`12· · · · · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · ·)
`· · ·__________________________________)
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · (HELD TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2016
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · 7:30 A.M.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21· ·REPORTED BY:· · · ·ANNA M. HORTON
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · CSR No. 6950, RPR
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-1
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`·2· ·For the Petitioner:
`
`·3· · · · · · FENWICK & WEST
`
`·4· · · · · · BY:· MICHAEL SACKSTEDER, ESQ.
`
`·5· · · · · · BY:· BRIAN HOFFMAN, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · · · 555 South California Street
`
`·7· · · · · · 12th Floor
`
`·8· · · · · · San Francisco, California 94104
`
`·9· · · · · · (415) 875-2450
`
`10· · · · · · msacksteder@fenwick.com
`
`11· · · · · · bhoffman@fenwick.com
`
`12· · · · · · (Appearance by Telephone)
`
`13· ·For the Patent Owner:
`
`14· · · · · · IRELL & MANELLA
`
`15· · · · · · BY:· H. ANNITA ZHONG
`
`16· · · · · · BY:· MICHAEL FLEMING
`
`17· · · · · · BY:· JASON SHEASBY
`
`18· · · · · · Attorney at Law
`
`19· · · · · · 1800 Avenue of the Stars
`
`20· · · · · · Suite 900
`
`21· · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067
`
`22· · · · · · (310) 277-1010
`
`23· · · · · · hzhong@irell.com
`
`24· · · · · · jsheasby@irell.com
`
`25· · · · · · (Appearance by Telephone)
`
`26
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· · · · · · · FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2016, 7:30 A.M.
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`·3
`·4· · · · · · · · · Telephonic Hearing Before:
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK
`·6· · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE HOWARD BLANKENSHIP
`·7· · · · · · · · · · ·JUDGE BRYAN F. MOORE
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`·9
`10· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Good morning.· This is Judge
`11· ·Weinschenk.· With me on the line is Judge Blankenship
`12· ·and Judge Moore.
`13· · · · · · This is a conference call for IPR-2015-00372,
`14· ·374, 375, 377, and 378.
`15· · · · · · Who do we have on the line for the petitioner?
`16· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· Brian Hoffman, lead counsel.
`17· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER:· And also Michael Sacksteder,
`18· ·back-up counsel.
`19· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Does the petitioner have a
`20· ·court reporter on the line?
`21· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· No.
`22· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· And who do we have
`23· ·for patent owner?
`24· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· This is Annita Zhong.· And with me
`25· ·on the line is Michael Fleming and Jason Sheasby.· And
`
`Page 4
`·1· ·we have retained a court reporter, Ms. Anna Horton.
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· As usual, since we
`·3· ·have a court reporter on the line, I'll ask counsel to
`·4· ·identify themselves before speaking so that the court
`·5· ·reporter can keep the record clear.· I'll also ask
`·6· ·patent owner to file a copy of the transcript when it's
`·7· ·available in purpose.
`·8· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Will do.
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· It sounds like we
`10· ·have two issues to discuss today.· The first is that
`11· ·patent owner seeks additional briefing on claim
`12· ·construction.· So why don't we start there with patent
`13· ·owner and tell us what the issue is there.
`14· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Okay.· I'm sure the board is aware
`15· ·of the fact that the Supreme Court has recently granted
`16· ·the certiorare petition in the Cuozzo case, and we
`17· ·expect that, because there's a definite possibility that
`18· ·the claim construction standard will change by the end
`19· ·of this term, which is the end of June, and that time
`20· ·will be definitely -- while probably before this weekend
`21· ·or by this weekend when the final decision has come out
`22· ·and definitely while the case is probably going to be on
`23· ·appeal or seeking a rehearing request.
`24· · · · · · So we would like the board to take that into
`25· ·consideration when it's considering the case and
`
`Page 5
`·1· ·considering the terms as to whether the BRI is still the
`·2· ·right standard to apply or whether the court should
`·3· ·construe the term under the alternative Phillips
`·4· ·standard.· And we definitely want to preserve our
`·5· ·ability to preserve the argument to consider the case
`·6· ·and the different standard while on appeal.
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Are you going to propose
`·8· ·different constructions?
`·9· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· We do believe that under the two
`10· ·standards different constructions are probably going to
`11· ·be appropriate.· We understand, for example,
`12· ·(indecipherable) under the BRI, the board has rejected
`13· ·certain of our claim construction during the institution
`14· ·decision, and so there's that example there, that the
`15· ·different claim construction then can be
`16· ·(indecipherable) from that.
`17· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Your Honor, this is Jason
`18· ·Sheasby.· · · · · Just to clarify, our construction will
`19· ·not change.· The only question is whether there would be
`20· ·an different outcome from Your Honors if a different
`21· ·legal standard would apply.
`22· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· So you wouldn't be proposing
`23· ·a new claim construction in the brief?
`24· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Absolutely not.
`25· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· I think you also wanted to
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-2
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`Page 6
`·1· ·address something with regard to the recent Federal
`·2· ·Circuit decision.
`·3· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.· So the Federal Circuit has
`·4· ·issued an order last Tuesday on certain terms,
`·5· ·specifically for the 372, 374, and 378 family.· We
`·6· ·understand in the institution decision the board has
`·7· ·declined to construe the terms, but we believe that in
`·8· ·light of the Federal Circuit decision, the final written
`·9· ·decision probably should proceed under the Federal
`10· ·Circuit's adopted construction.
`11· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· So what terms and what cases
`12· ·are you talking about?
`13· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· So the term is the probabilistic
`14· ·model of normal computer system usage, and the Federal
`15· ·Circuit decision is that that model has to be built with
`16· ·only clean data, which is without any attack data, and
`17· ·that is relevant to IPR 2015-0372, 374, and 378.
`18· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Is there any dispute though
`19· ·about that claim term with respect to the patentability?
`20· ·I don't recall you raising any issue in your patent
`21· ·owner response about that claim term.
`22· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· We did raise it.· We said like in
`23· ·the proposed construction, which was proposed by the
`24· ·petitioner, we don't believe they have met their burden
`25· ·of proof, and they never responded to that argument in
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· ·their reply.
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· So, I mean, you're arguing
`·3· ·now that we should adopt the construction that
`·4· ·petitioner proposed?
`·5· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Is that the only issue with
`·7· ·respect to the Federal Circuit decision?
`·8· · · · · · MS. ZHONG:· Yes.
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· All right.· Does
`10· ·petitioner have any issues with respect to this that
`11· ·they would like to raise?
`12· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Your Honor, if we can clarify one
`13· ·point.· I guess the argument is we obviously don't agree
`14· ·with the Federal Circuit's construction because it's not
`15· ·the construction we advanced in front of the Federal
`16· ·Circuit.· So this is not necessarily a situation where
`17· ·we want one term to be the case and another term to be
`18· ·the case.· It's more the sense that I think we need to
`19· ·make Your Honors aware of the Federal Circuit's ruling
`20· ·because they ruled on a term in the 115 family of
`21· ·patents and the 084 family of patents.· And I would
`22· ·describe this more in the vein of an update on relevant
`23· ·case law as opposed to us taking an advocacy position.
`24· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· Understood.
`25· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· If that makes sense.
`
`Page 8
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Petitioner, do you have
`·2· ·anything you would like to address to this issue?
`·3· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER:· Your Honor, this is Michael
`·4· ·Sacksteder on behalf of petitioner.
`·5· · · · · · I'm a little confused about what's being asked
`·6· ·for here.· In the e-mail to the board it appeared to a
`·7· ·ask for additional briefing on the claim construction
`·8· ·issues.· I understand this morning, from what patent
`·9· ·owner's counsel said, that is not being asked for at
`10· ·all.· Al they're asking for is for the board to be
`11· ·cognizant of these issues.· I'm not sure if that's what
`12· ·is being advanced right now.
`13· · · · · · We certainly oppose any proposal for additional
`14· ·briefing at this late stage, in particular since the --
`15· ·since a grant of a cert petition certainly doesn't
`16· ·change the law, and it would be very impractical and
`17· ·prejudicial to try to craft arguments based on
`18· ·speculation about what the Supreme Court might do.· The
`19· ·Supreme Court might retain its broadest reasonable
`20· ·interpretation, might get rid of it entirely, or might
`21· ·do something in between, and we don't know what could
`22· ·happen.· So I don't think there's any practical way to
`23· ·address this issue at this stage except to be aware that
`24· ·there has been a cert petition filed -- and if that's
`25· ·all that's being asked for -- or a cert petition
`
`Page 9
`·1· ·granted, and if that's all that's being asked for, I
`·2· ·don't see that we have a huge argument right now.
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· Patent owner, I would
`·4· ·you like to clarify what you're asking for before the
`·5· ·board takes it under consideration.
`·6· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Sure.· This is Jason Sheasby for
`·7· ·patent owner.
`·8· · · · · · I think what we are asking for, and the board
`·9· ·may conclude it's not necessary, is a short brief to do
`10· ·two things; to just present to the court to the board,
`11· ·the Federal Circuit's opinion and the decisions the
`12· ·Federal Circuit rendered.· We have argued that on one
`13· ·term Symantec prevailed; on another term Columbia
`14· ·prevailed.
`15· · · · · · It's obviously the board's decision as to what
`16· ·construction it wants to adopt, and our purpose on the
`17· ·Federal Circuit opinion was just to make the board aware
`18· ·of the decision.
`19· · · · · · In terms of the application of the BRI
`20· ·standard, we do think in light of the cert petition,
`21· ·there's a significant question as to whether BRI is the
`22· ·appropriate standard to proceed under in IPRs.· We
`23· ·recognize there's been a rule promulgated by the
`24· ·commissioner and that Your Honors are bound by the rule,
`25· ·but at the same time we do feel that we have an
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-3
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`Page 10
`·1· ·obligation to apprise the board of our position, and if
`·2· ·the board doesn't think a paper is necessary to do that,
`·3· ·if the board thinks this hearing is sufficient, we
`·4· ·completely understand that.
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· All right.· I think
`·6· ·we understand the parties' positions on that issue.
`·7· · · · · · It sounds like there was a second issue as well
`·8· ·that petitioner wanted to raise with respect to patent
`·9· ·owner's motion for observations at cross-examination.
`10· ·So why don't you, Petitioner, tell us --
`11· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER:· Your Honor --
`12· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· -- that is.
`13· · · · · · Go ahead.
`14· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER:· Your Honor, Michael
`15· ·Sacksteder.· I apologize.
`16· · · · · · Just to address the issue of additional
`17· ·briefing on the Federal Circuit decision, I don't think
`18· ·that's necessary, and petitioner doesn't think that's
`19· ·necessary.· If you look at the decision, you'll see that
`20· ·it has no meaningful impact on the IPRs.· In the 375 and
`21· ·377 IPR, the patents at issue there, the patent owner
`22· ·actually issued for the broader construction.· The board
`23· ·agreed with the patent owner in it's institution
`24· ·decision and the Federal Circuit agreed with the board
`25· ·and patent owner.· So Federal Circuit changed nothing
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·that's been applied in this case.
`·2· · · · · · With regard to the other three IPRs, the patent
`·3· ·owner argued for broader construction, including
`·4· ·attach-free and attack data in the construction of the
`·5· ·term.· The Federal Circuit did limit it to just
`·6· ·attack-free data.· But the board determined on
`·7· ·institution that no term construction was needed on that
`·8· ·term or any other term and rendered its decision based
`·9· ·on that.
`10· · · · · · Patent owner continued to advocate some,
`11· ·although not very much, for the broader construction,
`12· ·but again there's no material impact on the board's
`13· ·ultimate decision, and we don't see any reason to spend
`14· ·time briefing the issue.
`15· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· I think we understand
`16· ·your position.
`17· · · · · · Would you like to turn to the issue you raised
`18· ·now regarding the motion for observations?
`19· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER:· Yes.· Mr. Hoffman is going to
`20· ·address that.
`21· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· Hi.· This is Brian Hoffman for
`22· ·petitioner.
`23· · · · · · Your Honors, as you're well aware, the
`24· ·observations are subject to some guidelines which should
`25· ·not exceed a short paragraph, it should cite only one
`
`Page 12
`·1· ·portion of the testimony, and they should not contain
`·2· ·arguments.
`·3· · · · · · Petitioner believes that the observations in
`·4· ·the three IPRs that were filed last week by patent owner
`·5· ·violate at least number two and three.· There's multiple
`·6· ·places where they cite to multiple portions of testimony
`·7· ·and also contain arguments.
`·8· · · · · · If Your Honors would like, I can walk you
`·9· ·through a few examples.
`10· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· I don't think that's
`11· ·necessary.· Why don't you tell us what you're seeking
`12· ·with regards to that issue.
`13· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· We would either like permission
`14· ·to file a motion to expunge or have the board dismiss
`15· ·the motions on observation.
`16· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· So you're asking for
`17· ·us to get rid of them entirely because you think they're
`18· ·not in the correct format?
`19· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· Yes.· Either get rid of them
`20· ·entirely or ask patent owner to refile the motions, that
`21· ·it follow the guidelines.
`22· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Have you filed a response to
`23· ·those observations yet?
`24· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· No.· They're due next Wednesday,
`25· ·I believe.
`
`Page 13
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Would patent owner like to
`·2· ·address this issue?
`·3· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Yes, Your Honor.· The
`·4· ·observations that we filed are exactly consistent with
`·5· ·the trial practice guidance, the guidance issued by the
`·6· ·board.· I think what the issue here is that literally
`·7· ·there are situations in which there are separate lines
`·8· ·of testimony, which together all goes to the exact same
`·9· ·issue and the exact same argument.· And as far as I can
`10· ·tell, the petitioner is objecting to the fact that the
`11· ·observation says page 12 at line 5 through 7 and page 13
`12· ·at lines 4 through 12, so somehow that's improper or a
`13· ·violation of the guidelines.
`14· · · · · · And we respectfully disagree with that, that
`15· ·the purpose of the observation is to be complete and
`16· ·fair.· If the testimony we cite goes to one subject, one
`17· ·argument, that's the appropriate way of doing it.· It
`18· ·would be inappropriate to cherry pick two lines without
`19· ·giving the board the context of the subject matter.· And
`20· ·so I think we feel quite strongly that this is not a
`21· ·proper objection, that what we've done is exactly how
`22· ·observations should be filed.
`23· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· All right.
`24· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· Your Honor, may I address that?
`25· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Petitioner, if you have
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-4
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`·1· ·something to add before we take this under
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`·1· ·Circuit's decision, so I don't think there's any need at
`
`·2· ·consideration, that's fine
`
`·2· ·this point for any additional briefing from the
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· Yeah, Mr. Sheasby is focusing on
`
`·3· ·parties.
`
`·4· ·the citation elements.· What he does not address is the
`
`·4· · · · · · With respect to petitioner's issues regarding
`
`·5· ·argumentative nature of the observations so our dispute
`
`·5· ·patent owner's observations on cross-examination, since
`
`·6· ·is twofold.
`
`·6· ·petitioner has not yet filed their response to those
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· I think you offered to give
`
`·7· ·observations, if you would like to include a short
`
`·8· ·me some examples of where they're being argumentative.
`
`·8· ·paragraph at the beginning of your response indicating
`
`·9· ·Why don't you give me one example of that.
`
`·9· ·why you believe patent owner's observations are not in
`
`10· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· If you could look in the
`
`10· ·the correct format, you can do that, but we don't see
`
`11· ·(indecipherable) to observations, paragraph 5, which is
`
`11· ·any need to expunging or dismissing those observations
`
`12· ·on page 2.
`
`12· ·at this time.
`
`13· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`13· · · · · · With all of that said, are there any questions
`
`14· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· At the bottom of page 2, it says,
`
`14· ·from the petitioner?
`
`15· ·"Dr. Goodrich would not agree that the security log was
`
`15· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· No questions from --
`
`16· ·the preferred log."· And then two lines down it says,
`
`16· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER:· ·(Indecipherable.)
`
`17· ·"This testimony is relevant to petitioner's new
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· I think you talked over each
`
`18· ·arguments."· The word "new" there is argumentative.· But
`
`18· ·other there.
`
`19· ·more importantly, if you look at the very end of page 2
`
`19· · · · · · MR. SACKSTEDER: We both said the same thing.
`
`20· ·after the "it," it says -- well, stepping back.
`
`20· ·No.· Questions.
`
`21· · · · · · This testimony is relevant to petitioner's
`
`21· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· All right.· Thank you.
`
`22· · · · · · new arguments on these pages because
`
`22· · · · · · Any questions from the patent owner?
`
`23· · · · · · security log events are the primary focus
`
`23· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· No, Your Honor.· Thank you for
`
`24· · · · · · of intrusion detection systems.· The
`
`24· ·your time this morning.
`
`25· · · · · · (indeciperable) would have ignored the
`
`25· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· All right.· Thank you all
`
`Page 15
`·1· · · · · · system's log and applications log disclosed
`
`Page 17
`·1· ·very much.· Have a good weekend.· This call is
`
`·2· · · · · · in base.
`
`·2· ·adjourned.
`
`·3· · · · · · That ending sentence, the (indecipherable)
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Thank you.
`
`·4· ·would have ignored the system log and the application
`
`·4· · · · · · (The proceedings concluded at 7:50 a.m.)
`
`·5· ·log is argumentative and it actually mischaracterizes
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`
`·6· ·the arguments in the reply.
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Your Honor, first I'm --
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· I don't think we need any
`
`10· ·further response.· I think we understand the issue here.
`
`11· ·I'm going to place you all on a brief hold.· I think we
`
`12· ·understand both issues.· I'm going to confer with the
`
`13· ·panel.· I'll be back with you in a few moments.
`
`14· · · · · · All right?
`
`15· · · · · · MR. SHEASBY:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`16· · · · · · (Pause in proceedings.)
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· All right.· This is Judge
`
`18· ·Weinschenk.
`
`19· · · · · · Again, I've conferred with the panel and with
`
`20· ·respect to the first issue regarding patent owner's
`
`21· ·request to submit some additional briefing on claim
`
`22· ·construction, we don't believe that any additional
`
`23· ·briefing is necessary.· We understand that the Cuezzo
`
`24· ·grant has been -- claim certiorari in the Cuezzo case,
`
`25· ·so we're aware of that.· We're also aware of the Federal
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-5
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`Page 18
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA· · ·)
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· ·ss.
`
`·4· ·COUNTY of LOS ANGELES· ·)
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · ·I, Anna M. Horton, Certified Shorthand
`
`·7· ·Reporter for the State of California, hereby certify:
`
`·8· · · · · · THAT the Transcript of Proceeding was written
`
`·9· ·by me in stenotype and was thereafter reduced to printed
`
`10· ·matter under my direction and supervision, and I hereby
`
`11· ·declare that said Transcript of Proceeding is a full,
`
`12· ·true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so
`
`13· ·taken.
`
`14· · · · · · ·I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am in no way
`
`15· ·interested in the outcome of said action.
`
`16· · · · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed
`
`17· ·my name this 16th day of February, 2016.
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · _________________________________
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·ANNA M. HORTON, RPR, CSR 6950
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-6
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - O2/O5/2016
`
`il
`
`---ooo---
`
`3 :2,8
`
`5
`
`3:1 13:11
`
`115
`7:20
`
`12
`
`13:11,12
`
`13
`13:11
`
`2015-0372
`6:17
`
`2016
`3:1
`
`372
`6:5
`
`374
`3:14 6:5,17
`
`375
`3:1410:20
`
`377
`3:1410:21
`
`378
`3:14 6:5,17
`
`Anna
`4:1
`
`Annita
`3:24
`
`apologize
`10:15
`
`appeal
`4:23 5:6
`
`appeared
`8:6
`
`application
`9:19
`
`appfled
`11:1
`
`apply
`5:2,21
`
`appfise
`10:1
`
`back-up
`3:18
`
`based
`8:1711:8
`
`behalf
`8:4
`
`believe
`5:9 6:7,24 12:25
`
`believes
`12:3
`
`Blankenship
`3:6,11
`
`board
`4:14,24 5:12 6:6 8:6,10
`9:5,8,10,1710:1,2,3,22,
`2411:612:1413:6,19
`
`board's
`9:15 11:12
`
`bound
`9:24
`
`BRI
`
`5:1 ,12 9:19,21
`
`A.M.
`3:1
`
`ability
`5:5
`
`Absolutely
`5:24
`
`additional
`4:118:7,1310:16
`
`address
`6:1 8:2,2310:1611:20
`13:2,24
`
`appropriate
`5:11 9:2213:17
`
`argued
`9:12 11 :3
`
`arguing
`7:2
`
`adopt
`7:3 9:16
`
`adopted
`6:10
`
`advanced
`7:15 8:12
`
`advocacy
`7:23
`
`advocate
`1 1 :10
`
`agree
`7:13
`
`agreed
`10:23,24
`
`ahead
`10:13
`
`AI
`8:10
`
`alternative
`5:3
`
`argument
`5:5 6:25 7:13 9:213:9,17
`
`Brian
`3:16 11:21
`
`arguments
`8:17 12:2,7
`
`asked
`8:5,9,25 9:1
`
`asking
`8:10 9:4,812:16
`
`attach-free
`1 1 :4
`
`attack
`6:16 11 :4
`
`attack-free
`1 1 :6
`
`available
`4:7
`
`aware
`4:14 7:19 8:23 9:17
`11:23
`
`brief
`5:23 9:9
`
`briefing
`4:118:7,1410:1711:14
`
`broader
`10:2211:3,11
`
`broadest
`8:19
`
`BRYAN
`3:7
`
`built
`6:15
`
`burden
`6:24
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Woodland Hills
`l-800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-7
`
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-7
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`TRANSCRIPT OF
`
`PROCEEDINGS — 02/05/2016
`
`i2
`
`3:13
`
`case
`
`complete
`13:15
`
`cross-examination
`10:9
`
`4:16,22,25 5:5 7:17,18,
`23 11:1
`
`completely
`10:4
`
`Cuozzo
`4:16
`
`e-mail
`8:6
`
`either
`12:13,19
`
`entirely
`8:20 12:17,20
`
`exact
`
`13:8,9
`
`exactly
`13:4,21
`
`example
`5:11,14
`
`examples
`12:9
`
`exceed
`1 1 :25
`
`expect
`4:17
`
`expunge
`12:14
`
`fact
`4:1513:10
`
`fair
`13:16
`
`family
`6:5 7:20,21
`
`far
`13:9
`
`FEBRUARY
`3:1
`
`Federal
`6:1,3,8,9,14 7:7,14,15,19
`9:11,12,1710:17,24,25
`11:5
`
`data
`6:1611:4,6
`
`decision
`4:21 5:14 6:2,6,8,9,15
`7:7 9:15,1810:17,19,24
`11:8,13
`
`decisions
`9:11
`
`decflned
`6:7
`
`definite
`4:17
`
`definitely
`4:20,22 5:4
`
`describe
`7:22
`
`determined
`1 1 :6
`
`different
`5:6,8,10,15,20
`
`disagree
`13:14
`
`discuss
`4:10
`
`dismiss
`12:14
`
`dispute
`6:18
`
`doesn1
`8:1510:2,18
`
`doing
`13:17
`
`cases
`6:1 1
`
`cert
`
`8:15,24,25 9:20
`
`certain
`5:13 6:4
`
`certainly
`8:13,15
`
`certiorare
`4:16
`
`change
`4:18 5:19 8:16
`
`changed
`10:25
`
`cherry
`13:18
`
`Circuit
`6:2,3,8,15 7:7,16 9:12,17
`10:17,24,25 11 :5
`
`Circuit's
`6:10 7:14,19 9:11
`
`cite
`11:2512:613:16
`
`claim
`4:11,18 5:13,15,23 6:19,
`21 8:7
`
`clarify
`5:18 7:12 9:4
`
`clean
`6:16
`
`clear
`4:5
`
`cognizant
`8:1 1
`
`Columbia
`9:13
`
`come
`4:21
`
`commissioner
`9:24
`
`computer
`6:14
`
`conclude
`9:9
`
`conference
`3:13
`
`confused
`8:5
`
`consider
`5:5
`
`consideration
`4:25 9:5
`
`considering
`4:25 5:1
`
`consistent
`13:4
`
`construction
`4:12,18 5:13,15,18,23
`6:10,23 7:3,14,15 8:7
`9:1610:2211:3,4,7,11
`
`constructions
`5:8,10
`
`construe
`5:3 6:7
`
`contain
`1 2:1 ,7
`
`context
`13:19
`
`confinued
`11:10
`
`COPY
`4:6
`
`correct
`12:18
`
`counsel
`3:16,18 4:3 8:9
`
`COUI1
`
`3:20 4:1,3,4,15 5:2 8:18,
`19 9:10
`
`craft
`8:17
`
`don't
`4:12 6:20,24 7:13 8:21,
`22 9:2 10:10,17 11 :13
`12:10,11
`
`due
`12:24
`
`feel
`9:25 13:20
`
`file
`4:6 12:14
`
`filed
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Woodland Hills
`l-800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-8
`
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-8
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`8:24 12:4,22 13:4,22
`
`final
`4:21 6:8
`
`first
`4:10
`
`Fleming
`3:25
`
`follow
`12:21
`
`format
`1 2:18
`
`FRIDAY
`3:1
`
`front
`7:15
`
`giving
`
`4:22 5:7,10 11 :19
`
`Good
`3:10
`
`grant
`8:15
`
`granted
`4:15 9:1
`
`guess
`7:13
`
`guidance
`13:5
`
`guidelines
`11:2412:2113:13
`
`H
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - 02/05/2016
`
`i3
`
`3:16,21 11:19,21 12:13,
`19,2413:24
`
`Honor
`5:17 7:12 8:310:11,14
`13:3,24
`
`Honors
`5:20 7:19 9:24 11 :23
`12:8
`
`Horton
`4:1
`
`HOWARD
`3:6
`
`huge
`9:2
`
`I'll
`
`4:3,5
`
`I'm
`
`4:14 8:5,11
`
`identify
`4:4
`
`impact
`10:20 11:12
`
`impractical
`8:16
`
`improper
`13:12
`
`inappropriate
`1 3:1 8
`
`including
`11:3
`
`indecipherable
`5:12,16
`
`institution
`5:13 6:610:2311:7
`
`interpretation
`8:20
`
`IPR
`6:1710:21
`
`IPR-2015-00372
`
`3:13
`
`IPRS
`9:2210:2011:212:4
`
`issue
`4:13 6:20 7:6 8:2,23
`10:6,7,16,21 11:14,17
`12:1213:2,6,9
`
`issued
`6:410:2213:5
`
`issues
`4:10 7:10 8:8,11
`
`it's
`4:6,25 7:14,18 9:9,15
`10:23
`
`its
`8:1911:8
`
`Jason
`3:255:17 9:6
`
`Judge
`3:5,6,7,10,11,12,19,22
`4:2,9 5:7,22,25 6:11,18
`7:2,6,9,24 8:1 9:3 10:5,
`1211:1512:10,16,22
`13:1,23,25
`
`June
`4:19
`
`late
`8:14
`
`law
`7:23 8:16
`
`lead
`3:16
`
`legal
`5:21
`
`light
`6:8 9:20
`
`limit
`11 :5
`
`line
`3:11,15,20,25 4:313:11
`
`lines
`13:7,12,18
`
`literally
`13:6
`
`little
`8:5
`
`look
`10:19
`
`material
`1 1 :12
`
`matter
`13:19
`
`mean
`7:2
`
`meaningful
`10:20
`
`met
`6:24
`
`Michael
`3:17,25 8:310:14
`
`model
`6:14,15
`
`Moore
`3:7,12
`
`morning
`3:10 8:8
`
`motion
`10:911:1812:14
`
`motions
`12:15,20
`
`multiple
`12:5,6
`
`necessarily
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Woodland Hills
`l-800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-9
`
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-9
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - O2/O5/2016
`
`i4
`
`7:16
`
`owner
`
`necessary
`9:910:2,18,1912:11
`
`need
`7:18
`
`needed
`11:7
`
`never
`6:25
`
`new
`5:23
`
`normal
`6:14
`
`number
`12:5
`
`objecting
`13:10
`
`objection
`13:21
`
`obligation
`10:1
`
`observation
`12:1513:11,15
`
`observations
`10:911:18,2412:3,23
`13:4,22
`
`obviously
`7:13 9:15
`
`Okay
`3:22 4:2,9,14 7:9,24 9:3
`10:511:1512:16
`
`opinion
`9:11,17
`
`oppose
`8:13
`
`opposed
`7:23
`
`order
`6:4
`
`outcome
`5:20
`
`3:23 4:6,11,13 6:21 9:3,7
`10:21,23,2511:3,10
`12:4,20 13:1
`
`owner's
`8:9 1 0:9
`
`P399
`13:11
`
`paper
`10:2
`
`paragraph
`1 1 :25
`
`particular
`8:14
`
`parties‘
`10:6
`
`patent
`3:23 4:6,11,12 6:20 8:8
`9:3,710:8,21,23,2511:2,
`1012:4,2013:1
`
`patentability
`6:19
`
`patents
`7:21 10:21
`
`permission
`12:13
`
`petition
`4:16 8:15,24,25 9:20
`
`petitioner
`3:15,19 6:24 7:4,10 8:1,4
`10:8,10,1811:2212:3
`13:10,25
`
`Phillips
`5:3
`
`pick
`13:18
`
`places
`12:6
`
`point
`7:13
`
`portion
`12:1
`
`portions
`12:6
`
`position
`7:2310:111:16
`
`positions
`10:6
`
`possibility
`4:17
`
`practical
`8:22
`
`practice
`13:5
`
`prejudicial
`8:17
`
`present
`9:10
`
`preserve
`5:4,5
`
`prevailed
`9:13,14
`
`probabilistic
`6:13
`
`probably
`4:20,22 5:10 6:9
`
`proceed
`6:9 9:22
`
`promulgated
`9:23
`
`proof
`6:25
`
`proper
`13:21
`
`proposal
`8:13
`
`propose
`5:7
`
`proposed
`6:23 7:4
`
`proposing
`5:22
`
`purpose
`4:7 921613215
`
`question
`5:19 9:21
`
`quite
`13:20
`
`raise
`6:22 7:11 10:8
`
`raised
`11 :17
`
`raising
`6:20
`
`reason
`11 :13
`
`reasonable
`8:19
`
`recall
`6:20
`
`recognize
`9:23
`
`record
`4:5
`
`refile
`12:20
`
`regard
`6:1 11:2
`
`regarding
`11 :18
`
`regards
`12:12
`
`rehearing
`4:23
`
`rejected
`5:1 2
`
`relevant
`6:17 7:22
`
`rendered
`9:12 11 :8
`
`reply
`7:1
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Woodland Hills
`l-800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-10
`
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-10
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - O2/O5/2016
`
`i5
`
`reporter
`3:20 4:1 ,3,5
`
`request
`4:23
`
`respect
`6:19 7:7,1010:8
`
`respectfully
`13:14
`
`responded
`6:25
`
`response
`6:21 12:22
`
`retain
`8:19
`
`retained
`4:1
`
`rid
`8:2012:17,19
`
`right
`5:2 7:9 8:12 9:210:5
`13:23
`
`ROBERT
`3:5
`
`rule
`9:23,24
`
`ruled
`7:20
`
`ruling
`7:19
`
`S
`
`Sacksteder
`3:17 8:3,4 10:11,14,15
`11:19
`
`says
`13:11
`
`second
`10:7
`
`see
`9:210:1911:13
`
`seeking
`4:23 12:11
`
`seeks
`4:11
`
`sense
`
`7:18,25
`
`separate
`13:7
`
`Sheasby
`3:25 5:17,18,24 7:12,25
`9:6 13:3
`
`short
`9:9 11 :25
`
`significant
`9:21
`
`situation
`7:16
`
`situations
`13:7
`
`sounds
`4:910:7
`
`speaking
`4:4
`
`specifically
`6:5
`
`speculation
`8:18
`
`spend
`11:13
`
`stage
`8:14,23
`
`standard
`4:18 5:2,4,6,21 9:20,22
`
`standards
`5:10
`
`start
`4:12
`
`strongly
`13:20
`
`subject
`11:2413:16,19
`
`sufficient
`10:3
`
`Supreme
`4:15 8:18,19
`
`sure
`4:14 8:11 9:6
`
`Symantec
`
`take
`4:24
`
`takes
`9:5
`
`talking
`6:12
`
`4:10 5:9 9:1012:513:18
`
`U
`
`Telephonic
`3:4
`
`ultimate
`11 :13
`
`tell
`4:1310:1012:1113:10
`
`understand
`5:11 6:6 8:8 10:4,611:15
`
`term
`
`4:19 5:3 6:13,19,21 7:17,
`20 9:1311:5,7,8
`
`terms
`
`5:1 6:4,7,11 9:19
`
`testimony
`12:1,613:8,16
`
`there's
`4:17 5:14 8:22 9:21,23
`11:1212:5
`
`they're
`8:1012:17,24
`
`things
`9:10
`
`think
`5:25 7:18 8:22 9:8,20
`10:2,5,17,1811:15
`12:10,1713:6,20
`
`thinks
`10:3
`
`three
`11 :2 12:4,5
`
`time
`4:19 9:2511:14
`
`today
`4:10
`
`transcript
`4:6
`
`trial
`
`Understood
`7:24
`
`update
`7:22
`
`usage
`6:14
`
`usual
`4:2
`
`vein
`7:22
`
`violate
`12:5
`
`violation
`13:13
`
`walk
`12:8
`
`want
`5:4 7:17
`
`wanted
`5:25 10:8
`
`wants
`9:16
`
`way
`
`DTI Court Reporting
`1-800-826-0277
`
`Solutions
`
`— Woodland Hills
`
`www.deposition.com
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-11
`
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-11
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`

`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - O2/O5/2016
`
`i6
`
`8:2213:17
`
`we've
`13:21
`
`Wednesday
`12:24
`
`week
`12:4
`
`weekend
`4:20,21
`
`Weinschenk
`3:5,10,11,19,22 4:2,9
`5:7,22,25 6:11,18 7:2,6,
`9,24 8:1 9:310:5,12
`11:1512:10,16,2213:1,
`23,25
`
`what's
`8:5
`
`wouldn't
`5:22
`
`written
`6:8
`
`you'll
`10:19
`
`you're
`7:2 9:411:2312:11,16
`
`Z
`
`Zhong
`3:24 4:8,14 5:9 6:3,13,22
`7:5,8
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions — Woodland Hills
`l—800—826—O277
`www.deposition.com
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-12
`
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`Columbia Exhibit 2057-12
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375