In The Matter Of:
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF
`NEW YORK
`v.
` SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`PEREIRA, SHANE, 30(B)(6) ‐ Vol. 1
`September 24, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ‐ OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`-1-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF
`NEW YORK
`v.
` SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`PEREIRA, SHANE, 30(B)(6) ‐ Vol. 1
`September 24, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ‐ OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`-1-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
` RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA )
`UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF )
`NEW YORK, )
` Plaintiff, ) Case No.
` vs. ) 3:13-cv-00808
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION, ) JRS
` Defendant. )
` )
`
` CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
` 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF SHANE PEREIRA
` TAKEN ON
` WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
`
`Reported by: PHILIP D. NORRIS
` CSR NO. 4980
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-2-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 2
`
` 30 (b)(6) Deposition of Shane Pereira,
`taken on behalf of Plaintiff, at 1800 Avenue of the
`Stars, Los Angeles, California, on Wednesday,
`September 24, 2014, at 9:13 a.m., before Philip D.
`Norris, CSR No. 4980, pursuant to Notice.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
` IRELL & MANELLA
` BY: JASON SHEASBY, ESQ.
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars
` Suite 900
` Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
` (310) 277-1010
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
` QUINN EMANUEL
` BY: NATHAN HAMSTRA, ESQ.
` 500 West Madison Street
` Suite 2450
` Chicago, Illinois 60661
` (312) 705-7400
`ALSO PRESENT:
` THOMAS W. BARR
` STEPHEN SMITH (Videographer)
` DAVID MAJORS, ESQ.
`
`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
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-3-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 5
`
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDS, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
` 9:13 A.M.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins Volume I,
`Videotape No. 1, in the deposition of Shane Pereira,
`in the matter of The Trustees of Columbia University
`in the City of New York versus Symantec, in the
`United States District Court for the Eastern
`District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Case
`number is 1313-cv-00808-JRS (sic).
` Today's date is September 24, 2014. Time
`on the video monitor is 9:13. The video operator
`today is Stephen Smith, contracted by Merrill
`Deposition Services at 20750 Ventura Boulevard,
`Suite 205, Woodland Hills, California 91364.
` This video deposition is taking place at
`Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
`900, Los Angeles, California 90067, and was noticed
`by Jason Sheasby of Irell & Manella.
` Counsel, please voice identify yourselves
`and state whom you represent.
` MR. SHEASBY: Jason Sheasby for Columbia.
`With me is Thomas Barr.
` MR. HAMSTRA: Nathan Hamstra, Quinn
`
`08:50:51
`08:50:59
`08:50:59
`09:12:52
`09:12:52
`09:13:03
`09:13:06
`09:13:11
`09:13:15
`09:13:17
`09:13:21
`09:13:26
`09:13:32
`09:13:36
`09:13:41
`09:13:43
`09:13:48
`09:13:52
`09:13:57
`09:14:03
`09:14:05
`09:14:07
`09:14:08
`09:14:11
`09:14:13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-4-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 6
`
`09:14:19
`09:14:19
`09:14:19
`09:14:20
`09:14:23
`09:14:25
`09:14:27
`
`09:14:39
`09:14:39
`09:14:40
`09:14:41
`09:14:41
`09:14:45
`09:14:46
`
`09:14:47
`09:14:47
`09:14:51
`
`Emanuel, for Symantec and the witness.
` MR. MAJORS: David Majors, Symantec
`in-house counsel.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Court reporter today is
`Philip Norris, Merrill Deposition Services.
` Would the reporter please swear in the
`witness.
`
` SHANE PEREIRA,
` having been first duly sworn, was
` examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Good morning, sir.
` A. Morning.
` Q. I'm handing you what I've marked as Pereira
`Exhibit 1.
` (The document referred to was marked by the
`reporter as Exhibit 1 for identification and is
`attached hereto.)
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Sir, this is a 30 (b)(6) notice which was
`served by Columbia University on Symantec, and
`
`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
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-5-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 153
`
`25
`
` Q. And what's your position at Symantec?
`
`13:34:12
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-6-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 154
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
` A. I'm a distinguished engineer.
` Q. And what level of -- what is the level of
`that in the hierarchy of engineers at Symantec?
` A. It's one level below fellow, which is the
`highest position on -- on the engineering ladder.
` Q. And so on the engineer side there's fellow
`and there's distinguished engineer; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. How many fellows are there?
` A. Four, five, somewhere in that range.
` Q. And how many distinguished engineers are
`there?
` A. I don't know. I don't know. Probably be
`in the teens, I would guess.
`
`13:34:13
`13:34:17
`13:34:20
`13:34:24
`13:34:27
`13:34:29
`13:34:33
`13:34:34
`13:34:34
`13:34:37
`13:34:39
`13:34:41
`13:34:42
`13:34:44
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-7-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 280
`
`25
`
` You agree that humans can identify the same
`
`17:16:42
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-8-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 281
`
`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
`
`types of patterns as machine learning; correct?
` A. Did you say "can" or "can't"?
` Q. Can. They can.
` A. I --
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think that's -- I
`don't think that's -- that's possible.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. You believe that machine -- you believe
`that machine-learning classification sets are very
`similar to the type of heuristic rule sets that
`humans create; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Calls for legal
`conclusion, outside the scope, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: If they were similar we
`probably wouldn't do it. We believe they are --
`they are superior to what a human can do in the same
`amount of time and resources.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Heuristic human classification rule sets
`are really in the same field as these
`machine-learning rule sets that you're constructing;
`correct?
`
`17:16:44
`17:16:50
`17:16:51
`17:16:53
`17:17:04
`17:17:05
`17:17:08
`17:17:11
`17:17:15
`17:17:16
`17:17:22
`17:17:26
`17:17:31
`17:17:32
`17:17:33
`17:17:34
`17:17:44
`17:17:46
`17:17:47
`17:17:53
`17:17:55
`17:17:56
`17:18:00
`17:18:04
`17:18:07
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-9-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 282
`
`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
`
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Calls for legal
`conclusion, outside the scope, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I don't know what is a
`heuristic human classification.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. You've heard of heuristics; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Heuristics are rules constructed by humans;
`correct?
` A. Not necessarily.
` Q. Well, you agree that one class of
`heuristics are those constructed by humans; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you agree that human heuristics are
`comparable and similar to machine-learning
`classification sets; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Calls for legal
`conclusion, outside the scope, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: Comparable in what way?
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. They're interchangeable information and
`design strategies that you use for the human
`heuristics are easily applicable in the
`
`17:18:07
`17:18:08
`17:18:11
`17:18:11
`17:18:13
`17:18:18
`17:18:18
`17:18:19
`17:18:19
`17:18:23
`17:18:24
`17:18:26
`17:18:29
`17:18:32
`17:18:33
`17:18:39
`17:18:43
`17:18:44
`17:18:45
`17:18:48
`17:18:48
`17:18:48
`17:18:50
`17:18:53
`17:18:55
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-10-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 283
`
`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
`
`machine-learning context; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope, calls for legal conclusion, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: They aren't interchangeable
`in the sense that I've never seen a human create a
`heuristic that was also generated by a
`machine-learned classifier.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. And you agree that executable attachments
`sent over e-mail are structured in the same way as
`executable attachments saved on a local disk;
`correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Calls for legal
`conclusion, outside the scope, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: That's a very broad
`assertion. They're not always the case. They could
`be backed differently, for example.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Well, executable attachments sent over
`e-mail use MIME format; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope, calls for legal conclusion, calls for expert
`testimony.
`
`17:18:58
`17:19:00
`17:19:01
`17:19:04
`17:19:11
`17:19:15
`17:19:19
`17:19:21
`17:19:23
`17:19:25
`17:19:28
`17:19:33
`17:19:35
`17:19:36
`17:19:38
`17:19:40
`17:19:40
`17:19:42
`17:19:46
`17:19:47
`17:19:48
`17:19:51
`17:19:54
`17:19:55
`17:19:58
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-11-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 284
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
` THE WITNESS: That is not always true.
`Incorrect.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. But sometimes they use MIME format;
`correct?
` A. Correct.
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. And the fact that they use MIME format is
`irrelevant; right? Because even if they use MIME
`format, their structure will be the same as the
`structure of executable attachments saved on local
`disks; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope, calls for expert testimony.
` THE WITNESS: Again, the -- the -- depends
`what you mean by "structure." The structure of
`executables can vary between e-mail or any other
`mechanism just by the way they're packed, the way
`they're constructed.
`
`17:19:58
`17:20:01
`17:20:01
`17:20:01
`17:20:04
`17:20:05
`17:20:05
`17:20:07
`17:20:07
`17:20:07
`17:20:10
`17:20:13
`17:20:16
`17:20:19
`17:20:20
`17:20:22
`17:20:23
`17:20:26
`17:20:29
`17:20:38
`17:20:42
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-12-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 286
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Analysis of unauthorized user access to a
`system is -- strike that.
` Detecting an unauthorized user access to a
`system is very similar to detecting a malicious
`executable; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope, calls for legal conclusion, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: That's incorrect.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. And determining whether a particular event
`is anomalous is very similar to determining whether
`a sequence of events is anomalous; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope, calls for legal conclusion --
` THE WITNESS: Again, that's --
` MR. HAMSTRA: -- calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: That's incorrect.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Records of user commands provide similar
`information to records of executables and other
`processes that run on a computer; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`
`17:22:25
`17:22:36
`17:22:40
`17:22:42
`17:22:45
`17:22:48
`17:22:49
`17:22:50
`17:22:53
`17:22:56
`17:22:56
`17:22:56
`17:22:58
`17:23:02
`17:23:04
`17:23:05
`17:23:07
`17:23:07
`17:23:08
`17:23:10
`17:23:11
`17:23:13
`17:23:16
`17:23:23
`17:23:25
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-13-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 287
`
`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
`
`scope, calls for legal conclusion, calls for expert
`testimony.
` THE WITNESS: Sorry, that was a long
`sentence. Could you repeat that, please?
` (Whereupon the record was read as follows:
` "Q. Records of user commands provide
` similar information to records of executables
` and other processes that run on a computer;
` correct?")
` THE WITNESS: That's incorrect.
`BY MR. SHEASBY:
` Q. Determining whether a file system access is
`anomalous is really comparable to monitoring a
`particular file or registry location to see whether
`a change has been made; correct?
` MR. HAMSTRA: Objection. Outside the
`scope, calls for legal conclusion, calls for expert
`testimony, incomplete hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm going to have
`to ask you to repeat it again. I'm losing my train
`of thought.
` (Whereupon the record was read as follows:
` "Q. Determining whether a file system
` access is anomalous is really comparable to
` monitoring a particular file or registry
`
`17:23:26
`17:23:28
`17:23:29
`17:23:31
`17:23:35
`17:23:13
`17:23:15
`17:23:23
`17:23:25
`17:23:50
`17:23:51
`17:23:59
`17:24:01
`17:24:06
`17:24:09
`17:24:11
`17:24:12
`17:24:14
`17:24:19
`17:24:27
`17:24:31
`17:24:31
`17:23:59
`17:24:01
`17:24:05
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-14-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6) - 9/24/2014
`
`Page 288
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
` location to see whether a change has been made;
` correct?")
` MR. HAMSTRA: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: They're two completely
`different things. Incorrect.
`
`17:24:08
`17:24:11
`17:24:48
`17:24:53
`17:24:55
`
`Merrill Corporation
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com/southern-california.htm
`
`-15-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`/(V
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`SHANE PEREIRA, 30(B)(6)
`
`- 9/24/2014
`
`Page 313
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`I, Philip D. Norris, a Certified shorthand
`
`Reporter for the State of California, do hereby
`
`certify:
`
`I am the deposition officer that
`
`stenographically recorded the testimony in the
`
`foregoing deposition;
`
`Prior to being examined the deponent was
`
`first duly sworn by me;
`
`The foregoing transcript is a true record
`
`of the testimony given;
`
`Before completion of the deposition,
`
`review
`
`of the transcript
`
`[ x ] was
`
`[
`
`] was not requested.
`
`If requested, any changes made by the deponent
`
`(and
`
`provided to the reporter) during the period allowed
`
`are appended.
`
`m.L\
`
`Philip D. Nor is
`CSR NO. 4980
`
`800-826-027]
`Merrill Corporation
`www.deposition.com/soU%hern-California.htm
`C0hHnbH1EX.2013
`Symantec V. Columbia
`IPR201 5-003 75
`
`-16-
`
`Columbia Ex. 2013
`Symantec v. Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
