`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`v.
` THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN
`THE CITY OF NEW YORK
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`GOODRICH, Ph.D., MICHAEL T. ‐ Vol. 1
`September 28, 2015
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-1
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION; )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. ) Case No.
` ) IPR2015-00375
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA ) IPR2015-00377
`UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF )
`NEW YORK; ) VOLUME I
` )
` Patent Owner. ) (Pages 1 - 246)
`_______________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D.
` Newport Beach, California
` Monday, September 28, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Lynda L. Fenn, CSR, RPR
`CSR No. 12566
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-2
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 2
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION; )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. ) Case No.
` ) IPR2015-00375
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA ) IPR2015-00377
`UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF )
`NEW YORK; )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_______________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of MICHAEL T.
` GOODRICH, Ph.D., taken on behalf of Defendants,
` at 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400, Newport
` Beach, California, at 9:00 a.m. and ending at
` 5:13 p.m., Monday, September 28, 2015, reported
` by Lynda L. Fenn, CSR No. 12566, Certified
` Shorthand Reporter within and for the State of
` California, pursuant to notice.
`
`1
`2
`
`345
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-3
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
` FENWICK & WEST, LLP
` BY: MICHAEL SACKSTEDER, ESQ.
` 555 California Street, 12th Floor
` San Francisco, California 94104
` (415) 875-2450
` msacksteder@fenwick.com
`For the Defendants:
` IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
` BY: MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQ.
` GAVIN SNYDER, ESQ.
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
` Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
` (310) 277-1010
` mfleming@irell.com
` gsnyder@irell.com
`
`Also Present:
` Fritz Sperberg, Videographer
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-4
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
` EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
` MR. FLEMING 7
`
` E X H I B I T S
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
` Exhibit 2024 A two-page, double-sided 47
` document entitled Microsoft
` Computer Dictionary, Fifth
` Edition
` Exhibit 2025 A two-page, double-sided 69
` document entitled McGraw-Hill
` Dictionary of Scientific and
` Technical Terms, Sixth Edition
` Exhibit 2026 A two-page, double-sided 221
` document entitled Microsoft
` Computer Dictionary, Fifth
` Edition
` Exhibit 2027 A three-page, double-sided 130
` document entitled
` Virtualization 101
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`456
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-5
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`08:58:38
`
`08:59:06
`08:59:08
`08:59:11
`
`08:59:20
`08:59:24
`08:59:27
`08:59:32
`08:59:32
`08:59:36
`08:59:37
`08:59:40
`08:59:43
`08:59:47
`08:59:49
`08:59:51
`08:59:53
`08:59:57
`08:59:58
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 5
`
` Newport Beach, California
` Monday, September 28, 2015
` 9:00 a.m. - 5:13 p.m.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning, my name is
`Fritz Sperberg. I'm a videographer with DTI. The court
`reporter is Lynda Fenn also with DTI at 20750 Ventura
`Boulevard, Suite 205 in Woodland Hills, California.
` Today's date is September 28th, 2015. The
`time is now eight -- excuse me, 9:00 a.m. and our
`location is 840 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach,
`California.
` Counsel, please identify yourselves and state
`whom you represent.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Michael Sacksteder on behalf
`of Symantec.
` MR. FLEMING: Michael Fleming on behalf of
`Colombia University.
` MR. SNYDER: Gavin Snyder on behalf of
`Columbia as well.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The witness today is
`Michael T. Goodrich.
` Would the reporter please swear in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`567
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-6
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 6
`
`witness.
` MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D.,
`produced as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, and
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
`as follows:
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You may begin.
` MR. FLEMING: As a preliminary, we had earlier
`agreed that we would combine the deposition for both
`IPRs, so I would like the style to reflect that. And
`the agreement was that we will do cross-examination for
`both IPRs together. And then once that is recessed,
`we'll proceed to redirect for both IPRs. And then once
`that is recessed, we'll proceed to recross for both
`IPRs.
` Counselor, is that correct?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: It is. I do have a question
`or two for you. You're viewing this as uncompelled
`direct testimony or rather you are viewing this as
`compelled testimony pursuant to the rules, right?
` MR. FLEMING: I believe this is under rule
`4253(C)(2), correct? This is uncompelled.
` Is your -- your question is to the amount of
`time that each is given?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm just -- that is -- that's
`
`09:00:00
`
`09:00:08
`09:00:08
`09:00:13
`09:00:17
`09:00:22
`09:00:30
`09:00:36
`09:00:42
`09:00:48
`09:00:53
`09:00:54
`09:00:56
`09:00:57
`09:01:01
`09:01:06
`09:01:23
`09:01:26
`09:01:35
`09:01:37
`09:01:40
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-7
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 7
`
`ultimately my question. Your cross-examination is going
`to go for 14 hours maximum, is that correct?
` MR. FLEMING: Right.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: And it is not limited by day
`to which patent?
` MR. FLEMING: Right.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Which IPR we're talking
`about?
` MR. FLEMING: Right.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Okay. I'm fine with the
`concept of taking the IPRs together so I agree with
`that.
` MR. FLEMING: Okay.
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Dr. Goodrich, could you state your name again?
` A Michael T. Goodrich.
` Q And you understand you have taken an oath to
`tell the truth?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q You understand that this oath has the same
`force and effect as if you were in a court of law before
`a judge and jury?
` A That is correct.
`
`09:01:44
`09:01:49
`09:01:56
`09:01:56
`09:01:58
`09:02:00
`09:02:01
`09:02:02
`09:02:02
`09:02:03
`09:02:22
`09:02:27
`09:02:28
`
`09:02:30
`09:02:30
`09:02:41
`09:02:44
`09:02:45
`09:02:50
`09:02:51
`09:02:52
`09:02:56
`09:03:00
`09:03:01
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-8
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 8
`
` Q Is there anything preventing you from giving
`full and accurate answers today?
` A No, sir.
` Q Is there any reason you cannot give your best
`testimony today?
` A Not to my knowledge.
` Q If you do not ask me to clarify a question, I
`will assume you understood the question; is that fair?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Are you represented by counsel today?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes, you are.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Yeah, I should have answered
`that at the beginning on behalf of the witness.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q And can you state the name again?
` A It's Mike Sacksteder from Fenwick & West.
` Q You understand that you are under oath even
`when we take a break?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q You understand when you're under oath you're
`not to discuss the case while on break or with anyone
`outside of this room?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Counsel, what's your source
`for that?
`
`09:03:02
`09:03:08
`09:03:12
`09:03:12
`09:03:16
`09:03:18
`09:03:19
`09:03:27
`09:03:31
`09:03:35
`09:03:38
`09:03:39
`09:03:39
`09:03:42
`09:03:44
`09:03:45
`09:03:46
`09:03:54
`09:03:58
`09:04:00
`09:04:00
`09:04:06
`09:04:12
`09:04:14
`09:04:16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-9
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 9
`
` MR. FLEMING: He's under oath.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Is there a rule you're
`referring to?
` MR. FLEMING: Yes.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Okay. Please identify it.
` MR. FLEMING: It's actually the practice guide
`and I have it here. I'm sorry, I don't have that
`practice guide with me. We can pull it up.
` Counselor, you don't believe that that's true?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: My understanding is that the
`rule is jurisdictionally specific. I've seen different
`rules in different jurisdictions and I just am
`interested in your source for this one.
` MR. FLEMING: You don't believe these rules
`are under the federal rule of practice?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't understand you to be
`deposing me, Counsel.
` MR. FLEMING: No, I'm just asking.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm just asking for your
`source for --
` MR. FLEMING: Sure.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: If you want to provide it,
`that's fine.
` MR. FLEMING: Sure.
` Clearly the federal -- the practice guide
`
`09:04:17
`09:04:20
`09:04:22
`09:04:23
`09:04:27
`09:04:30
`09:04:34
`09:05:05
`09:05:15
`09:05:18
`09:05:21
`09:05:26
`09:05:31
`09:05:32
`09:05:34
`09:05:36
`09:05:38
`09:05:39
`09:05:40
`09:05:45
`09:05:45
`09:05:46
`09:05:49
`09:05:50
`09:06:20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-10
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 10
`
`that's in the federal rules has been published that
`states the examination and cross-examination of the
`witness are to proceed under the Federal Rules of
`Evidence and it makes clear in -- on page -- sorry -- on
`page 48772 that -- that the -- when the person is under
`oath is not to discuss the case with anybody outside of
`the room or with counsel.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: What practice guide are you
`referring to?
` MR. FLEMING: I'm referring to paragraph six
`and it was published in the Federal Rules of Evidence --
`I mean in the -- in the Federal Register, volume 77,
`number 157.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: All right. And you are --
`can you please read the portion that you're referring
`to? I don't want to make a big deal out of this.
` MR. FLEMING: I really don't understand why
`you would.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Well, it's not the rule that
`I've heard expressed before. I've heard that while a
`witness is under cross-examination -- for instance, the
`district of Delaware has a specific local rule as to
`that that the witness is not to discuss testimony that's
`been given or may be given.
` MR. FLEMING: Okay. I'll read it.
`
`09:06:23
`09:06:27
`09:06:30
`09:06:34
`09:06:44
`09:06:53
`09:07:01
`09:07:02
`09:07:04
`09:07:05
`09:07:07
`09:07:10
`09:07:21
`09:07:22
`09:07:24
`09:07:28
`09:07:30
`09:07:32
`09:07:32
`09:07:34
`09:07:37
`09:07:40
`09:07:43
`09:07:46
`09:07:48
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-11
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 11
`
` MR. SACKSTEDER: But I'd like you to read it.
` MR. FLEMING: "Once the cross-examination of a
`witness has commenced and until cross-examination has
`conducted, counsel offers the witness on direct
`examination, shall not consult or confer with witness
`regarding substance of the witness testimony already
`given or anticipated to give, except for the purpose of
`conferring on whether to assert a privilege after
`testifying or how to compel to comply with board a
`order."
` MR. SACKSTEDER: And I believe that is
`consistent with what I just described while the witness
`is being cross-examined. While the witness is under
`oath, period, I don't think is what the passage you just
`read says.
` MR. FLEMING: I believe that when you read the
`rule as a whole when you are under oath, when you leave
`the room you are still under cross-examination.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm not saying that. I fully
`agree that he is under cross-examination even when he is
`outside the room --
` MR. FLEMING: Okay.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: -- until you say I'm done
`with my cross-examination or words to that effect. At
`that point, though, he may still be under oath and,
`
`09:07:48
`09:07:50
`09:07:55
`09:07:58
`09:08:01
`09:08:04
`09:08:07
`09:08:11
`09:08:14
`09:08:15
`09:08:16
`09:08:19
`09:08:25
`09:08:29
`09:08:32
`09:08:34
`09:08:39
`09:08:41
`09:08:44
`09:08:47
`09:08:47
`09:08:48
`09:08:50
`09:08:54
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-12
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 12
`
`indeed, I think he is, and he hasn't provided redirect
`examination yet, but I don't think what you just read or
`the portion of the practice guide you just read applies
`to that situation.
` MR. FLEMING: So do you want to make clear
`that we'll just re-administer the oath and make clear
`that he's not under oath when he leaves the room?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't think we need to do
`that. I think that we just need to have the rule
`accurately reflect what you read which is while he's
`being cross-examined, even when he's out of the room
`during breaks, he's not permitted to discuss the content
`of his testimony with me or anybody else. But once you
`are completed with your cross-examination, then that
`rule no longer applies.
` Do you agree with that?
` MR. FLEMING: Are you familiar with the recent
`case law having to do with coaching?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Yeah, I don't intend to coach
`anybody on anything.
` MR. FLEMING: Okay. All right. Very good.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Dr. Goodrich, you understand your counsel
`cannot instruct you not to answer the question unless
`it's necessary to preserve privilege?
`
`09:08:57
`09:09:01
`09:09:03
`09:09:06
`09:09:07
`09:09:10
`09:09:12
`09:09:14
`09:09:15
`09:09:18
`09:09:21
`09:09:26
`09:09:29
`09:09:32
`09:09:35
`09:09:37
`09:09:39
`09:09:41
`09:09:43
`09:09:47
`09:09:48
`09:09:50
`09:09:55
`09:09:56
`09:09:59
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-13
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 13
`
` A Yes, sir.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't always agree with
`that either. There may be other situations, which I
`don't expect you to get into, you know, situations where
`counsel might be badgering the witness, matters such as
`that, but I think that rather than asking the witness
`for his understanding of the law, it might be best for
`us just to discuss those situations if they come up.
` MR. FLEMING: Very good.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Did anything to -- did you do anything to
`prepare for this deposition?
` A Yes.
` Q What did you do?
` A I met with Mike Sacksteder yesterday and I
`reviewed several documents that are part of the
`discussions that we're going to be having.
` Q How long was -- did that take?
` A Roughly one day.
` Q Did you review documents in preparation for
`the deposition?
` A Yes.
` Q What documents did you review?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Objection; the selection of
`documents for the witness to review are counsel's work
`
`09:10:02
`09:10:05
`09:10:07
`09:10:09
`09:10:13
`09:10:18
`09:10:21
`09:10:25
`09:10:34
`09:10:40
`09:10:40
`09:10:43
`09:10:45
`09:10:46
`09:10:48
`09:10:53
`09:10:57
`09:10:59
`09:11:01
`09:11:04
`09:11:09
`09:11:10
`09:11:10
`09:11:17
`09:11:21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-14
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 14
`
`product, unless those documents refresh the witness'
`recollection.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Have you ever been deposed before?
` A Yes.
` Q Or testified in court?
` A Yes.
` Q Anything besides earlier depositions in the
`'084 and the '306 reexaminations?
` A Yes.
` Q What other matters have you been an expert on?
` A I've been on several matters retained as an
`expert with respect to technologies and digital risk
`management, computer security, general algorithms and
`data structures. Depending on how you count, I've been
`deposed somewhere between five and twenty times in those
`matters.
` Q I'd like to present upfront these as part of
`this deposition. This is your exhibits that are of
`record, other than the file histories. And then also I
`would like to present -- that's for IPR 2014-0075 and
`also I would like to give you another binder with the
`exhibits for IPR 2014-0037.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: I think, Counsel, you
`misspoke on both IPR numbers. The documents that I have
`
`09:11:26
`09:11:35
`09:11:35
`09:11:35
`09:11:37
`09:11:37
`09:11:40
`09:11:41
`09:11:50
`09:11:53
`09:11:54
`09:12:01
`09:12:07
`09:12:11
`09:12:18
`09:12:23
`09:12:26
`09:12:27
`09:12:37
`09:12:44
`09:12:48
`09:12:55
`09:13:01
`09:13:08
`09:13:10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-15
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 15
`
`right here are IPR 2014-375 and IPR 2014-377.
` MR. FLEMING: Thank you for correcting.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: And I do have a question.
`Are you going to mark these as exhibits or are they
`being used for demonstrative purposes?
` MR. FLEMING: They're being used for this
`deposition for demonstrative purposes. They're already
`in the record.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Can you tell me, Dr. Goodrich, when you looked
`at the claims were there any constructions that you're
`applying in your declaration?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Can you tell me what they were?
` A Yes, I discuss some claim construction in my
`declaration. So turning to the one for the '115 patent
`and these are found in the paragraphs beginning at
`paragraph 53 and going until 60.
` Q And what particular claim terms were you
`particularly referring to?
` A So, for example, in paragraph 54 I cite that
`the source I'm using for these claim constructions are
`claim constructions done for a related matter in the
`district court. And then the terms that I define or
`adopt are those claim constructions for -- include
`
`09:13:13
`09:13:21
`09:13:22
`09:13:24
`09:13:27
`09:13:32
`09:13:34
`09:13:42
`09:13:49
`09:13:49
`09:13:55
`09:13:59
`09:14:00
`09:14:01
`09:14:15
`09:14:25
`09:14:35
`09:14:38
`09:14:45
`09:14:49
`09:14:53
`09:15:01
`09:15:06
`09:15:10
`09:15:16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-16
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 16
`
`anomalous, which is mentioned in paragraph 55 as,
`"deviation or deviating from a model of typical attack
`free computer system usage." My understanding is that
`now the patent board has construed that term more
`broadly than I did hence all of my conclusions would
`still apply under that more broad definition.
` Then in paragraph 56 I provide, again, from
`the district court, a definition for emulator as
`"software alone or in combination with hardware that
`permits the monitoring and selective execution of
`certain parts or all of a program." Then in paragraph
`57 I provide this, again from the district court,
`construction for application community which is "members
`of a community running the same program or selected
`portion of a program."
` Then in paragraph 58 I talk about adopting a
`definition for the phrase "generating a virtualized
`error" as "simulating an error return from the
`function." And then in my paragraph 59 I discuss the
`phrase "indicators of program level function calls" as
`being defined "as indicators of which the program's
`functions are being called."
` And then in 60 I mentioned my opinion that the
`phrase "reflects" is the same as "describes," but my
`opinions would still apply just using standard plane
`
`09:15:23
`09:15:26
`09:15:27
`09:15:31
`09:15:36
`09:15:41
`09:15:45
`09:15:51
`09:15:56
`09:15:59
`09:16:03
`09:16:06
`09:16:11
`09:16:15
`09:16:19
`09:16:21
`09:16:27
`09:16:31
`09:16:38
`09:16:41
`09:16:44
`09:16:47
`09:16:51
`09:16:57
`09:17:04
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-17
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 17
`
`meaning for "reflects."
` Q Does your -- does your opinion depend on any
`other claim constructions other than those rendered by
`the district court?
` A No, sir, not to my knowledge.
` Q So your opinions for the claim construction
`are complete?
` A I believe so. I believe I've applied the
`broadest reasonable construction rule that is used for
`IPRs and the broadest reasonable construction I
`understand to be the plain meaning for the other terms
`that I'm not mentioning here.
` Q What source of information are you relying on
`in your declaration on both IPRs?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Object to the form of the
`question.
` THE WITNESS: So in both declarations I have a
`section called "Material Considered." So, for example,
`with respect to the '115 that's my section four where I
`list off material considered as a part of this
`declaration.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Did you rely on the same materials for '322?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: Just taking a quick scan of the
`
`09:17:12
`09:17:13
`09:17:16
`09:17:22
`09:17:24
`09:17:27
`09:17:31
`09:17:32
`09:17:37
`09:17:43
`09:17:48
`09:17:50
`09:17:56
`09:17:57
`09:18:00
`09:18:02
`09:18:10
`09:18:12
`09:18:16
`09:18:24
`09:18:26
`09:18:27
`09:18:28
`09:18:32
`09:18:46
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-18
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 18
`
`comparable section four in my declaration for the '322
`patent, it appears that these are the same list of
`materials that I relied on.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Did you write your declaration yourself?
` A So my declaration was written in a
`collaborative style with attorneys. But all the
`portions included in my declaration are my opinions.
` Q So did they write the first draft, the
`attorneys?
` A I would not characterize it as first draft,
`second draft. It was more like, like I said, a
`collaboration where -- I'm not recalling today exactly
`who produced the first words for various sections.
`Certainly some sections came first from attorneys, some
`other sections and paragraphs came first from me.
`There's back-and-forth discussions as well. I'm not
`trying to reveal anything that might be considered
`confidential, but --
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Please don't.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Don't.
` THE WITNESS: But ultimately the result was
`what is found here in this declaration. Indeed, these
`are my opinions.
`
`09:18:50
`09:18:54
`09:18:58
`09:18:59
`09:19:00
`09:19:02
`09:19:06
`09:19:11
`09:19:21
`09:19:25
`09:19:26
`09:19:29
`09:19:32
`09:19:39
`09:19:42
`09:19:45
`09:19:45
`09:19:48
`09:19:50
`09:19:52
`09:19:54
`09:19:54
`09:19:55
`09:19:57
`09:20:01
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-19
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 19
`
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Do you believe that you've consulted all the
`relevant sources of information that may be material to
`the opinions you presented in your declaration?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Object to the form of the
`question.
` THE WITNESS: Could you restate the question
`again?
` MR. FLEMING: Sure.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Do you believe that you have consulted all of
`the relevant sources of information that may be material
`to the opinions you've presented in your declaration?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: So I certainly consulted and
`referenced here in the "Materials" section the materials
`that I'm relying on with respect to the opinions I give
`in this declaration. I'm not sure if that qualifies as
`being all in the way you are using this word "all." But
`certainly these are the materials that I relied on for
`my opinion, in forming the basis for my opinion.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q When were you retained on this case?
` A I'm not remembering the exact. I think it was
`mid 2014. But I'm not remembering as I sit here today
`
`09:20:04
`09:20:08
`09:20:12
`09:20:15
`09:20:18
`09:20:21
`09:20:22
`09:20:23
`09:20:24
`09:20:25
`09:20:25
`09:20:30
`09:20:35
`09:20:39
`09:20:40
`09:20:51
`09:20:57
`09:21:02
`09:21:06
`09:21:10
`09:21:13
`09:21:18
`09:21:18
`09:21:21
`09:21:25
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-20
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 20
`
`the exact time when I was retained.
` Q How much time have you billed to these two
`IPRs?
` A I'm not remembering the exact number, but it's
`somewhere in the range of a hundred hours approximately.
` Q For both?
` A For both, yeah.
` Q How much time have you billed for all seven
`IPRs combined?
` A Oh, I was including the other ones before in
`that answer, I'm sorry.
` Q Okay.
` A Yeah.
` Q Okay.
` A Yeah.
` Q So can you tell me then how much you have
`billed for just these two IPRs?
` A I didn't break it out by IPR like this, so I
`can't answer that question.
` Q Symantec is paying for you to provide this
`opinion; correct.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I was retained through sort of
`levels of indirection. There's a firm that's -- that
`first contacted me and is processing the bills. They
`
`09:21:29
`09:21:32
`09:21:36
`09:21:37
`09:21:41
`09:21:44
`09:21:47
`09:21:48
`09:21:54
`09:21:57
`09:22:01
`09:22:01
`09:22:02
`09:22:02
`09:22:04
`09:22:04
`09:22:06
`09:22:09
`09:22:15
`09:22:20
`09:22:24
`09:22:25
`09:22:26
`09:22:31
`09:22:37
`
`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
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-21
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 21
`
`then bill the law firm which then bills the client
`Symantec and then eventually through all of those
`channels I'm eventually paid.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q What is your billing rate?
` A I'm not sure I'm allowed to say that -- answer
`that question with respect to the retainer agreement I
`made with this firm that first contacted me and is the
`one that I signed the contract with.
` Q So can you tell me how much in total Symantec
`has paid for -- has paid to you so far?
` A Again, it goes through these various channels
`and certainly the last channel, this firm, I believe
`it's D-o-a-r, that handles the billing, some of the
`funds that Symantec pays through the law firm go to them
`and then some go to me.
` So if you are talking about just the amount
`that finally trickles through to me, it's been somewhere
`in the range of between 50 and $100,000.
` Q I would like you to turn to Exhibit No. 1003
`and for the '115 IPR, as well as Exhibit No. 1003 for
`the recent filing.
` A Okay. I'm there.
` Q Okay. Do you recognize these documents?
` A Yes, these appear to be my declarations that I
`
`09:22:40
`09:22:44
`09:22:48
`09:22:50
`09:22:50
`09:22:51
`09:22:55
`09:23:00
`09:23:04
`09:23:07
`09:23:15
`09:23:19
`09:23:25
`09:23:30
`09:23:36
`09:23:40
`09:23:43
`09:23:45
`09:23:52
`09:23:57
`09:24:07
`09:24:16
`09:24:18
`09:24:20
`09:24:24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-22
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 22
`
`provided in these matters.
` MR. SACKSTEDER: And for the record the
`exhibit number appears to be SYS 1003 on both.
` THE WITNESS: In this case, yeah.
` MR. FLEMING: Feel free to refer to these
`documents as you need during the deposition.
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q So to be clear, then, you submitted a separate
`declaration for '322 IPR, as well as a separate
`declaration for '115?
` A That is correct.
` Q What is the difference between the declaration
`in '115 and the '322?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: There's a number of differences
`between these two declarations, but there's also
`substantial overlap.
` The '115 patent and the '322 patent share a
`common specification and a lot of the claim language is
`very similar between the two, but there are some
`differences. And so if you go and look at the opinions
`that I provide in each of these declarations, there are
`some differences between the two and, indeed, even the
`length of the two declarations is different.
`
`09:24:31
`09:24:39
`09:24:40
`09:24:47
`09:25:06
`09:25:08
`09:25:12
`09:25:14
`09:25:14
`09:25:24
`09:25:28
`09:25:31
`09:25:34
`09:25:38
`09:25:41
`09:25:44
`09:25:47
`09:25:51
`09:25:53
`09:25:56
`09:26:00
`09:26:03
`09:26:10
`09:26:13
`09:26:17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Los Angeles
`800-826-0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`Columbia Ex 2029-23
`Symantec v Columbia
`IPR2015-00375
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GOODRICH, Ph.D. - 9/28/2015
`
`Page 23
`
`BY MR. FLEMING:
` Q Can you point to me what the most substantive
`differences is?
` MR. SACKSTEDER: Object to the form of the
`question.
` THE WITNESS: So, as I mentioned earlier,
`there are a number of differences, but certainly one
`that is substantial is that with respect to the '322
`patent, I am concluding that several claims, as I
`mentioned on page 27, are rendered obvious in view of
`Khazan and Agrawal, two references I give. Whereas with
`respect to