In The Matter Of:
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
