APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`
`Page 1
`
`·1· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·_____________________
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·Apple Inc.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · ·E-Watch, Inc.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`·9· · · · · · · · ·______________________
`
`10· · · · · · · · · Case IPR2015-00412
`
`11· · · · · · · · · Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·______________________
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
`
`15· · · · · · · ·JOSE LUIS MELENDEZ, Ph.D.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18· Reported by
`
`19· Rebecca J. Callow, RMR, CRR, RPR
`
`20· Job No. 101402
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(cid:36)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)
`Exh. 1013
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 2
`·1· · · · · · Deposition of JOSE LUIS MELENDEZ, Ph.D.,
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
`
`Pages 2..5
`Page 4
`
`·2· held at the offices of DiNovo Price Ellwanger &
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· Hardy LLP, 7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 350,
`
`·3· JOSE LUIS MELENDEZ, PH.D.
`
`·4· Austin, Texas, pursuant to Notice before
`
`·4· Examination by Mr. Silver .........................5
`
`·5· Rebecca J. Callow, Registered Merit Reporter,
`
`·5· Court Reporter's Certificate ....................256
`
`·6· Certified Realtime Reporter, Registered Professional
`
`·6
`
`·7· Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the State of
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · EXHIBITS
`
`·8· Texas.
`
`·8· NO.· · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`·9
`
`10· Exhibit 1010· ·Keypad diagram· · · · · · · · · · ·44
`
`11· Exhibit 1011· ·8/31/2015 Decision on Request· · ·102
`
`12· · · · · · · · ·for Rehearing (IPR2015-00413)
`
`13· Exhibit 1012· ·3/25/2015 Memorandum Opinion· · · 106
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·and Order
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·(2:13-CV-1061-JRG-RSP)
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18· · · · · · · ·PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`19· NO.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`20· Exhibit 2003· · ..................................13
`
`21· Exhibit 1001· · ..................................75
`
`22· Exhibit 2009· · .................................125
`
`23· Exhibit 1006· · .................................168
`
`24· Exhibit 1007· · .................................218
`
`25
`
`Page 5
`
`·1
`·2· · · · · · · ·JOSE LUIS MELENDEZ, Ph.D.
`·3· having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`·5· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`·6· · · Q.· ·Good morning.· Could you state your full
`·7· name for the record.
`·8· · · A.· ·It's José Luis Melendez.
`·9· · · Q.· ·I introduced myself already.· I'm counsel
`10· for the petitioner, Apple.· My name is Blair Silver.
`11· Just a couple of preliminary questions.
`12· · · · · · · · Where do you reside?
`13· · · A.· ·In Lakeway, Texas.
`14· · · Q.· ·And do you have any residence in
`15· Puerto Rico?
`16· · · A.· ·I have a home in Puerto Rico, yes.
`17· · · Q.· ·Have you testified before?
`18· · · A.· ·I have testified in depositions.
`19· · · Q.· ·All right.· How many times have you
`20· testified in depositions?
`21· · · A.· ·A handful of times.· If you would like an
`22· exact number, I can think about it here.
`23· · · Q.· ·Handful, like five?
`24· · · A.· ·Yeah.· Around five.
`25· · · Q.· ·What were the circumstances of those
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES
`
`·2· FOR PETITIONER:
`
`·3· · · ·Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`
`·4· · · ·1050 Conneticut Avenue, N.W.
`
`·5· · · ·Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`·6· · · · · · By:· Blair A. Silver
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·Brian M. Buroker
`
`·8
`
`·9· FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`10· · · ·DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`
`11· · · ·7000 North MoPac Expressway
`
`12· · · ·Suite 350
`
`13· · · ·Austin, Texas 78731
`
`14· · · · · · By:· Gregory Donahue
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 6
`
`·1· depositions?
`·2· · · A.· ·There was an infringement deposition for a
`·3· case involving Bandspeed which is Bluetooth
`·4· technology, and an invalidity deposition.· Both were
`·5· related to litigation.
`·6· · · · · · · · More recently, there was a deposition
`·7· related to claim construction, also in a
`·8· Bandspeed-related matter to the same patents.
`·9· · · Q.· ·And so --
`10· · · A.· ·That's at least three.· It seems like there
`11· might have been one more but I can't think of it.
`12· · · Q.· ·Do you know who the parties were involved
`13· in those depositions?
`14· · · A.· ·I want to say -- it's been a little while.
`15· I want to say that -- for the claim construction I
`16· know for sure it was Qualcomm and Texas Instruments.
`17· For the infringement, I believe it was -- Toshiba
`18· may have been one of the parties.· It seems to me
`19· Motorola may have been involved.
`20· · · · · · · · I think they were -- that there was
`21· one party that wasn't physically present, and I
`22· think they were in the process of settling, so they
`23· were at the deposition but not actively involved in
`24· the deposition.
`25· · · Q.· ·And that was the Toshiba matter?
`
`Pages 6..9
`Page 8
`
`·1· the defendants.
`·2· · · Q.· ·What percentage of your work is for patent
`·3· owners versus, I guess, defendants, alleged
`·4· infringers?
`·5· · · A.· ·I have no idea how to calculate a
`·6· percentage.· But if you want to ask the -- maybe
`·7· restate the question in some other way.
`·8· · · Q.· ·How many matters do you have for patent
`·9· owners over your career?
`10· · · A.· ·So as an expert witness, I've had two
`11· clients and they have been Bandspeed and E-Watch
`12· in the entirety of my career.
`13· · · Q.· ·To your knowledge, does Bandspeed
`14· manufacture any products?
`15· · · A.· ·I believe that they do, but I'm not
`16· intimately familiar with their business.· I know
`17· they're an operating company.
`18· · · Q.· ·Have you ever offered an opinion on behalf
`19· of a defendant in a patent infringement case?
`20· · · A.· ·I believe Bandspeed may have been a
`21· defendant because I think there was some
`22· counterclaims or countersuit against Bandspeed by
`23· Qualcomm, but I -- I'm not really intimately
`24· familiar with the legal details beyond the areas
`25· that I'm asked to offer opinions on.
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·2· · · Q.· ·Do you remember any other matters?
`·3· · · A.· ·Well, it was in the same case.· So the
`·4· infringement and the validity was the same case. I
`·5· just don't remember exactly which parties were
`·6· involved at the particular times.· I think there was
`·7· a maximum of three parties, and there may have been
`·8· a settlement that occurred before the validity
`·9· deposition after the infringement.
`10· · · Q.· ·So this was the same case that you gave
`11· validity and infringement testimony?
`12· · · A.· ·It was the same patents and the same
`13· litigation.· I don't know if technically it was the
`14· same case.· I think there may have been different
`15· case numbers for the different defendants involved.
`16· · · Q.· ·So who did you represent in the Qualcomm
`17· case?· Who were you offering testimony on behalf of?
`18· · · A.· ·My client was -- it was and still is
`19· Bandspeed.
`20· · · Q.· ·And Bandspeed was the patent owner in that?
`21· · · A.· ·That's correct.
`22· · · Q.· ·And how about in the Toshiba case?· Who
`23· were you testifying on behalf of?
`24· · · A.· ·Well, it was the same.· So Bandspeed was
`25· the patent owner, and Toshiba would have been one of
`
`Page 9
`·1· · · Q.· ·But your testimony in Bandspeed was not
`·2· related to that counterclaim, or was it related to
`·3· that counterclaim?
`·4· · · A.· ·My testimony in Bandspeed was -- has been
`·5· on three occasions:· One was to offer an
`·6· infringement opinion, the other was related to an
`·7· invalidity opinion, and the third was to opine on
`·8· certain terms that were being construed in the
`·9· litigation.
`10· · · Q.· ·All right.· So aside from deposition
`11· testimony, have you ever provided testimony in the
`12· form of a written affidavit or declaration like
`13· you've done here?
`14· · · A.· ·Yes.· I've been involved in -- also, again,
`15· just for Bandspeed and E-Watch in other IPR
`16· proceedings.· So I guess I don't -- I don't know if
`17· Bandspeed would be considered to be a defendant in
`18· that case.· They're certainly not a plaintiff, so
`19· I'm not sure if the same terminology applies.· But I
`20· did offer opinions on behalf of Bandspeed and
`21· E-Watch in IPR proceedings that at least weren't
`22· initiated by my client.
`23· · · Q.· ·And then the Bandspeed matter, when did
`24· those -- that deposition and when did that IPR
`25· affidavit occur?
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 10
`·1· · · A.· ·It would have been within the last year. I
`·2· don't have specific dates.· I didn't understand that
`·3· to be the subject of today's deposition.
`·4· · · Q.· ·So is that --
`·5· · · A.· ·I do believe that would be a matter of
`·6· public record in terms of I think when I submit a
`·7· declaration there's some record within the PTAB that
`·8· you could access to get that information.
`·9· · · Q.· ·Is there any reason today that you think
`10· you would not be able to provide truthful testimony?
`11· · · A.· ·No.
`12· · · Q.· ·Are you on any medications?
`13· · · A.· ·No.
`14· · · Q.· ·Substances?
`15· · · A.· ·Just caffeine from the cup of coffee I had
`16· at Starbucks this morning.
`17· · · Q.· ·You're not feeling ill today?
`18· · · A.· ·No.
`19· · · Q.· ·It sounds like you've been through a
`20· deposition before, but I'm just going to run through
`21· some basics of how this usually works.
`22· · · · · · · · Verbal answers are appreciated.· No
`23· head nodding or uh-huhs.· That's not good for the
`24· court reporter for a clean record.
`25· · · · · · · · Do you understand that?
`
`Pages 10..13
`Page 12
`·1· the patent owner's response that was prepared, and I
`·2· reviewed the subject patent.· I reviewed the -- I
`·3· guess I would call it the asserted -- or claimed
`·4· prior art, which were the McNelley and Umezawa
`·5· references, and I had skimmed somewhat the petition
`·6· and the expert declaration from the other --
`·7· · · Q.· ·Did you meet with any other attorneys --
`·8· · · · · · · · I'm sorry.
`·9· · · A.· ·I was just wrapping up that question saying
`10· that I also reviewed the expert declaration from
`11· your -- the person you have working for you.
`12· · · Q.· ·Did you meet with any attorneys from
`13· E-Watch in preparation for the deposition?
`14· · · A.· ·Yes.
`15· · · Q.· ·For how long did you meet?
`16· · · A.· ·I met for approximately -- well, there was
`17· a combination of telephone and in-person.· I think,
`18· in total, maybe about an hour and a half.
`19· · · Q.· ·And when did those meetings occur?
`20· · · A.· ·Yesterday.
`21· · · Q.· ·Did you review any other documents that
`22· were not listed in your declaration in preparation
`23· for today's deposition?
`24· · · A.· ·No.
`25· · · · · · · · Well, not related to this.· I do read
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·2· · · Q.· ·It's helpful also for a clean record if you
`·3· wait for me to finish the question and then you
`·4· respond.· And just let me know if you need a break.
`·5· · · · · · · · Do you understand that?
`·6· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·7· · · Q.· ·And if I ask you a question, I'm going to
`·8· assume that you're going to answer it fully.· Not
`·9· holding anything back and giving a full answer to
`10· the question.· Does that sound correct?
`11· · · A.· ·Correct.· To the extent I understand the
`12· question.
`13· · · Q.· ·Yes.· And if you don't understand my
`14· question, you'll ask me to clarify?
`15· · · A.· ·Yes.
`16· · · Q.· ·And unless you're instructed not to answer,
`17· you understand you have to answer the question?
`18· · · A.· ·Yes.
`19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And you know you're testifying under
`20· oath today even though we're in a conference room?
`21· · · A.· ·Yes.· I was administered that a little
`22· while ago.
`23· · · Q.· ·So what did you do to prepare for today's
`24· deposition?
`25· · · A.· ·I reviewed my own declaration.· I reviewed
`
`Page 13
`·1· things and look at other things but not related to
`·2· my testimony here.
`·3· · · Q.· ·Related to something else?· Can you just --
`·4· maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by that.
`·5· · · A.· ·News articles and things like that.
`·6· · · Q.· ·So you submitted a declaration in this
`·7· case.· Correct?
`·8· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·9· · · Q.· ·So I'm handing you what has been premarked
`10· Exhibit 2003.
`11· · · · · · · · Do you recognize this document?
`12· · · A.· ·It's entitling -- it appears to be my
`13· declaration.
`14· · · Q.· ·And is this the report that you filed in
`15· this matter -- or declaration?· Excuse me.
`16· · · A.· ·It appears to be, yes.
`17· · · Q.· ·Does this declaration contain your full
`18· opinion of the prior art and claim constructions in
`19· this matter?
`20· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`21· · · A.· ·"This matter" being this particular IPR?
`22· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`23· · · Q.· ·This IPR, yes.
`24· · · A.· ·Yes.
`25· · · Q.· ·If you turn quickly to Section 5 which is
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`Pages 14..17
`Page 16
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 14
`·1· Paragraphs 27 through 31.· Is this section entitled
`·2· "Claim Constructions"?
`·3· · · A.· ·What paragraphs did you say?
`·4· · · Q.· ·27 through 31.
`·5· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·6· · · Q.· ·And does this reflect your entire testimony
`·7· regarding claim construction in this IPR?
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`·9· · · A.· ·Can you repeat the question?
`10· · · BY MR. SILVER
`11· · · Q.· ·Does this reflect your entire claim
`12· construction opinion in this IPR?
`13· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Same objection.
`14· · · A.· ·I think -- I'm not sure how to answer your
`15· question.· I think this -- this section expressly
`16· articulates terms that I believed would benefit from
`17· an opinion regarding construction.· But all the
`18· terms in the claims have some definition associated
`19· with them, and so I would have -- my opinion is that
`20· the terms in the claims are understandable by a
`21· person of ordinary skill in the art, and so they
`22· didn't require expressly commenting on every single
`23· term in the -- in the claims.
`24· · · · · · · · But I have an opinion regarding my
`25· understanding of all of the claim language that's
`
`·1· don't -- what's important to understand is, I
`·2· believe that every term of the claims is
`·3· understandable, and so that's an opinion beyond the
`·4· five that I've selected here that I believe are
`·5· useful in understanding -- or particularly useful in
`·6· understanding the arguments that -- and the
`·7· technology that's at issue here.
`·8· · · Q.· ·All right.· So beyond the terms "framed,"
`·9· "selectively displaying," "selectively
`10· transmitting," "selective digitized frame image,"
`11· and "alphanumeric," do you agree that you have not
`12· identified any other terms for additional
`13· construction?
`14· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`15· · · A.· ·I can't agree with your statement because
`16· of the way you're making your statement.
`17· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`18· · · Q.· ·What don't you understand about my
`19· statement?
`20· · · A.· ·Your statement -- the way you're phrasing
`21· your statement could be interpreted in different
`22· ways.· And so I'd like to stick to what I said,
`23· which is I think that there's very specific terms
`24· that would be useful for the professionals involved
`25· in this proceeding to understand that I think are
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`Page 15
`·1· related to the -- to what I've been asked to analyze
`·2· and opine.
`·3· · · · · · · · So your question is still unclear to
`·4· me.· But in terms of where I felt that there was an
`·5· express need to articulate an opinion on a term,
`·6· from an expert's perspective, I've highlighted those
`·7· here.
`·8· · · Q.· ·So just to break that down a little bit.
`·9· · · · · · · · In the claim construction section
`10· you've identified a number of terms that you think
`11· need some explanation.· Is that correct?
`12· · · A.· ·I think -- not exactly.
`13· · · · · · · · I think I've identified some terms
`14· that would benefit from some comment from me, yes.
`15· · · Q.· ·And are there terms that would also benefit
`16· from the comment from you that you have not
`17· identified in your declaration in Section 5?
`18· · · A.· ·To the extent that a party were to claim
`19· that there was some other term that was somehow
`20· incomprehensible or indefinite, you know, my opinion
`21· is that that's not the case and so I didn't go out
`22· of my way here and highlight every single term and
`23· give an opinion that says that they're understood by
`24· someone of ordinary skill in the art.
`25· · · · · · · · And so I think what I -- but I
`
`Page 17
`·1· important for the arguments that are being made.
`·2· And I expressly believe that the other terms are
`·3· understandable by someone of ordinary skill in the
`·4· art.
`·5· · · Q.· ·So let's assume the other terms are
`·6· understandable by others skilled in the art.· Would
`·7· you agree with me you do not offer any testimony in
`·8· your declaration regarding terms you have not
`·9· specifically identified in this section?
`10· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`11· · · A.· ·Can you restate the question?
`12· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`13· · · Q.· ·Let's assume that the other terms are
`14· understandable by others skilled in the art.· Would
`15· you agree with me that you did not offer any
`16· testimony in your declaration regarding terms that
`17· you have not specifically identified in Section 5?
`18· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Same objection.
`19· · · A.· ·I can't agree to that.· I think that my
`20· opinions are based on interpreting all of the terms
`21· in the claims and all of the terms in the claim
`22· limitations.
`23· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`24· · · Q.· ·Maybe you could list for me what terms you
`25· are offering constructions on.
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 18
`·1· · · A.· ·If you're asking what terms I'm offering
`·2· constructions on, those are listed in the section
`·3· that you highlighted, Section 5, Paragraphs 27
`·4· through 31, and -- but if you look at that, you'll
`·5· also see there's actually constructions that were
`·6· offered -- and maybe we could go through them one by
`·7· one if that would be helpful for you.
`·8· · · · · · · · So, for example, "selectively
`·9· displaying."· There was a construction that was
`10· offered by the patent owner, and I reviewed that
`11· construction, and I believe that my opinion as
`12· "selectively displaying" is used in the patent claim
`13· and in the arguments that are being discussed, that
`14· that's consistent with my understanding of that
`15· term.· But I didn't offer this claim construction in
`16· the strict interpretation of the word "offering."
`17· · · Q.· ·What does the term "offer" mean to you?
`18· · · A.· ·For me to initiate and convey.
`19· · · Q.· ·So you were not initiating or conveying a
`20· claim construction in this Section 5?
`21· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`22· · · A.· ·Well, I was talking specifically about B.
`23· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`24· · · Q.· ·Section 5B?
`25· · · A.· ·In Section 5B -- let me review the
`
`Pages 18..21
`Page 20
`·1· · · Q.· ·Are you opining on a claim construction in
`·2· Section 5C?
`·3· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`·4· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·5· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`·6· · · Q.· ·5D?
`·7· · · A.· ·What's the question?
`·8· · · Q.· ·Are you opining on a claim construction in
`·9· Section 5D?
`10· · · A.· ·Yes.
`11· · · Q.· ·Are you opining on a claim construction in
`12· Section 5E?
`13· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`14· · · A.· ·Yes.
`15· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`16· · · Q.· ·And are you opining on a claim construction
`17· in Section 5B as in boy?
`18· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Objection.
`19· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`20· · · Q.· ·I'm sorry.· That looks like it's
`21· mislabeled.· There's two 5Bs.· 5B marked -- I'm
`22· sorry.· I'm on the wrong page.· 5A.
`23· · · · · · · · Are you opining on a claim construction
`24· in Section 5A?
`25· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· paragraph there and I'll tell you.
`·2· · · · · · · · (Witness reviews document.)
`·3· · · A.· ·Yeah.· I'm not sure I can articulate any
`·4· better than what's stated here, but -- so, for
`·5· example, in the first sentence it says, "In its
`·6· Patent Owner Response, I understand that patent
`·7· owner proposes that 'selectively displaying' refers
`·8· to displaying a digitized framed image that has been
`·9· selected from among a plurality of digitized frame
`10· images that are within memory."
`11· · · · · · · · So I think it's clear from that that
`12· the patent owner is proposing that in their
`13· response.· And so that's -- to me, when you say
`14· "offering," that's -- that's what I'm envisioning.
`15· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`16· · · Q.· ·I think I asked a slightly different
`17· question.· So are you --
`18· · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· I wasn't done answering my
`19· question, but if you want to go ...
`20· · · Q.· ·Are you initiating or conveying a claim
`21· construction in Section 5B?
`22· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`23· · · A.· ·I am opining on a claim construction in
`24· Section 5B.
`25· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`
`Page 21
`
`·1· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·2· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`·3· · · Q.· ·And outside of 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, and 5E, you
`·4· do not opine on any other claim constructions.· Is
`·5· that correct?
`·6· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`·7· · · A.· ·That's correct.
`·8· · · Q.· ·Turning to Section 8.· That section's
`·9· entitled "Patentability of Claims 1-8 and 12-15 of
`10· '871 Patent Over McNelley and Umezawa."
`11· · · · · · · · Did I read that correctly?
`12· · · A.· ·I'm not sure.· Can you --
`13· · · Q.· ·Patentability of claims 1 through 8 and 12
`14· through 15 --
`15· · · A.· ·What section are we looking at?
`16· · · Q.· ·Turning to Section 8.
`17· · · A.· ·I would request that when you ask me to
`18· turn to a specific section or a page that you give
`19· me an opportunity to actually turn to that section
`20· and that page.
`21· · · Q.· ·Absolutely.· Can you please turn to
`22· Section 8.
`23· · · · · · · · Please let me know when you're there.
`24· · · A.· ·I'm there.
`25· · · Q.· ·Is that section entitled "Patentability of
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 22
`
`·1· Claims 1-8 and 12-15 of the '871 Patent Over
`·2· McNelley and Umezawa"?
`·3· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·4· · · Q.· ·Does this section reflect your entire
`·5· testimony regarding the patentability of claims 1
`·6· through 8 and 12 through 15 in light of McNelley and
`·7· Umezawa?
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`·9· · · A.· ·I think the entirety of the report reflects
`10· my written declaration and opinions.· This
`11· particular section focuses on particular arguments,
`12· but there's comments throughout the entirety of the
`13· report.
`14· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`15· · · Q.· ·Is it your understanding that Claim 15 is
`16· at issue in the '871 patent IPR that we're involved
`17· in today?
`18· · · A.· ·Yes.
`19· · · Q.· ·Turning to Paragraph 1.· If you could turn
`20· to Paragraph 1.
`21· · · A.· ·I'm there.
`22· · · Q.· ·Would you agree with me that Paragraph 1
`23· lists a number of materials you've reviewed in
`24· preparing your declaration?
`25· · · · · · · · (Witness reviews document.)
`
`Pages 22..25
`Page 24
`·1· · · A.· ·I at least looked up the definition for --
`·2· or I think it was alphanumeric characters. I
`·3· referenced that.
`·4· · · Q.· ·Anything else?
`·5· · · A.· ·Yeah.· I have a reference for that in
`·6· Section 31.
`·7· · · · · · · · (Witness reviews document.)
`·8· · · A.· ·There would be nothing else that wasn't
`·9· listed in this document, so I think I've summarized
`10· all those just from -- working from the top of my
`11· head here.
`12· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`13· · · Q.· ·When you say again in the same last
`14· sentence "... in evaluating the petition, in light
`15· of the record and totality of stakeholder
`16· arguments ..."
`17· · · · · · · · Who are the stakeholders?
`18· · · A.· ·My understanding in this case is that it's
`19· Apple, who's instituted a petition to invalidate the
`20· '871 patent, and the people working for Apple, which
`21· I presume would be yourselves and Mr. Sasson who's
`22· offering an opinion, and patent owner's response.
`23· So that would be E-Watch and their counsel.
`24· · · Q.· ·Anyone else?
`25· · · A.· ·I understand from patent owner's counsel
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· · · A.· ·What was the question?
`·2· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`·3· · · Q.· ·Would you agree with me that Paragraph 1
`·4· lists a number of materials that you have reviewed
`·5· in preparing this declaration?
`·6· · · A.· ·Yes.
`·7· · · Q.· ·In Paragraph 1 you state, " ...in light of
`·8· the record and totality of stakeholder
`·9· arguments ..."
`10· · · · · · · · Do you see that at the bottom of
`11· Paragraph 1?
`12· · · A.· ·Yes.
`13· · · Q.· ·When you say "... in light of the
`14· record ..." what record are you referring to?
`15· · · A.· ·The existing base of documents and
`16· materials that I reviewed.
`17· · · Q.· ·What documents and materials are those?
`18· · · A.· ·Well, they would have been the -- I think I
`19· went through that already, but the subject patent,
`20· the '871 patent.· The McNelley reference, which is
`21· the '754 McNelley, the Umezawa '507.
`22· · · · · · · · I also reviewed in preparing the
`23· declaration the institution decision, as well as the
`24· '412 Petition and the declaration of Mr. Sasson.
`25· · · Q.· ·Did you review anything else?
`
`Page 25
`·1· that there's another party that may or may not be
`·2· involved which is ZTE.· I understand that they
`·3· joined in -- I have not seen any documents that are
`·4· specific to ZTE.
`·5· · · · · · · · But my understanding, again, from
`·6· counsel, is that they are somehow joined into this
`·7· proceeding.· If they have some arguments that have
`·8· been submitted in the process beyond this, I have
`·9· not seen them.
`10· · · Q.· ·Do you have an understanding of what
`11· E-Watch has accused Apple of infringement in the
`12· underlying litigation?
`13· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· I'll object to it as
`14· being beyond the scope of his direct.
`15· · · A.· ·I understand that E-Watch has filed an
`16· infringement action for patent infringement, at
`17· least on the '871 patent.· And so I would understand
`18· that to mean that they believe that Apple is using
`19· the technology without -- without a license.
`20· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`21· · · Q.· ·Are you familiar with the infringement
`22· contentions in the Apple and E-Watch litigation?
`23· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Again, I'll object as
`24· being beyond the scope of direct.
`25· · · A.· ·I know that there's a stay in that case. I
`
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Huseby, Inc.· Regional Centers
`www.huseby.com
`800-333-2082
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS
`
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`APPLE, INC. v. E-WATCH, INC.
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D on 09/28/2015
`Page 26
`
`·1· can't say that I'm familiar with the specific
`·2· contentions.
`·3· · · · · · · · Are you referring to a specific
`·4· document?
`·5· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`·6· · · Q.· ·Have you seen E-Watch's infringement
`·7· contentions from the E-Watch v. Apple litigation.
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Same objection.
`·9· · · A.· ·I know that there are contentions -- or at
`10· least that there's some -- I know that there are
`11· documents related to infringement of Apple and I --
`12· it's not something that I've reviewed or studied for
`13· this, nor is it something that I think I even have
`14· access to.· So at this point, the litigation was
`15· stayed and it's not something I've spent any time on
`16· since.
`17· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`18· · · Q.· ·So E-Watch's infringement claim did not
`19· inform your analysis in this IPR?
`20· · · A.· ·Correct.
`21· · · Q.· ·And did you review any Apple confidential
`22· information prior to your declaration in this case?
`23· · · A.· ·Not that I'm aware of.
`24· · · Q.· ·All right.· So if you could turn to
`25· Paragraph 3, which is on the next page.· The very
`
`Pages 26..29
`Page 28
`
`·1· response?
`·2· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`·3· · · A.· ·I'm not aware of any, but there may be.
`·4· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`·5· · · Q.· ·So turn to Paragraph 5 of your declaration.
`·6· You state that "neither McNelley nor Umezawa
`·7· anticipate the '871 patent claims, and neither the
`·8· Petitioner nor its expert, Mr. Sasson, dispute this
`·9· claim ..."
`10· · · · · · · · Is it your understanding that the
`11· petition at issue in this case only raised a
`12· obviousness ground?
`13· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`14· · · BY MR. SILVER:
`15· · · Q.· ·Maybe I should break that up just a little
`16· bit.
`17· · · · · · · · In Paragraph 5 you state, "Neither
`18· McNelley nor Umezawa anticipate the '871 patent
`19· claims, and neither the Petitioner nor its expert,
`20· Mr. Sasson, dispute this claim ..."
`21· · · · · · · · Did I read that correctly?
`22· · · A.· ·Yes.
`23· · · Q.· ·Is it your understanding that anticipation
`24· was not argued in the petition in this case?
`25· · · · · · · · MR. DONAHUE:· Object to form.
`
`http://www.yeslaw.net/help
`
`Page 27
`·1· last sentence of that paragraph says, "My report is
`·2· intended as a supplement to arguments put forward in
`·3· the E-Watch patent owner response to which it is
`·4· appended."
`·5· · · · · · · · Did I read that correctly?
`·6· · · A.· ·Correct.
`·7· · · Q.· ·What did you mean by "supple