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
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
` v. No. IPR2015-00483
`PARALLEL NETWORKS Patent no. 5,894,554
`LICENSING, LLC, IPR2015-00485
` Patent Owner. Patent no. 6,415,335
`__________________________
`
` DEPOSITION of MICHAEL MITZENMACHER
` Cambridge, Massachusetts
` August 26, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Dana Welch, CSR, RPR, CRR, CLR
`Job No. 96799
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
` v. No. IPR2015-00483
`PARALLEL NETWORKS Patent no. 5,894,554
`LICENSING, LLC, IPR2015-00485
` Patent Owner. Patent no. 6,415,335
`__________________________
`
` DEPOSITION of MICHAEL MITZENMACHER
` Cambridge, Massachusetts
` August 26, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Dana Welch, CSR, RPR, CRR, CLR
`Job No. 96799
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` August 26, 2015
` 8:56 a.m.
`
` Deposition of MICHAEL MITZENMACHER, held
`at Charles Hotel, 1 Bennett Street, Cambridge,
`Massachusetts, before Dana Welch, Certified
`Shorthand Reporter, Registered Professional
`Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary
`Public of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 2
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Petitioner:
`SIDLEY AUSTIN
`BY: JOSEPH MICALLEF, ESQ.
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
` - and -
`
`SIDLEY AUSTIN
`MICHAEL HATCHER, ESQ.
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`For the Patent Owner:
`MCKOOL SMITH
`BY: CHRISTOPHER BOVENKAMP, ESQ.
`300 Crescent Court
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`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
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 3
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` MICHAEL MITZENMACHER, sworn
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BOVENKAMP:
` Q. Could you state your name for the record.
` A. Michael David Mitzenmacher.
` Q. Who's your current employer?
` A. Harvard University.
` Q. How long have you been employed by
` Harvard?
` A. I started at Harvard in January 1999, so a
` little over 16 years.
` Q. Don't need to do the math.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Could you give us your home address?
` A. Certainly. 33 Cary, that's C-a-r-y,
` Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421.
` (Exhibit 2008, Patent Owner's Notice of
` Deposition of Michael Mitzenmacher in '335 patent,
` marked for identification.)
` (Exhibit 2009, Patent Owner's Notice of
` Deposition of Michael Mitzenmacher in '554 patent,
` marked for identification.)
` Q. You're here today to testify with regards
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` to a report, some testimony that you provided in
` connection with an IPR, correct?
` A. Yes. I believe they're, I guess,
` officially two separate IPRs, but yes, that's my
` understanding.
` Q. Fair enough.
` And you are correct and I'll represent to
` you that there are two IPRs that have been
` consolidated by the board. One related to a '335
` patent and you're familiar with that patent,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And another relating to the '554 patent.
` You're familiar with that one as well, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And before you, 2008 and 2009 are
` deposition notices that you're appearing here today
` on behalf of Microsoft, correct?
` A. That would be my understanding.
` Q. And you've been retained by Microsoft in
` this case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You performed some work for Microsoft in
` this case?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` A. Yes. Again, I'd have to go back and check
` my contract as to whether officially if I'm working
` for Microsoft or the law firm on behalf of
` Microsoft, but with that caveat, yes.
` Q. And your caveat is you don't remember
` whether it's the attorneys of Microsoft or
` Microsoft itself that's retained you, correct?
` A. I would have to go back and check the
` agreement.
` Q. Do you remember approximately when you
` were first retained?
` A. I would have to go back and check. I
` recall the reports were turned in, if I'm recalling
` right, around December 2014. And so it would have
` been some number of months before that time. I
` can't recall exactly. My guess is it would have
` been, you know, between two and four months before
` that but I'd have to go back and check.
` Q. Did you in connection with the work that
` you did related to the '335 and the '554 patent
` prepare reports?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many reports did you prepare?
` A. If I recall correctly, I prepared a report
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 6
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` for each of the patents.
` Q. So one report for the '335 patent and one
` report for the '554 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you've been handed Exhibit 7. Which
` patent does that one refer to?
` A. The '554.
` MR. MICALLEF: You mean Exhibit 1007.
` Q. You've been handed Exhibit 1007, which is
` your report relating to the '554 patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me hand you what's previously been
` marked as Exhibit 1007 as well. This one relates
` to the '335, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the difference, if you look on the
` face of those two exhibits, they're both 1007 but
` one relates to the '335, one relates to the '554,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And one is marked with the number 485 as
` the IPR review number.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` Q. And one should be 483?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Who drafted these reports?
` A. I drafted these reports in conjunction
` with -- in collaboration with counsel.
` Q. One more housekeeping matter, let's get
` you the patents as well.
` You're going to get handed first
` Exhibit 1001.
` Have you seen that before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. This is the '554 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1004..
` Have you seen this before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. This would be the '335 patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When is the first time that you saw either
` of these patents, exhibit [sic] '554 or '335?
` A. Again, it would have been around the time
` that I was retained for the case. I can't remember
` the exact dates of when that was, but it would have
` been, you know, a small number of months before the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` report. I can't recall having seen these patents
` before the -- before the talk of engagement on the
` case.
` Q. Let's take look at the Exhibit 1007 that
` relates to the '554 patent.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I want you to turn to the back of that
` report, there's an Appendix A, correct?
` A. Give me a second.
` Yes.
` Q. What is Appendix A?
` A. It's a list of the materials considered.
` Q. So materials listed in Exhibit A is the
` sum total of the things that you reviewed in
` connection with preparing your report, correct?
` A. Well, to the best of my recollection,
` there may have been other things that I might have
` examined in the context of background that turned
` out not to be relevant for my opinions. But in
` terms of the things that were considered that were
` relevant, yeah, this is the list of materials
` considered.
` Q. There's nothing that you relied upon in
` preparing your report that is not listed in Exhibit
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 9
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` A, correct?
` A. Unless there are mistakes, that would be
` my understanding, but I believe that this list is
` complete.
` Q. Do you believe that the materials that are
` listed in Exhibit A were sufficient for you to
` provide the opinions that you have in your two
` reports for the '335 and the '554 patent?
` A. Yes, absolutely. These were, I believe,
` more than sufficient for giving or expressing my
` opinions. There are arguments where I discuss
` knowledge of about one of ordinary skill in the
` art, so that depends on my, I guess I would say,
` personal knowledge and experience or my
` understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art
` and that's not listed. But again, in terms of
` documents that I relied upon, these were more than
` sufficient to be opinions that I was giving, I gave
` in the report.
` Q. Was there anything that you asked for from
` Microsoft or counsel that you weren't provided?
` A. Not that I can recall. I don't think so.
` Q. Have you reviewed the '554 report since it
` was written?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 10
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are there any corrections or mistakes that
` you noticed substantively that you believe you need
` to correct?
` A. I don't think there are substantive
` corrections. I mean some time has passed. So for
` instance, I noticed in reviewing it I think it said
` I had 18 issued patents and I think now that's 19.
` I had a patent issued this year. But in terms of
` what I think you're asking for, which is changes in
` the substance of the arguments, no, I don't think
` there's any corrections or changes.
` Q. Same question for the '335 report, is
` there anything in the '335 report that
` substantively needs to be changed?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. How long do you estimate did it take you
` to prepare the '554 report and the '335 report?
` A. I can't recall specifically. I would have
` to go back and look at -- look to see the time that
` I charged, but certainly these are fairly extensive
` reports. It would have been well more than
` 50 hours, could have been a hundred or possibly
` slightly more than that.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 11
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` Q. How much are you being paid per hour?
` A. $750 per hour.
` Q. Is anything with regards to your
` compensation conditioned on the outcome of this
` case?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you know how many hours that you have
` billed either Microsoft or Microsoft's attorneys?
` A. No. Again, I'd have to look that up. I
` can't recall.
` Q. You estimate somewhere between 50 to
` 100 hours?
` A. Yes. I'd expect that at this point I've
` charged over a hundred hours and also expect that
` it's less than 200, but I'd have to go back and
` check further for within that range.
` Q. You worked with attorneys to prepare for
` this deposition, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times did you meet with attorneys
` in preparation for today's deposition?
` A. Just yesterday.
` Q. How long did you meet yesterday?
` A. Well, if you include lunch, which was sort
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MITZENMACHER
` of non-business talk, it was probably about five,
` five and a half hours.
` Q. Had you had any telephone calls or other
` meetings prior to yesterday specifically in
` preparation for today's deposition?
` A. I don't believe so, I mean, except for
` regarding things like logistics, like where do we
` meet them and getting a room and such. But
` otherwise, no.
` Q. There's two Microsoft attorneys here
` representing you today, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are those the two individuals that you met
` with?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you meet with anyone else in
` preparation for today's deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever talked with anyone at
` Microsoft in connection with the '554 or '335
` reports that you did?
` A. No, not that I recall.
` Q. You didn't talk to any Microsoft engineers
` or in-house lawyers, to your knowledge?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 13
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` A. No.
` Q. You've worked prior to this case for
` Microsoft before, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you turn in Exhibit 1007, the '554
` version, to paragraph 5 of your report, there's an
` indication there at the -- in the last sentence
` that you've consulted with Microsoft in the past,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you describe for me the scope of
` those consulting activities?
` A. Yes, give me a second. So I worked for
` Microsoft long ago. In fact, when I was a summer
` in college, I was a summer intern for Microsoft, I
` believe, in the years 1989 and 1990, although I'd
` have to go back and check that. I have consulted
` on behalf of Microsoft on a previous case in front
` of the ITC. This was a Motorola versus Microsoft
` case.
` From approximately August 2013 to I
` believe -- I believe around either May or
` June 2014, while I was on sabbatical from Harvard,
` I arranged that I worked half time at Microsoft
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` Research New England in a role similar to visiting
` researcher, that's specifically referred to here in
` my report.
` I have on and off over time also had a
` sort of visiting researcher relationship with
` Microsoft Research New England. What that means is
` that I could come in, you know, roughly a day a
` week or a day every other week, it was usually more
` like a day every other week, and talk and
` collaborate with their researchers.
` I have not had any relationship with
` Microsoft, I think, sort of since the end of my
` sabbatical, other than for this case.
` Q. Is there anything else that falls within
` what you identify in paragraph 5 as consulting in
` the past for Microsoft besides this internship that
` you referred to, the ITC case, the 2013-2014
` sabbatical work, and then other on and off every
` other week visiting researcher work?
` A. I wouldn't call it consulting. I think at
` times I've traveled to give talks at a Microsoft
` research lab in Silicon Valley and that arrangement
` I guess was -- it wasn't as a consultant. I mean,
` I would just go in and give a talk or such and they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 15
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` could pay some expenses.
` So I just should have mentioned that but
` that wasn't really a consulting relationship other
` than they did pay some of my expenses when I would
` travel to give a talk there.
` Q. So the 2013-2014 sabbatical, that was
` taken from your duties at Harvard?
` A. Yes. Officially I was on, I guess, sort
` of a half time sabbatical from Harvard and sort of
` I spent half time at Microsoft Research New
` England. It was a standard scheduled sabbatical.
` Q. What's a standard scheduled sabbatical?
` A. Harvard has a policy where you get
` sabbatical every number of years, so I had garnered
` enough time that I was due a sabbatical. In fact,
` my sabbatical was slightly delayed because I was
` busy being department chair, so I delayed it until
` I finished my term as department chair. So I went
` on what would have been a delayed but regularly
` scheduled sabbatical under Harvard's policies.
` Q. Prior to the 2013-2014 visiting researcher
` role that you had at Microsoft Research New
` England, had you been or acted as a visiting
` researcher with Microsoft Research New England?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 16
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` A. Just in the capacity that I think I
` described to you where I was on and off at various
` periods as a visiting researcher in this once every
` week or other week capacity.
` Q. When did you first start taking advantage
` of the visiting research role or opportunity at
` Microsoft Research New England?
` A. I'd have to go back and check. I'm
` honestly not sure. It would have been even the
` very late 2008, '9, '10 period but I actually think
` I probably didn't start until after that, sometime
` 2010 to '12.
` Q. Let's talk about the cases that you
` identify that you've been involved in on paragraph
` 10 of your report.
` A. Yes.
` I should point out that this might be
` another place where, again, there's been additions.
` There are probably some cases that I would have now
` that weren't listed here simply because of the
` timing of the report.
` Q. Understood.
` Let's go through these. If there's any
` that you need to supplement, we can do that. What
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 17
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` I want to quickly do is I don't want to get into
` the details of any of these, but what I would like
` to know for each of the ones listed by bullet point
` starting on page 5 and continuing to page 6 is the
` party you represented, whether they were the
` plaintiff or defendant.
` A. Okay. So the first one, Juniper Networks,
` Incorporated versus Palo Alto Networks, I was for
` Palo Alto Networks, which was the defendant.
` For the United States International Trade
` Commission case, that was the Motorola versus
` Microsoft case, I was for Microsoft, which, I
` guess, was the defendant --
` Q. Respondent.
` A. -- or respondent officially in that case.
` U.S. Ethernet Innovations versus Acer, I
` was for the plaintiff, U.S. Ethernet Innovations.
` U.S. Ethernet Innovations versus Ricoh, et
` al., I was for the plaintiff, U.S. Ethernet
` Innovations.
` Edgenet Incorporated versus Home Depot
` U.S.A., I was for the defendant or on the side of
` the defendant, acting for the defendant, Home
` Depot.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 18
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` 3Com Corporation versus D-Link Systems, I
` was for the plaintiff, 3Com Corporation.
` 3Com Corporation versus RealTek
` Semiconductor, I was for the plaintiff, 3Com.
` Let's see. France Telecom versus Marvell
` Semiconductor, I was for the plaintiff, France
` Telecom.
` MiniCheck OCR versus Global Payments Check
` Services, I was for the defendant, Global Payments
` Check Services.
` Qiang Wang versus Palo Alto Networks, et
` cetera, I was for the defendant, Palo Alto
` Networks.
` JobDiva Incorporated versus Monster
` Worldwide, I was for the plaintiff, JobDiva.
` Q. Was there any others that you can remember
` at least that should be added to this?
` A. Yes. So the parties were Finjan,
` F-i-n-j-a-n, versus Blue Coat, I was for the
` plaintiff, Finjan.
` There's another case, I believe, that's
` NNTP versus Huawei, H-u-a-w-e-i. I was for the
` plaintiff, NNTP.
` Q. Going back to the start of the list on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 19
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` page 5 --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- the Juniper Networks/Palo Alto Networks
` case, was that a patent case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. The ITC case between Motorola and
` Microsoft, was that a patent case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Were the U.S. Ethernet cases patent cases?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Was the Edgenet versus Home Depot case a
` patent case?
` A. No. I believe that was a trade secret
` case.
` Q. Was the 3Com or the 3Com cases patent
` cases?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Was France Telecom versus Marvell case a
` patent case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I assume the MiniCheck versus Global
` Payments was not a patent case.
` A. No. That was, again, as I recall, a trade
` secret case.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 20
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` Q. The Palo Alto Networks case, was that a
` patent case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Was the JobDiva versus Monster Worldwide a
` patent case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the Finjan versus Blue Coat, was that
` a patent case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And was the NNTP versus Huawei a patent
` case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. There's no other consulting that you have
` been involved with with Microsoft besides what
` we've discussed; is that correct?
` A. No.
` Q. Let's turn to the patents that are at
` issue in this case. How did you go about
` familiarizing yourself with the '554 patent and the
` '335 patent?
` A. Well, when examining the patents, you
` obviously start with reading the patents, the
` background section and the claims most importantly.
` I also examined the file history when studying the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 21
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` patents themselves.
` Q. When you refer to the file history in this
` case, there is an original file history, correct?
` A. That's my understanding, I believe so. I
` think I've seen it referred to as the original file
` history.
` Q. There's also multiple reexaminations of
` both of these patents, correct?
` A. Yes. I was sort of thinking of all of
` those as part of the file history.
` Q. Fair enough.
` Did you also review the reexamination
` histories?
` A. Yes. That would have been part of my
` examination of the file history.
` Q. Did you read the entirety of the
` reexamination histories?
` A. As I recall, they were very long, maybe
` even thousands of pages, so yes, I tried to focus
` in on the highlights, but I -- you know, I believe
` that in my skimming through I found the important
` parts where there was actual relevant content.
` Q. And the important parts you called out in
` your report?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 22
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` A. Well, I would say that there may have been
` other parts that may have been important to other
` people for other reasons. The parts that were
` relevant for my opinions I called out in my report.
` Q. How would you describe at a high level
` what the subject matter of the '554 and '335
` patents are?
` MR. MICALLEF: Object to form.
` A. So, I mean, as I discuss in my report and
` sort of let me find the section.
` Q. Page 16 may be a good place to start.
` A. Oh, yeah. I was actually looking around
` page 79, I mean. So the patents at a high level
` are talking about Web servers and multiprocessor
` Web servers and, in particular, the idea of load
` balancing and potentially offloading requests or I
` might use the word "tasks" to describe it at
` various points or "jobs" is another term that's
` typically used in this setting, offloading of tasks
` or jobs to what in the patents they refer to as
` page servers. So at a high level, this is really
` about coming up with a multiprocessor or I might
` describe it as a distributed Web server.
` As I try and explain carefully in my
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 23
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` report, one reading the patent, one of ordinary
` skill in the art reading the patent might
` mistakenly think that multiprocessor or distributed
` Web servers were novel according to the description
` of the patent. But as I describe in my report
` generally at a high level and specifically with
` regard to the claims, I don't believe that's the
` case.
` Q. You believe that the '335 patent and '554
` patent are directed to distributed Web servers?
` A. Well, yes, that's a way of describing it.
` In particular, it's discussing, as it described,
` say, in the abstract, you know, a method or methods
` for Web servers and, in particular, managing
` dynamic Web page generation requests, among other
` requests, and utilizing a distributed system
` involving what are referred to as page servers
` along with a Web server to provide -- to respond to
` requests to Web servers.
` Q. What do you mean when you refer to
` multiprocessor?
` A. Again, that there would be potentially
` more than one machine, although the patents do
` discuss implementations where these pieces might
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 24
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` run on a single machine.
` Q. If you look at, for example, the first
` page of the cover of the '554 patent --
` A. Uh-huh, yes.
` Q. -- the architecture that's shown there on
` the cover, which is also Figure 4 if you want to
` see a larger view, includes a Web client, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the Web client is basically a browser
` or something like that?
` A. Yes, that would be a typical Web client.
` Q. Okay. And there's shown a request that's
` sent from the Web client to a Web server, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then there's an interceptor that's
` also shown kind of in the same general vicinity as
` the Web server?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then there is shown in Figure 4
` something being sent to a dispatcher, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then there are multiple page servers
` that are shown on the backend, right?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 25
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` Q. And there are also data sources that are
` shown connected to those page servers, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Isn't it fair to say that what's disclosed
` in the '335 and '554 patents isn't a distributed
` Web server but a system that takes advantage of a
` centralized Web server?
` A. I -- again, I don't think I would
` necessarily characterize it that way. Again, there
` are multiple embodiments described, so certainly
` there are cases where you have a single machine,
` cases described in some of the embodiments where
` you would have multiple machines. So you can think
` of, again, maybe moving down from the 30,000 feet
` view that we started with. You know, there are --
` the claims refer to certain architectural or design
` aspects corresponding to these embodiments which
` map to the figures you've described.
` But again, the -- one of the main purposes
` or ideas described throughout the patent is the
` potential benefits or use of multiple machines and
` load balancing among the machines for efficiency.
` So I would describe it, I think, somewhat
` differently than you did.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 26
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` Q. In the claims, and if you want to look at
` a representative claim, you can look at claim 12,
` for example, of the '554 patent --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- that's on page 15 of Exhibit 1001, it
` refers to a single Web server, correct?
` A. Sorry. Which? In the '554 patent?
` MR. MICALLEF: You're referring to the
` certificate of correction claims, counsel?
` A. Yeah, it's a bit difficult to tell where
` the actual claims are with the certificate of
` correction.
` Q. Yeah.
` So if you take a look at page 15 of
` Exhibit 1001 --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- there's a certificate of correction
` there.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Or at least the start of a certificate of
` correction, right?
` A. Yes. Thank you.
` Q. And do you have an understanding that the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 27
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` certificate of correction claims are the, quote,
` unquote, live claims for the purposes of this IPR?
` A. That is my understanding.
` Q. And you're familiar with those claims,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Your report goes into a lot of detail
` about the claims and how particular references meet
` those claims, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the same is true for the '335 patent,
` right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you look at claim 12 in the preamble
` there's a reference to a Web server, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And claim 12 is directed to a single Web
` server, not a distributed Web server, correct?
` A. So I'm confused by your language or
` terminology in that a distributed Web server may
` also refer to a single Web server. Distributed
` simply means that it would consist of multiple
` hardware devices connected, say, through a network,
` for instance. I would agree with you that the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2086, pg. 28
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` MITZENMACHER
` claim certainly refers to a Web server, and as I've
` mentioned, there are embodiments where that Web
` server and some of the other corresponding items
` may be on
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
