` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
` ARRIS GROUP, INC. and COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
` Petitioners,
` v.
` C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LLC
` Patent Owner
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
` CASE NO. IPR2015-00635
` U.S. Patent 5,563,883
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
`
` Courtyard Key West Waterfront Marriott
` 3031-41 N. Roosevelt Boulevard
` Key West, Florida
` Tuesday, January 19, 2016
` 8:57 a.m. to 2:34 p.m.
`
` DEPOSITION OF CHRIS HEEGARD
`
` Taken on behalf of the Petitioners before Carol
`Hill Williams, FPR, RMR, CRR, CMRS, CPE, CRI, a Notary
`Public in and for the State of Florida at Large,
`pursuant to Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition in
`the above cause.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 1 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`On behalf of ARRIS Group, Inc.:
`ANDREW R. SOMMER, ESQ.
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`asommer@winston.com
`On behalf of Cox Communications, Inc.:
`MICHAEL J. TURTON, ESQ.
`Kilpatrick Townsend
`1100 Peachtree Street NE
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`mturton@kilpatricktownsend.com
`On behalf of C-Cation Technologies, LLC
`MERRI C. MOKEN, ESQ.
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004
`mmoken@kenyon.com
`Also Present Terry Liu
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 2 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
`WITNESS PAGE
`Chris Heegard
` Cross-Examination by Andrew Sommer 4
` Redirect Examination by Merri Moken 144
` Recross-Examination by Andrew Sommer 147
` Certificate of Oath of Witness 151
`
` EXHIBITS
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1 Annotated Version of Figure 6 62
`Exhibit 2 9-20-13 Deposition Transcript 107
` - Mr. Heegard
`
`Exhibit 3 Corrections to 9-20-13 107
` Deposition Transcript - Mr.
` Heegard
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`678
`
`9
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 3 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` CHRIS HEEGARD
`was called as a witness and, having been first duly
`sworn and responding "I do," was examined and testified
`as follows:
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Heegard.
` I take it this is not the first time
`you're being deposed?
` A. No, it isn't.
` Q. This isn't the first time that you've
`given testimony regarding the '883 patent, is
`it?
` A. No, it's not.
` Q. Do you understand that you're here to
`be cross-examined regarding certain testimony
`that you've given on behalf of C-CATION
`Technologies before the patent trial and appeal
`board?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with the contents of
`your declaration that you've submitted?
` A. Yes. I wrote it.
` Q. You wrote it?
` A. Yes.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 4 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 5
` Q. And did you review your declaration to
`prepare for your testimony today?
` A. I did.
` Q. How long did you spend writing and
`reviewing your declaration?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. I think I spent about, maybe, 20 hours
`writing it, and I probably spent about 10 hours
`reviewing it.
` Q. Beyond the 10 hours you spent
`reviewing your declaration -- let me clarify
`something first.
` When you say you spent 10 hours
`reviewing your declaration, is that reviewing it
`in connection with your testimony today --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- to prepare?
` Okay. Beyond reviewing your
`declaration to prepare for your testimony, did
`you do anything else to prepare for today's
`deposition?
` MS. MOKEN: I will caution him not to
` reveal any privileged communications.
` A. I reviewed the relevant documents,
`like the Lipoff report and his deposition
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 5 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 6
`transcript, and I looked at the things that I
`cited in my report.
` Q. Is it okay if we call patent 5,563,883
`the '883 patent today?
` A. Yeah. That's fine.
` Q. There's not going to be any confusion
`about what patent we're talking about if I say
`the "'883 patent"?
` A. No. That's the way we refer to it.
` Q. Okay. If you're ever confused about
`what I mean by any of my questions today, please
`let me know and I'll do my best to clarify the
`question. I just do want to make sure we have
`clear questions and answers.
` Is that fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you aware of any reason that you
`can't testify truthfully here today?
` A. No.
` Q. Now, how many times have you testified
`under oath regarding the '883 patent?
` A. I'm not sure of the exact number.
`Four or five times.
` Q. Under oath?
` A. I think so. Maybe three. I'm not
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 6 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`sure.
` Q. Somewhere between three and five
`times?
` A. I think so, yeah.
` Q. And does that include the declaration
`that I've handed you that's previously been
`marked as Exhibit 2023?
` A. This is the first time I've been
`deposed on this. Is that what you're asking?
` Q. Well, do you understand that the
`declaration that you have there, Exhibit 2023,
`is actually testimony under oath?
` A. Okay. Yeah.
` Q. You do have that understanding?
` A. I do now.
` Q. Well, you signed it under penalty of
`perjury, correct?
` A. Sure. Yes.
` Q. And you believe that the statements in
`there are truthful and accurate to the best of
`your ability?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And in the past when you've given
`testimony about the '883 patent, have you done
`your best to make sure that your testimony is
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 7 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 8
`truthful and accurate on those occasions as
`well?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is your standard hourly rate that
`you've charged C-CATION?
` A. $520 per hour.
` Q. When was the first time that you were
`retained by anyone regarding the '883 patent?
` A. I'm not sure when that was. It was in
`preparing for the first trial in Texas.
` Q. So --
` A. At the beginning, I think around when
`it was filed, but I don't know when that was.
`It was years ago.
` Q. Years ago?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could it have been 2013, possibly
`2012?
` A. It could be, yeah.
` Q. How many hours do you think you've
`spent all told over the last few years studying
`the '883 patent?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. I don't know how to answer that. I'm
`quite familiar with it.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 8 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 9
` Q. Are you an expert in the '883 patent?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection.
` A. I am an expert, yes.
` Q. In the '883 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know how much you've billed
`either C-CATION or the law firm of Kenyon &
`Kenyon for your work that you've done over the
`years in connection with the '883 patent?
` A. No.
` Q. Is it more than a million dollars?
` A. No.
` Q. More than $500,000?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Heegard, are you aware that
`my client, ARRIS, is relying on certain
`specifications published by the
`Radiocommunications Agency in the United Kingdom
`to contend that the claims or certain claims of
`the '883 patent are invalid?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Foundation.
` Form.
` MR. SOMMER: An improper objection.
` MS. MOKEN: It is not.
` MR. SOMMER: It is. And your pro hac
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 9 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
` vice has not been granted, so your
` appearance here is improper.
` MS. MOKEN: I disagree. And it is a
` proper objection.
` Q. Do you recall the question, sir?
` A. No. I was going to ask you to repeat
`it.
` Q. Are you aware that my client, ARRIS,
`is contending that certain specifications
`published by the Radiocommunications Agency in
`the United Kingdom are invalidating prior art
`against certain claims of the '883 patent?
` MS. MOKEN: Same objections.
` A. I think you're referring to the MPT
`documents, and I think there's some dispute
`about whether it's a publication or not. And
`I'm not prepared to have a position on that.
` So I can't agree to that -- to answer
`that question that way, because if you're
`talking about the MP3 [sic] documents, yeah,
`I -- but whether or not they're a publication or
`a standard, I don't know.
` Q. You said "the MP3 documents," are you
`referring to the MPT documents?
` A. I think I said that. Yeah. MPT.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 10 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`MPT.
` Q. Are you aware that my client is
`relying on certain MPT documents to contend that
`the claims of the '883 patent are invalid in
`this proceeding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You've studied the three MPT
`specifications that my client is relying on; is
`that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You studied them in detail?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. I've seen them in this, and I've seen
`them in prior litigations.
` Q. Have you studied the MPT
`specifications in detail?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. I've studied sections of it in detail.
`Not -- they're very long. I wouldn't say I've
`studied the whole thing in great detail.
` Q. You mentioned another proceeding in
`which you reviewed the MPT specifications.
` What proceeding was that?
` A. It was the -- I think it was the first
`case in Texas.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 11 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 12
` Q. Did you review the MPT specifications
`in the currently pending case in Texas as well?
` A. I'm not sure, but I don't think it's
`being -- I don't think it was used as -- in
`validating argument in the current case. I'm
`not positive about that.
` Q. Before July 18, 1994, had you heard of
`the Radiocommunications Agency in the United
`Kingdom?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Before you reviewed the MPT
`specifications in connection with an analysis
`that you did on behalf of C-CATION regarding the
`'883 patent, had you ever heard of the
`Radiocommunications Agency in the United
`Kingdom?
` A. Not that I recall.
` Q. Before July 18, 1994, had you
`personally heard of either MPT 1327, MPT 1343,
`or MPT 1347?
` A. I don't know. I doubt it. But I
`don't know. It's a long time ago.
` Q. Before you reviewed the MPT
`specifications in connection with the work that
`you performed on behalf of C-CATION, had you
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 12 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 13
`heard of any of those three MPT specifications
`before?
` A. To the best of my knowledge, the first
`time I ever heard of it was in the first
`litigation.
` Q. And I think you mentioned this, but I
`wanted to make sure that the record is clear.
` You're taking no position on whether
`those MPT specifications are printed
`publications, correct?
` A. That's right.
` Q. And you have no facts to dispute the
`evidence that ARRIS has put in that the MPT
`specifications were available in the
`Radiocommunications Agency's library as of 1993,
`do you?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection.
` A. Repeat the question, please.
` Q. You have no facts in your possession
`to dispute the evidence that ARRIS has put
`forward in this proceeding that the MPT
`specifications were available in the
`Radiocommunications Agency's library as of 1993,
`do you?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 13 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 14
` A. I don't think I've looked at any
`evidence one way or the other about that issue.
` Q. I'd like to talk a little bit about
`the methodology that you employed in rendering
`your opinions in your declaration.
` So can you please give me an overview
`of the process that you relied on to interpret
`claim 1 of the '883 patent?
` A. For this proceeding?
` Q. For any proceeding.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Well, let me back up.
` Has it differed from proceeding to
`proceeding?
` A. No.
` Q. So could you please give me an
`overview of the process that you relied on to
`interpret claim 1 of the '883 patent?
` A. Well, initially I read the patent and
`the claims to decide whether or not I would work
`on this case or not. And then over a long
`period of time, I studied the disclosure and the
`claims, and I worked on issues like claim
`construction for the court and have, I think, a
`fairly solid understanding of what the claims
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 14 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`and the disclosures is about.
` Q. Over time, based on your study of the
`'883 patent, has your understanding of the
`meaning of any of the aspects of claim 1
`changed?
` A. Well, I think from my initial read to
`my understanding of what was going on, it became
`more clear what all the terms were about. When
`you study a claim like that, there's a lot of
`language in there so it takes a while to build
`up a full recognition of what all the words mean
`and everything.
` But I don't think I've significantly
`changed my idea of what's going on in that claim
`or in the disclosure.
` Q. At any point in time?
` A. I think it's been pretty consistent.
` Q. So in paragraph -- make sure I have
`this right.
` So you have your declaration in front
`of you, Exhibit 2023; is that correct?
` A. Yeah. Do you want to mark it for this
`thing or --
` Q. No. It's already in the record as
`that exhibit. I don't want to have to put it in
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 15 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 16
`the record again. So we'll call that Exhibit
`2023 today or we'll refer to it as your
`declaration.
` Is that fair?
` A. Okay.
` Q. So in paragraph 70 -- it's on page
`35 -- the second sentence says: "I have been
`further instructed to read the terms not only in
`the context of the particular claims in which
`they appear, but in the context of the entire
`patent, including the specification."
` When you were given this instruction,
`do you believe you understood it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What did you understand it to mean?
` A. First off, I think I am a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time in
`question because I was working in the field at
`that time.
` Then I think I'm instructed to read
`the patent, the disclosure and the claims and
`use my understanding of what a person of
`ordinary skill at that time would understand the
`terms to mean.
` Q. The "terms," which terms?
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 16 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 17
` A. The terms -- the wording of the
`patent.
` Q. When you say "the wording of the
`patent," which wording of the patent are you
`referring to?
` A. Well, pretty much says what you're
`supposed to do is read the terms, not only in
`the context of the claims but as they appear in
`the entire patent, including the disclosure and
`specification.
` Q. Which terms are you referring to?
` A. Any terms.
` Q. Any terms where?
` A. The terms of the claim.
` Q. So we're talking about claim terms; is
`that correct?
` A. Yes. The section is claim
`construction.
` Q. Now, what did you understand the
`exercise of reading the claim terms in the
`context of the entire patent, including the
`specification, to entail?
` A. I think it means that you read the
`claims and then if there is some question in
`your mind about what something means, that you
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 17 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 18
`should read it within the context of the
`specification to fill in any gaps in your
`understanding of it.
` Q. When you read the claims of the '883
`patent -- and let's focus on claim 1 for a
`moment. You also have the '883 patent there in
`front of you if you need to reference it.
` A. I do.
` Q. It's Exhibit 1001.
` When you read claim 1, were there any
`specific terms in the claims that gave you a
`question in your mind about what they meant,
`such that you consulted the specification to
`resolve that question?
` A. Nothing comes to mind.
` Q. So looking at claim 1, there were no
`words in that particular claim that you believed
`you needed to rely on the specification to
`resolve the meaning of; is that correct?
` A. I didn't say that.
` Q. Okay. So are there specific terms in
`the claims of the '883 patent that you believed
`you needed to consult the specification to
`determine the meaning of?
` A. The only thing that comes to mind is
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 18 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`this, what the signaling data is.
` Q. So the term "signaling data" is the
`only thing that you recall actually looking at
`in the claims and then consulting a
`specification to ascertain what the claim meant
`by that term; is that right?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. I would say that when I read that I
`had an idea what it meant, and I looked at the
`disclosure and it confirmed that idea.
` Q. But there are no other terms that you
`performed that exercise for; is that correct?
` A. I find the claim pretty
`self-contained.
` Q. It's clear on its face?
` A. I think it is.
` Q. So in paragraph 70, the last sentence
`says: "I have been asked to apply this ordinary
`and customary meaning to all terms."
` When you use the phrase "this ordinary
`and customary meaning," what were you referring
`to?
` A. The meaning of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time.
` Q. So you were not referring to the
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 19 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 20
`meaning that was applied by the PTO and patentee
`referenced in the previous sentence in paragraph
`70, were you?
` A. I'm not sure what you're asking me.
` Q. So I'm just trying to clarify what I
`perceive to be an ambiguity in the last
`sentence, which says "this ordinary and
`customary meaning."
` But if you read the preceding
`sentence, you also say: "I have analyzed the
`prosecution history and have confirmed that the
`patentee and the PTO apply the ordinary and
`customary meaning of the claims as understood by
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention."
` Are you applying the understanding
`that was applied by the patentee and the PTO or
`have you come up with another understanding of
`the claims or are they entirely consistent?
` A. I think they're consistent. I think I
`was instructed to -- to understand the terms as
`a person of ordinary skill at the time. And I
`found that reading the prosecution history and
`the documents from the PTO, it was consistent
`with that. So there's no ambiguity between
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 20 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`those. So...
` Q. Is the methodology set forth in
`paragraph 70 of your declaration the same
`methodology that you've applied in understanding
`the claims in all the various proceedings on
`which you've given testimony on behalf of
`C-CATION?
` A. I think in this case, yes.
` Q. What do you mean "in this case"?
` A. I've been involved in patent cases
`before where there was some problems between the
`claims and the disclosure that had to be
`resolved. But I don't find that here.
` Q. So different cases not involving
`C-CATION, correct?
` A. Exactly. Totally different cases.
` Q. Did you review the '883 patent to
`determine whether any claimed terms used in
`claims 1, 3 or 4 were defined in the '883 patent
`specification?
` A. I'm not sure what you're asking.
` Q. When you studied the '883 patent --
`let me try to rephrase it. I think this will be
`a little bit more helpful.
` When you reviewed the '883 patent, did
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 21 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 22
`you find that the applicant had used any
`definitions in the specification for any of the
`terms of the claims?
` A. There are terms in the claims that are
`used in the specification. Whether it says,
`this is the definition of that, I don't think
`so. But I think that -- their terms were used.
`I'm not sure.
` Q. Beyond the terms of the claims being
`used in the specification, did you see any
`instance in which a person of ordinary skill in
`the art, as of July of 1994, would have read the
`specification and said, The inventor is telling
`me that this term means X?
` A. Like I said, the only thing that I
`could think of that has somewhat of that flavor
`is what the meaning of signaling data would be.
` Q. Did you notice whether the inventor
`had made any disclaimers in the specification of
`the '883 patent that would lead a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, as of July 1994, to
`conclude that the claims excluded certain
`features from their scope?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. So the patent as a whole is describing
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 22 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 23
`a system where a central controller -- it's a
`network where a central controller takes the
`lead in orchestrating what's going on.
` And so there's some dispute about what
`parts of the claims -- who could do what. But
`it's clear to me, as reading the patent and
`reading the claims, that the central controller
`is in charge of the network and makes -- does
`the monitoring or the deciding of which
`terminals need to be moved and things like that.
` So to me it's pretty clear that
`between the claim and the disclosure, that it's
`a network where a central controller is in
`charge of orchestrating what's going on in the
`network.
` Q. Did you find any disclaimers in the
`'883 patent that would suggest to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art that some technology
`was not covered by the language of the claims?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Form.
` A. I found some wording, and it's kind of
`standard type wording, where you -- where --
`towards the end of the disclosure where it's
`stated that the disclosure described certain
`embodiments and that those -- there are things
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 23 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 24
`outside those embodiments that are within the
`scope of the patent.
` Q. And that's language at column 14
`lines 10 to 22; is that right?
` A. Yes. Like that.
` Q. You don't view that as being a
`disclaimer, do you?
` A. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what
`the legal definition of that is.
` Q. Did you see any text in the '883
`patent that suggested to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art that by implementing a
`particular method step, let's say the monitoring
`step, in the remote terminal, that would be
`excluded from the scope of the claims of the
`'883 patent?
` A. I feel that's true.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Because the structure of the
`disclosure and the structure of the claim leads
`me to believe that the inventor was considering
`a network where there was a central controller
`that was orchestrating allocation of channels to
`the remote terminals, and so I think that is
`a -- required to practice this invention.
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 24 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 25
` Q. Fair enough. Let's talk a little bit
`about your methodology -- actually, let me back
`up before moving on.
` One more question regarding claim
`construction. Dr. Heegard, are you aware that
`when interpreting a patent claim for the
`purposes of infringement, you must apply the
`same interpretation when determining questions
`of invalidity? Are you familiar with that legal
`principle?
` A. Well, I mean, yes, I am. Logically
`you want, for purposes of infringement, you have
`a certain area that you're saying is --
`describes things that infringe. And so it makes
`sense that if you're trying to, say, invalidate
`a patent, that you have to find something, say,
`a prior art reference that was within the same
`area.
` Because if you change the boundary for
`the two arguments, then you would have an
`inconsistency.
` Q. And do you believe that you've always
`applied the same claim interpretations for
`rendering opinions on validity as you have for
`rendering opinions on infringement?
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 25 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
` A. I've always tried to do that.
` Q. So turning to the question of
`obviousness, and I -- again, I'm just looking
`for general methodology before getting into
`specifics. I want to understand how you went
`about the task that you were asked to perform.
` Dr. Heegard, in your declaration at
`paragraph 20 -- let me just make sure I read
`this correctly -- you say that "while you have
`considered the prior art that is referenced and
`discussed in the petition and supporting
`declaration of Stuart Lipoff, that you focused
`on the particular portions of that prior art and
`embodiments therein that petitioner and
`Mr. Lipoff specifically pointed to as rendering
`the claims of '883 patent unpatentable."
` Have I read that correctly?
` A. I think so.
` Q. When you say that you focused on the
`particular portions of the prior art and
`embodiments that were identified in the petition
`and by Mr. Lipoff, how did your consideration of
`those aspects of the references differ from your
`consideration from the remainder -- or of the
`remainder of the MPT specifications that ARRIS
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 26 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`is relying on?
` MS. MOKEN: Objection. Foundation.
` A. Well, earlier you asked me if I
`reviewed in detail the MPT. I think I said
`something to the effect that there are certain
`sections I studied more than others. Those
`sections would be the ones that were used by
`Mr. Lipoff in his argument that the patent was
`invalid or unpatentable, I guess is the term.
` So I know the sections he referred to,
`I spent more time reading them. The other
`sections are very long -- those documents are
`very long and they have a lot of stuff in it. I
`spent more time reading the sections that he
`pointed to, and related sections. If there was
`a section he pointed to and there was some term
`in there that was referenced somewhere else, I
`would look it up to see what that was and things
`like that.
` But I didn't -- I couldn't -- I
`wouldn't say that I uniformly looked at the
`whole documents in the same degree of -- level.
` Q. And there are certain aspects of these
`MPT specifications that are largely irrelevant
`to the issues in this proceeding; is that right?
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 27 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
` A. I'm sure that's true.
` Q. When you said that you looked up other
`terms that were referenced somewhere else, did
`you try to do that uniformly in your review of
`all of the sections identified by Mr. Lipoff?
` A. I think I looked up -- when he
`referred to something I looked at it and saw
`what it was. And if there was some
`cross-reference to something else, I would look
`that up.
` Q. Would you only do that if there was a
`specific cross-reference to a section or would
`you look for that concept being described
`somewhere else in the MPT specification?
` A. I think I mostly looked at the
`references that he gave and the references that
`were found and where he -- to the sections he
`looked.
` Q. So let me understand this word
`"references" that we're using just to make sure
`it's clear in my mind what it is that you did.
` If there was a section referred to in
`one of the sections that Mr. Lipoff cited, you
`would then review that other section that was
`referenced explicitly in the section Mr. Lipoff
`
`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
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635 , p. 28 of 175
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`cited; is that correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. What if there was a concept referenced
`in a particular section that Mr. Lipoff
`referenced? And so let me give you a specific
`example and then we can talk about what it is
`that you did exactly.
` So, for example, if he referenced a
`step of denying a registration by sending an
`ACKX message, would you look at the MPT
`specifications to determine what that particular
`ACKX message would mean or did you focus only on
`the section that Mr. Lipoff cited in gaining
`your understanding of what the ACKX message
`means?
` A. I think I did look that up. And I
`think I went to try to see what that -- the form
`that message took. That's a good example of the
`kind of thing you would reference and look at
`what exactly is this and look into the document
`to find it.
` Q. I see. So your analysis wasn't just
`limited to specific section cross-references,
`you tried to gain a more holistic understanding
`of that con