Page 1
` 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
`
`
` 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
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
