3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`GOOGLE, INC., NEST LABS, INC., )
`and DROPCAM, INC. )
` )
` Petitioners, )
` )
` V. )
` )
`e.DIGITAL CORPORATION )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________)
`
` ------------------------- -------------------------
` Case No. IPR2015-01470 | Case No. IPR2015-01473
` Patent No. 8,311,522 | Patent No. 8,311,523
` ------------------------- -------------------------
` Case No. IPR2015-01471 | Case No. IPR2015-01474
` Patent No. 8,315,618 | Patent No. 8,311,524
` ------------------------- -------------------------
` Case No. IPR2015-01472 | Case No. IPR2015-01475
` Patent No. 8,306,514 | Patent No. 8,315,619
` ------------------------- -------------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF DAVID H. WILLIAMS
` TAKEN BY ANTON N. HANDAL, ESQ.
` PRO HAC VICE
` MARCH 15, 2016
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 1
`
`
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`GOOGLE, INC., NEST LABS, INC., )
`and DROPCAM, INC. )
` )
` Petitioners, )
` )
` V. )
` )
`e.DIGITAL CORPORATION )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________)
`
` ------------------------- -------------------------
` Case No. IPR2015-01470 | Case No. IPR2015-01473
` Patent No. 8,311,522 | Patent No. 8,311,523
` ------------------------- -------------------------
` Case No. IPR2015-01471 | Case No. IPR2015-01474
` Patent No. 8,315,618 | Patent No. 8,311,524
` ------------------------- -------------------------
` Case No. IPR2015-01472 | Case No. IPR2015-01475
` Patent No. 8,306,514 | Patent No. 8,315,619
` ------------------------- -------------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF DAVID H. WILLIAMS
` TAKEN BY ANTON N. HANDAL, ESQ.
` PRO HAC VICE
` MARCH 15, 2016
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 1
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 2
`
` DEPOSITION OF DAVID H. WILLIAMS, produced, sworn,
`
`and examined on March 15, 2016, at the offices of
`
`Thompson Coburn LLP, One US Bank Plaza, Suite 3500, St.
`
`Louis, Missouri, 63101, before Karen M. Russo, Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter within and for the State of Missouri,
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Before the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Google, Inc., Nest Labs,
`
`Inc., and Dropcam, Inc., Petitioner, vs. e.Digital
`
`Corporation, Patent Owner.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 2
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
` APPEARANCES
`
`Page 3
`
` FOR THE PETITIONERS:
`
` Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`
` Michael V. Messinger, Esq.
`
` Zhu He, Esq.
`
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
` 202.371.2600
`
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` Handal & Associates
`
` Anton Handal, Esq.
`
` 750 B Street
`
` Suite 2510
`
` San Diego, CA 92101
`
` 619.544.6400
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
`
` San Diego Patent Prep & Pros, Inc.
`
` Mary Fales, President
`
` 16870 W. Bernardo Drive
`
` Suite 400
`
` San Diego, CA 92127
`
` and
`
` e.Digital
`
` Fred Falk, President & CEO
`
` 16870 West Bernardo Drive
`
` Suite 120
`
` San Diego, CA 92127
`
` 858.304.3016 x202
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 3
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
` I N D E X
`
`Page 4
`
`WITNESS: David H. Williams Page
`
` Direct Examination by Mr. Handal 5
`
` Cross-Examination by Messinger 207
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Exhibit Description Page
`
`2004 4-14-13.doc_V1-2 17
`
`2005 March 2015-V6-4.doc CV 75
`
`2006 March 2015-V6-5.doc CV 77
`
`2007 CV_September_2015-5.doc 78
`
`2008 ipNexus 82
`
`2009 wireless location credentials summary 87
`
`2010 Way Back Machine 114
`
`2011 David Williams biography 117
`
`2012 LBS applications 118
`
`2013 petition in the 523 patent 123
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 4
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 5
`
` S T I P U L A T I O N
`
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between
`
`counsel for the parties that this deposition may be taken
`
`in shorthand by Karen M. Russo, CSR, RPR, and afterwards
`
`transcribed into printing, and signature by the witness
`
`is waived.
`
` DAVID H. WILLIAMS,
`
`of lawful age, being first duly sworn to tell the truth,
`
`the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposes and
`
`says on behalf of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. HANDAL:
`
` Q. Good morning, sir. How are you today?
`
` A. Good. How are you?
`
` Q. We met earlier. My name is Tony Handal.
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection. I would just
`
`like to object for the record that while a motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice has been filed, counsel is not recognized as
`
`counsel in this proceeding under Rule 42.10C.
`
` MR. HANDAL: But notwithstanding, you're
`
`not objecting to my inquiring of this witness any
`
`questions this morning?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 5
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 14
`
`did immediately after graduation involved working on the
`
`F15 radar converting a portion of their system to the
`
`next generation of processors called 8086.
`
` Q. Who was that? You worked on that for who?
`
` A. Hughes Aircraft Company.
`
` Q. Hughes. What years?
`
` A. '85 to '87 -- or, excuse me, '83 to '85.
`
` Q. Okay. What was the state of the communications
`
`business or technology in 1983?
`
` A. Also --
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, scope.
`
` A. -- very embryonic. There was AT&T and some
`
`emerging players in terms of the wireline, what's
`
`referred to as the wireline business, with -- I believe
`
`some of the antitrust was associated with AT&T going on
`
`around that time. I don't remember the exact dates. The
`
`mobile industry was even more embryonic in terms of a
`
`whole variety of very small players starting to build out
`
`aspects, but mobile was very limited in terms of, you
`
`know, both its technology capabilities as well as market
`
`penetration at that time.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) Now, with respect to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 6
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 15
`
`microprocessor, your emphasis in -- strike that.
`
` With respect to your work related to micro-
`
`processors, what design tasks did you undertake and when?
`
` A. Well, a variety of coursework over the course
`
`of my double E degree, in particular my work for Hughes
`
`Aircraft Company, actually had me designing a
`
`microprocessor-based circuit board again for the F15
`
`radar that included using the 8086 as a base for
`
`interfacing to a whole variety of subsystems and
`
`processing a variety of software applications.
`
` Q. So if I understand your testimony, what you're
`
`telling me is that in connection with your work at Hughes
`
`Aircraft, you designed a circuit board with a vintage
`
`microprocessor of that day?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. Well, it wasn't vintage at that time. It's
`
`vintage now, but it was considered a leading edge
`
`processor at that time.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) And at that time being?
`
` A. 1983 to '85.
`
` Q. All right. Now, was that a -- what was the
`
`ultimate outcome of that work? Was it ever integrated
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 7
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 16
`
`into a final device?
`
` A. As far as I'm aware of, yes. I left when it
`
`was just going into essentially the manufacturing
`
`engineering side of things, but certainly the entire F15
`
`radar, which at that time was essentially an analog-based
`
`system, was converted to essentially an entirely digital
`
`based of which this processor would have been a key part
`
`of that, presumably.
`
` Q. But the circuit board that you worked on -- or
`
`let me ask you, were the sole designer?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. You were working in a team with other
`
`designers?
`
` A. Yes, but I was what I would call the primary
`
`designer.
`
` Q. Were you the lead on that circuit board?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And in terms of functionality, I mean what
`
`significance was -- I guess they're all significant, but
`
`in terms of the overall project, how big was this circuit
`
`board in relevance?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 8
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 17
`
` A. It was -- there were -- if I recall, bear in
`
`mind this is 30-odd years ago, there were several, call
`
`that eight or ten, major units of the radar. This
`
`circuit board was going to be a significant part of one
`
`of those units called the A to D converter, analog to
`
`digital converter, to take radar signals and convert them
`
`from their analog form to digital form for use by other
`
`systems.
`
` Q. So this circuit board was in the context of the
`
`A to D conversion?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And in connection with your work on the circuit
`
`board, did you have any involvement with what's been
`
`referred to as a digital signal processor, DSP?
`
` A. If I -- I don't recall the term being
`
`explicitly used at that time and digital signal
`
`processor, you know, again the nature of the unit was for
`
`analog to digital conversion overall. So bottom line is
`
`I don't remember specifically that phrase being used.
`
` Q. Okay. And let me see if I get this right. So
`
`an analog signal comes into the system from where?
`
` A. Well, originally from the antenna array on the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 9
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) Okay. So then you left Hughes
`
`Page 19
`
`in or around 1985?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Where did you go?
`
` A. I went to get my MBA at the University of
`
`Texas.
`
` Q. Was it a full time?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So two years?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So then after graduation -- did you have an
`
`emphasis in U of T?
`
` A. Yes, they had started a new program called
`
`information systems management which I was part of the
`
`first class which was intended what was then to be kind
`
`of a, if not radical, a significant departure from both
`
`regular MBA programs as well as what would be called
`
`management information systems which was kind of a
`
`technology center field. And the idea was this program
`
`would kind of bring them together. And that was a formal
`
`sub emphasis within the MBA program.
`
` Q. Okay. But to be clear, it wasn't a technical
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 10
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`discipline?
`
` A. Yeah, primarily it was -- my degree is an MBA.
`
` Q. Okay. After graduating from Purdue -- it was
`
`Page 20
`
`Purdue, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. -- with a degree in engineering electrical
`
`engineering, did you undertake any other postgraduate or
`
`other education in electronics or electrical engineering?
`
` A. Formal education, no.
`
` Q. Yes, okay. After graduating from University of
`
`Texas about 1987, '88 --
`
` A. '87.
`
` Q. -- did you obtain gainful employment in any
`
`way?
`
` A. Yes. I joined what was then Touche Ross which
`
`has evolved since then to become Deloitte Consulting, I
`
`believe, unless they changed it recently and they
`
`probably have, where I focused primarily on technology-
`
`related consulting engagements.
`
` Q. How long were you with Touche?
`
` A. About five years.
`
` Q. So from '87 to --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 11
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
` A. '91, so four and a half, I think.
`
` Q. During that time period did you do any
`
`Page 21
`
`technical engineering work?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. What did you do?
`
` A. In particular one of my biggest engagements,
`
`which actually took about a year and a half, was
`
`designing and implementing and being -- essentially being
`
`the sole designer and implementer, key implementer, of
`
`what would now be considered bringing something that was
`
`in a cloud-computing environment inhouse. Back then it
`
`was called a service bureau where the core applications
`
`of the company were done by an external entity. And the
`
`team, the broad team I was on was responsible for
`
`essentially building out what was called a data center
`
`and bringing all of that activity inhouse. I was
`
`responsible for the communications portion of that which
`
`involved primarily interfacing with a couple hundred
`
`retail stores that was this company's primary business.
`
` Q. Okay. So if I understand you correctly, this
`
`company was a client of Touche Ross's?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 12
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. It wasn't Touche Ross?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. This wasn't an inhouse project?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. It was a retail-based operation?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Retail-based client. And they had a number of
`
`locations, and they wanted to consolidate data in one
`
`location and a server data center somewhere?
`
` A. Yeah. They wanted to have full control over
`
`their entire information systems and technology
`
`infrastructure.
`
` Q. Okay. And if I understand you correctly, you
`
`were involved in the designing and implementing the
`
`communications aspect of getting the data from the retail
`
`locations to the data center?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. All right. Anything else? Have I
`
`mischaracterized it?
`
` A. No, that was a good characterization.
`
` Q. I'm trying to listen to you as we go.
`
`Obviously, if I get it wrong, you know, just say, hey,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 13
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 23
`
`that's not right, you did it incorrectly.
`
` Now, with respect to that function of designing
`
`and implementing the communications aspect of bringing
`
`the data from the retail locations to the data center,
`
`what did you do?
`
` A. I designed the network, meaning identified the
`
`key requirements in terms of what data needed to be
`
`extracted from the retail environment, particularly their
`
`point of sale, cash registers, which also required
`
`understanding the technology within the cash register to
`
`understand what data was available, how it was
`
`structured, how it could be extracted, what kind of
`
`interfaces needed to be done, what kind of programming
`
`needed to get it out which, believe me, at that time was
`
`not a simple task, and then developing the design
`
`requirements in terms of when it needed to be extracted,
`
`as well as on the data center side of things, how all
`
`that data would be received, when those point of sale
`
`devices would be polled, all the infrastructure that
`
`would be required to get that information in terms of
`
`modems and communications lines and so on and so forth.
`
`And then on the data center side, actually then
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 14
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`determining how that data would then be structured,
`
`formatted, consolidated, etc., to feed into the other
`
`applications behind in terms of for financial accounting,
`
`Page 24
`
`marketing sales purposes, etc.
`
` Q. Okay. So let's look at it this way. Let's
`
`look at the project with on one end of the spectrum being
`
`the guy that had the idea and on the other end of the
`
`spectrum the guy actually writing the code, all right.
`
`So you've got a spectrum of responsibilities between
`
`those two end points. Did you do any writing, any code
`
`writing?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you do any hardware circuit board design?
`
` A. I did what I would call hardware system design
`
`in terms of the -- we had modem arrays because you
`
`couldn't just -- at that time in particular you couldn't
`
`just have one modem and go and connect with 200 stores.
`
`You had to have a couple dozen if you expected to get
`
`that data at any time in your lifetime. So I designed
`
`the hardware array and full rack and all the different
`
`communications, slotting and calendaring and all those
`
`associated designs, basically everything that needed to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 15
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`be done to connect with and receive the data from the
`
`Page 25
`
`stores.
`
` Q. Okay. But with respect to your reference to
`
`the modem, you didn't design the modem. You selected a
`
`modem?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) So what you did is you
`
`selected the existing, for lack of a better term and I
`
`use the term loosely, off-the-shelf products that were
`
`available to you to fit into the system?
`
` A. I had -- I would vary what you said in terms of
`
`I had to design the broader system. It's not like today
`
`or maybe, you know, five years ago where you have a
`
`modem, buy a modem at Walmart or whatever and slap it in
`
`and connect it. At that time modems were not nearly as
`
`sophisticated, so they required a lot of design work and
`
`hardware modification work in order to actually get them
`
`to work, particularly in a broader modem array that I had
`
`to design at that time.
`
` Q. Okay. But to be clear, you did not do any
`
`circuit board design in connection with that engagement?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 16
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 26
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) And did you do any circuitry
`
`design, like engineering level circuitry design on that
`
`system?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. It's a sliding scale, but my view of the design
`
`of the couple dozen modems and the overall integration
`
`and everything associated with getting that to work with
`
`the point of sale, as well as the back end accounting
`
`systems, I would view that as involving circuitry design.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) Okay. This entire system, was
`
`it wired or were any aspects of it wireless?
`
` A. It was wired.
`
` Q. All right. So we identified that while you
`
`were at Touche you did this one project that we've been
`
`discussing for a retail client that involved engineering
`
`design work. Were there any other engineering design
`
`functions that you were given or that you performed other
`
`than the one that you described for me while you were at
`
`Touche Ross?
`
` A. Most -- not all but most of my additional
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 17
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 27
`
`projects at Touche involved some sort of technology
`
`element, whether it was implementing new accounting
`
`systems or it was modifying a bank data center to
`
`essentially prepare it for sale. This was back when all
`
`the Texas banks failed, savings and loans failed. So
`
`that nearly most of it was technology related in some
`
`form or fashion.
`
` Q. Was it all wired or any of it wireless?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. At that time I believe it was all wired.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) Following your employment at
`
`Touche Ross, I think that takes us through 1991?
`
` A. Correct,
`
` Q. What did you do next?
`
` A. I joined what was then Booz, Allen, & Hamilton
`
`which is now structured differently, but at that time it
`
`had two arms, a government arm which is what everybody
`
`kind of knows, NSA stuff, and a commercial management
`
`consulting arm. Within that I was within the commercial
`
`side of things, and within the commercial side there is
`
`an information strategy unit which is what I joined.
`
` Q. What's the information strategy segment?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 18
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
` A. It essentially had -- any projects that
`
`involved technology that the business guys didn't know
`
`what to do, they would call on us to help them out. That
`
`Page 28
`
`is pretty much it, bottom line.
`
` Q. How long were you at Booz Allen?
`
` A. Two years.
`
` Q. To '93?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. While at Booz Allen were you involved in any
`
`electrical engineering design work?
`
` A. Not really, no.
`
` Q. Okay. After Booz Allen where did you go?
`
` A. What was then Anderson Consulting which became
`
`Accenture, A-C-C-E-N-T-U-R-E.
`
` Q. From when to when?
`
` A. From '93 to 2002.
`
` Q. First let me ask you, where did you work?
`
` A. I joined the information technology strategy
`
`unit which was a new unit that then Anderson Consulting
`
`was starting up.
`
` Q. During that time, from '93 to 2002, were you
`
`involved in, for Anderson Consulting or Accenture, any
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 19
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 29
`
`electrical engineering design work?
`
` A. In terms of circuit board design, type level
`
`design, no. In terms of systems design of designing
`
`systems to do everything from collect and communicate and
`
`process data from various sources, yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So let's see if we can define a little
`
`more clearly the difference here for the purposes of
`
`being on the same page, and I'll let you do it. What is
`
`systems design as you characterized it?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. Well, if a circuit board -- if a circuit board
`
`is made up -- I'll put it in the context of kind of what
`
`we already discussed. If a circuit board has a
`
`microprocessor and maybe some other chips, that's a
`
`system unit, that circuit board. It then by itself
`
`usually does not -- cannot do anything in terms of
`
`providing end result of whatever it is you're trying to
`
`do. So it has to be incorporated with other circuit
`
`boards into some sort of unit. That can be considered
`
`systems design or it could be considered circuit design,
`
`just depending on what's required to integrate those
`
`circuit board -- individual circuit boards within, you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 20
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 30
`
`know, that box. And then that box usually is not enough
`
`either to provide whatever it is the end purpose is, so
`
`there's a variety of other boxes that it will need to
`
`interface with. There's the communications links that
`
`need to be established between the boxes. There's the
`
`interfaces in terms of extracting and transmitting data
`
`associated with those boxes. There's the aggregation
`
`processing analyzing of the data that is generated by
`
`those boxes. There's the whatever the original data
`
`source that needs to be collected, like, for example, the
`
`point of sale stuff that I talked about, that kind of
`
`design work needs to be done, as well as ultimately
`
`interfacing to whatever other systems need to be done to
`
`actually ultimately wind up being able to use that data.
`
`So all of that is what I would call systems design work,
`
`which to me is just a very logical extension of circuit
`
`board level data just on a different scale.
`
` Q. Okay. So with respect to the work that you did
`
`at Anderson Consulting, how much of it was -- how much of
`
`the system design work did you do that was on a circuit
`
`board level?
`
` A. On a circuit board level, none.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 21
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 31
`
` Q. Okay. Did you do any what I would call
`
`electrical engineering work while you were at Anderson
`
`Consulting, Accenture?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. Yes, in the context of what I just described as
`
`systems design, which I view very much as being
`
`electrical engineering work, I would say at least half of
`
`my work involved that kind of design work.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) Let's talk about one of the
`
`biggest, and obviously we don't need to know names, but
`
`one that comes to your mind while you were at Anderson,
`
`Accenture, what type of project was it?
`
` A. It was -- well, I can describe the client. It
`
`was AT&T. At that point in time AT&T was strictly in the
`
`long distance business, and, you know, once upon a time
`
`AT&T had everything, and then part of the antitrust they
`
`had to get rid of their local business, for whatever
`
`logic there was at that time. And the regulations
`
`shifted again such they were allowed to get back into the
`
`local business. And so they had lost a lot of that
`
`expertise when they went to purely a long distance
`
`business, so they contracted with Accenture to help them
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 22
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 32
`
`get back into long distance work. So I led a team in
`
`particular that was focused on one of the regions that
`
`corresponded to that time, regional bill operating
`
`companies in the midwest region, what was the Ameritech
`
`region, and led the team in designing all the --
`
`essentially the communications requirements and
`
`implementation in terms of how they would get back into
`
`the local business. In particular this was involved
`
`primarily with subcontracting with Ameritech to provide a
`
`lot of those services, but there was also a lot of
`
`systems design work around that in terms of being able
`
`to, you know, take a customer order, process it, split it
`
`into all the different pieces it needed to in terms of a
`
`customer information system and sales ordering system and
`
`financial system and so on, and then providing the
`
`specific customer network requirements to Ameritech and
`
`then overseeing, making sure that they did that
`
`implementation properly and then monitor the ongoing
`
`operation of that. So that was what -- again it would be
`
`kind of a systems design, systems management kind of
`
`overall engagement, is the way I would characterize it.
`
` Q. So your perspective was from a holistic view of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 23
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 33
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`problem to solution?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. As opposed to solving a component problem as a
`
`part of a bigger solution?
`
` MR. MESSINGER: Objection, form.
`
` A. Yes, it was very much a broad end to end from,
`
`you know, have to somehow get local service to a
`
`customer, how do we do that to, you know, did Customer A
`
`get the service that they ask for.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Handal) Was any of it wireless at that
`
`time?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. Let's step forward after 2002. Where
`
`did you go next?
`
` A. I left Accenture and formed my own consulting
`
`firm which is the firm I have today, E911-LBS Consulting.
`
`And I -- the genesis of that was in the mid to late
`
`1990's I was getting heavily into the wireless world,
`
`mobile world. And in particular I did a project for what
`
`was then Nextel, which no longer exists but it was
`
`absorbed by Sprint, to help them develop their location-
`
`based services strategy. That was in reaction to the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 24
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 34
`
`passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that required
`
`carriers to be able to track cell phones. So I was part
`
`of it, and Nextel wanted to understand how they could
`
`potentially commercialize from the technology they were
`
`being required to implement. So that became a passion of
`
`mine, and then when I left Accenture I formed my own
`
`consulting company to focus on that kind of work.
`
` Q. So LBS, I gather that means location based
`
`services?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. For the lay person, what does that mean?
`
` A. It's utilizing a person's -- place or thing --
`
`location in the form of a device that can determine your
`
`location such as by a GPS chip to provide additional --
`
`to provide some sort of services based in part or in full
`
`on whatever that location is. So the easiest example of
`
`that is a navigation application in terms of determining
`
`where you are, where you want to go, how you want to get
`
`there.
`
` Q. Okay. And your function at that time or the
`
`technology at that time that you were involved in focused
`
`mainly on identifying a user's location?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`e.Digital Corporation
`Exhibit 2013 - Page 25
`
`
`
`3/15/2016
`
`Google Inc., et al. v. e.Digital Corp.
`
`David H. Williams
`
`Page 38
`
`where they were and they ended up dying or other stuff.
`
`And so as part of the broader '96 Act, congress mandated
`
`that the wireles
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
