1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` COXCOM, LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
` CASE IPR2015-01760
` vs. PATENT 6,549,130
`
` JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING
` SYSTEMS, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`
` VOLUME I
` DEPOSITION OF
` RICHARD BENNETT
`
` April 28, 2016
` 9:44 A.M.
` 1100 Peachtree Street, NE
` Suite 1100
` Atlanta, Georgia
` Lee Ann Barnes, CCR-1852, RPR, CRR
`
` Job No. CS2300074
`
`800-567-8658
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 1
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`2 Patent Owner's
` Exhibit Description Page
`
`3
`
` Exhibit 1 Notice of Deposition of 23
`4 Richard Bennett
`5 Exhibit 2 Declaration of Richard 15
` Bennett in Support of
`6 Petition for Inter Partes
` Review of U.S. Patent No.
`7 6,549,130 Under 35 U.S.C. §§
` 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§
`8 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`9 Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent Application No. 25
` 08/622,749
`
`10
`
` Exhibit 4 United States Patent No. 54
`11 6,549,130 B1
`12 Exhibit 5 Decision, Institution of 63
` Inter Partes Review, 37
`13 C.F.R. §42.108
`14 Exhibit 6 U.S. Patent No. 5,875,430 70
`15 Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,442 135
`16 Exhibit 8 Declaration of Richard 16
` Bennett in Support of
`17 Petition for Inter Partes
` Review of U.S. Patent No.
`18 7,397,363 Under 35 U.S.C. §§
` 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§
`19 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`20 (Original exhibits are attached to the
`21 Original transcript.)
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 Deposition of RICHARD BENNETT
` April 28, 2016
`
`2 3
`
` (Reporter disclosure made pursuant to
`4 Article 8.B of the Rules and Regulations of the
`5 Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial
`6 Council of Georgia.)
`
`7 8
`
` RICHARD BENNETT, having been first duly sworn,
`9 was examined and testified as follows:
`10 EXAMINATION
`11 BY-MR. RITCHESON:
`12 Q. Could you state and spell your name for
`13 the record, please?
`14 A. Richard Bennett, B-E-N-N-E-T-T.
`15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. My name is Steven
`16 Ritcheson. I introduced myself earlier. I'm one of
`17 the attorneys representing a company known as Joao
`18 Control and Monitoring Systems.
`19 Do you understand that?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. Okay. I'm going to refer to that entity
`22 as "JCMS" today.
`23 Is that all right with you?
`24 A. That's fine.
`25 Q. Okay. My understanding is that you are
`
`1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`23
`
` On behalf of the Petitioner:
`4 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
` D. CLAY HOLLOWAY, ESQ.
`5 1100 Peachtree Street, NE
` Suite 2800
`6 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528
` 404.815.6537
`7 404.541.3484 (facsimile)
` cholloway@ktslaw.com
`
`89
`
`10 On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`11 INSIGHT, PLC
` STEVEN RITCHESON, ESQ.
`12 9800D Topanga Canyon Boulevard, #347
` Chatsworth, California 91311
`13 818.882.1030
` swritcheson@insightplc.com
`
`14
`15
`16 Also Present:
` Raymond Joao
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`2 WITNESS: RICHARD BENNETT
`3 EXAMINATION PAGE
` By Mr. Ritcheson 5
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 2
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1 a -- an expert that has been retained by Cox
`2 Communications; is that accurate?
`3 A. That's correct.
`4 Q. Were you actually retained by Cox or by a
`5 law firm on behalf of Cox?
`6 A. By a law firm on behalf of Cox.
`7 Q. And what law firm is that?
`8 A. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.
`9 Q. Have you been retained by any other law
`10 firms to act as an expert on behalf of any entity
`11 with respect to a JCMS patent?
`12 A. Yes, I have.
`13 Q. What other entities?
`14 A. Venable and K&L Gates.
`15 Q. And who is or was Venable's client?
`16 A. Theirs was Verizon and some entities
`17 associated with Verizon.
`18 Q. Does Terremark sound familiar?
`19 A. Yeah, Terremark.
`20 Q. And that's T-E-R-R-E-M-A-R-K?
`21 A. I believe so.
`22 Q. And who is or was the K&L client?
`23 A. Time Warner Cable or some entity
`24 affiliated with Time Warner Cable.
`25 Q. Have you heard of a company named Icontrol
`
`1 Q. Okay. During the day today, we're going
`2 to take breaks occasionally, and tomorrow. We'll
`3 take breaks occasionally, but you're not allowed to
`4 speak with counsel about your testimony, either the
`5 testimony you've given or the testimony you expect
`6 to give.
`7 Do you understand that?
`8 MR. RITCHESON: Objection. Form.
`9 THE WITNESS: I wasn't aware of that.
`10 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Okay. If -- in light
`11 of that, will you follow my instruction not to speak
`12 with your counsel about your testimony or would you
`13 like me to inquire about it as we go ahead?
`14 MR. HOLLOWAY: There's no bar. If you
`15 want to ask him questions after the break if we
`16 talked about stuff, you're allowed to do that.
`17 MR. RITCHESON: There is a bar, as you
`18 probably know or you may not know. There is a
`19 bar that prohibits you from speaking with
`20 Mr. Bennett regarding his testimony.
`21 MR. HOLLOWAY: There is a rule that states
`22 if I talk to him while he's on the stand, you
`23 are allowed to ask him about that.
`24 MR. RITCHESON: We'll find the rule for
`25 you.
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1 Networks?
`2 A. Yes, I have.
`3 Q. Is that one of the entities that you were
`4 also --
`5 A. Could be.
`6 Q. Okay. One of the things that -- you've
`7 been deposed before; correct?
`8 A. Yes.
`9 Q. And, in fact, you've been deposed with
`10 respect to some of the JCMS patents before?
`11 A. Yes, I have.
`12 Q. One of the key things I'd like to remind
`13 you of, and it's for our sake, as well as the court
`14 reporter's, make sure we give each other time to
`15 finish our questions and answers before we start
`16 again; okay?
`17 A. That's great.
`18 Q. Okay. Roughly how many times have you
`19 been deposed before?
`20 A. Just the times that -- on the two patents
`21 that I was deposed on relative to JCMS.
`22 Q. Okay. Do you have any -- do you have any
`23 questions about the -- this process that I can
`24 answer for you?
`25 A. No.
`
`1 MR. HOLLOWAY: Okay.
`2 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) With respect to any
`3 breaks we take, I'll ask you what you said to your
`4 attorneys if you spoke with him; okay? Okay?
`5 A. You're welcome to ask me that.
`6 Q. Now, this isn't your first time acting as
`7 an expert; correct?
`8 A. Correct.
`9 Q. How many times have you acted as an expert
`10 before?
`11 A. I acted as an expert in two previous cases
`12 with Kilpatrick Townsend and I filed expert
`13 declarations, and I've -- yeah, that's it as an
`14 expert. I've worked as a consultant with law firms,
`15 as well.
`16 Q. It's true that you've never testified at a
`17 trial before?
`18 A. That's correct.
`19 Q. Okay. Are you paid hourly for your
`20 services as an expert in this case?
`21 A. Yes, I am.
`22 Q. And how much do you charge for an hour?
`23 A. I don't actually remember the rate for
`24 this case. I think it's 5- to $600 an hour,
`25 something like that.
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 3
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1 Q. Is that the same amount that was
`2 applicable to the other proceedings that you
`3 mentioned involving the JCMS patents?
`4 A. On JCMS, yes, it's the same rate as the
`5 previous JCMS cases.
`6 Q. We're here today to discuss two IPRs. Do
`7 you understand what I mean by "IPR," inter partes
`8 review?
`9 A. Yes.
`10 Q. So if I say "IPR," you understand what I'm
`11 talking about?
`12 A. Yes, although it's ambiguous.
`13 Intellectual property rights also means IPRs.
`14 Q. Okay. For the purposes of today, let's
`15 have it be inter partes view.
`16 A. Yeah.
`17 Q. There's two IPRs that we're here to talk
`18 about today.
`19 You understand that; correct?
`20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`21 Q. That's a "yes"?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. One of the other rules, by the way, is to
`24 give an actual verbal response so that she knows
`25 what to write down; okay?
`
`1 A. About the same.
`2 Q. So you haven't done anything since you did
`3 your declaration?
`4 A. You mean how much time did I spend, say,
`5 preparing for this deposition?
`6 Q. Or anything you've done in the interim
`7 since you completed the declaration.
`8 A. Since I completed those, the only thing
`9 I've done is prepared for this deposition, which I
`10 did by simply rereading all the exhibits that were
`11 filed.
`12 Q. And how much time did you spend in
`13 preparing for today's deposition?
`14 A. I spent about 10 to 15 hours.
`15 Q. That's total, right, not per IPR?
`16 A. Yes.
`17 Q. When were you actually retained by an
`18 entity with respect to the JCMS patents?
`19 A. With respect to the ones we're dealing
`20 with today?
`21 Q. Yes.
`22 A. That would have been last July.
`23 Q. And who initially retained you last July?
`24 A. I believe it was Mr. Holloway, wasn't it?
`25 MR. RITCHESON: What was the question?
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 A. Okay.
`2 Q. You understand that those IPRs relate to
`3 the '130 patent and the '363 patent?
`4 A. Yes, I do.
`5 Q. With respect to those two matters, you
`6 submitted a declaration?
`7 A. Yes, I did.
`8 Q. Two declarations --
`9 A. Yes.
`10 Q. -- one for each?
`11 A. Yes.
`12 Q. Roughly how much time did you spend
`13 preparing those two declarations?
`14 I should ask a foundational question. Did
`15 you prepare those declarations?
`16 A. Yes.
`17 Q. How much time did you spend preparing
`18 those declarations?
`19 A. I think it was roughly on the order of 20
`20 hours.
`21 Q. 20 hours each or 20 hours total?
`22 A. I think probably about 20 hours total. It
`23 could have been more. I'd have to check my records.
`24 Q. And how much time have you spent in --
`25 with respect to the '363 and '130 IPRs?
`
`1 I'm sorry.
`2 THE WITNESS: Were you the one who
`3 retained me?
`4 MR. HOLLOWAY: My name may have been on
`5 the letter.
`6 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I got an e-mail from
`7 somebody in the -- in the office here.
`8 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) And that was on behalf
`9 of Cox Communications; is that correct?
`10 A. Yes.
`11 Q. Were you then subsequently retained by the
`12 Venable and K&L firms?
`13 A. That was a previous matter.
`14 Q. That was a previous matter. Okay.
`15 When were you retained by those firms?
`16 A. That was some months prior to being
`17 retained on this matter.
`18 Q. With respect to the declaration that you
`19 provided in this case, did you provide copies of
`20 that, drafts of that, for comment to Venable and
`21 K&L?
`22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Could you read that back?
`23 (Whereupon, the record was read by the
`24 reporter as follows:
`25 Question, "With respect to the
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 4
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 declaration that you provided in this case, did
`2 you provide copies of that, drafts of that, for
`3 comment to Venable and K&L?")
`4 THE WITNESS: So you're asking me about
`5 the process and the preparation of my expert
`6 declaration and what sort of communication I
`7 had with the attorney?
`8 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) I'm asking you if you
`9 had communication with attorneys at the Venable and
`10 K&L firm with respect to your declarations?
`11 MR. HOLLOWAY: You can answer that "yes"
`12 or "no."
`13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
`14 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Who?
`15 MR. HOLLOWAY: Wait, wait, wait. Just so
`16 we're clear, he's asking about the declarations
`17 in the Cox-only IPRs.
`18 THE WITNESS: Okay.
`19 MR. RITCHESON: Yes.
`20 MR. HOLLOWAY: So I just want to make sure
`21 the question's clear.
`22 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Yes. Do you
`23 understand what I'm getting at?
`24 A. You want to know who I talked to at
`25 Kilpatrick about the --
`
`1 recognize that?
`2 A. Yes, I do.
`3 Q. Okay. As a matter of convention, we
`4 frequently refer to patents by the last three
`5 numbers.
`6 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that.
`7 Q. So we'll refer to this, okay, as the '130
`8 declaration.
`9 A. That's fine.
`10 Q. Okay. So with respect to Exhibit 2, did
`11 you provide Exhibit 2 in draft form to the attorneys
`12 at Venable or K&L Gates for comment?
`13 A. Yes, I did.
`14 Q. Okay. There's also another declaration
`15 that you provided with respect to the '363 patent.
`16 I don't think we marked that. We might as well take
`17 care of that while we're here.
`18 (Patent Owner's Exhibit 8 was marked for
`19 identification.)
`20 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Exhibit 8 that we've
`21 had marked for identification is the Declaration of
`22 Richard Bennett in Support of Petition for Inter
`23 Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363.
`24 Have you seen this document before?
`25 A. Yes, I have.
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1 Q. Well, first I want to make sure that any
`2 ambiguity is clarified.
`3 With respect to the declarations that you
`4 submitted in these IPRs that we're here to talk
`5 about today -- you know what, strike that. We've
`6 had these marked, so let's actually --
`7 MR. HOLLOWAY: Let's use numbers or names
`8 for them.
`9 MR. RITCHESON: Exactly. Exactly.
`10 MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you.
`11 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) With respect to -- and
`12 I've got -- I'm sorry it's disorganized, but there's
`13 a pile in front of you that --
`14 MR. HOLLOWAY: Is this for me?
`15 MR. RITCHESON: That is for you.
`16 MR. HOLLOWAY: Okay.
`17 MR. RITCHESON: It was arranged hastily.
`18 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's fine. Thank you.
`19 (Patent Owner's Exhibit 2 was marked for
`20 identification.)
`21 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) With respect to
`22 Exhibit No. 2, this is a Declaration of Richard
`23 Bennett in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`24 Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130.
`25 Let me hand this to you and ask you if you
`
`1 Q. Okay. And are Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 8,
`2 are those the declarations that you submitted with
`3 respect to the '130 and '363 patents, respectively?
`4 A. They appear to be.
`5 Q. With respect to Exhibit 8, did you provide
`6 drafts of Exhibit 8 to attorneys at Venable and/or
`7 K&L Gates for comment?
`8 A. Yes, I did.
`9 Q. Did you actually receive comments from
`10 Venable and K&L Gates attorneys with respect to
`11 Exhibits 2 and 8?
`12 A. Yes, I did.
`13 Q. And did you incorporate those comments
`14 into the final version of the declaration that you
`15 submitted in this matter?
`16 A. Some I did; some I didn't.
`17 Q. Okay.
`18 MR. HOLLOWAY: I'm going to object to this
`19 entire line because the witness is actually
`20 wrong.
`21 THE WITNESS: Oh.
`22 MR. RITCHESON: Well, I object to your
`23 objection.
`24 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) With respect to the --
`25 strike that.
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 5
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1 With respect to the Venable and K&L Gates
`2 attorneys, do you remember which attorneys you
`3 interacted with with respect to Exhibit 2 and
`4 Exhibit 8?
`5 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Foundation.
`6 THE WITNESS: What's the question?
`7 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Who at K&L Gates
`8 and/or Venable did you --
`9 A. K&L Gates and Venable, what does that have
`10 to do with this case?
`11 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Foundation.
`12 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) You can answer my
`13 question.
`14 A. Huh?
`15 Q. You can answer my question.
`16 A. I don't see the relevance of it.
`17 Q. It's all right. You don't have to.
`18 The process, just so you're clear, is I
`19 get to ask questions and you get to answer them.
`20 There are certain occasions where your attorney may
`21 instruct you not to answer, but at all other times,
`22 you're required to answer.
`23 A. Oh. So the attorney at K&L Gates is
`24 Jackson Ho and at Venable was Megan Woodworth, I
`25 think it is.
`
`Page 19
`1 Q. Are you aware that there was a petition
`2 for inter partes review that was submitted with your
`3 declaration to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board?
`4 A. Yes, I was.
`5 Q. Did you review that document before it was
`6 submitted?
`7 A. I don't believe I did.
`8 Q. Okay. With respect to the two other
`9 matters -- and this is just foundational -- with
`10 respect to the two other matters that you -- where
`11 you acted as an expert, those were cases in which
`12 you provided expert reports?
`13 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`14 THE WITNESS: I'm not clear about what
`15 you're asking.
`16 MR. HOLLOWAY: Can I request that we
`17 identify these by IPR number or, at the very
`18 least, petitioner party? Because the witness
`19 is confused as to what you are asking him about
`20 the declaration.
`21 MR. RITCHESON: Okay. You don't have to
`22 have a speaking objection. It's clear.
`23 MR. HOLLOWAY: I know, but the record
`24 isn't clear at all. You're using pronouns and
`25 numbers and not identifying the actual IPR
`
`1 number or the petitioners.
`2 MR. RITCHESON: With respect to the
`3 declarations, you're wrong. I identified it
`4 exactly by exhibit number. Your objections are
`5 inappropriate. You need to stop.
`6 MR. HOLLOWAY: Okay. I'm just objecting
`7 to all of this --
`8 MR. RITCHESON: Okay.
`9 MR. HOLLOWAY: -- because there's no
`10 clarity in what we're talking about.
`11 MR. RITCHESON: That's fine.
`12 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) And if I'm unclear at
`13 any point, let me know. I'm not here to trick you
`14 or surprise you or anything; I'm just trying to get
`15 your testimony. Okay? Trust me.
`16 When I was talking about the two other
`17 matters, I'm sorry, I don't know what they're
`18 called. You testified that there were two cases
`19 that you were retained by -- by K&L -- by Kilpatrick
`20 previously --
`21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
`22 Q. -- is that correct?
`23 A. Yes.
`24 Q. And those aren't IPRs, were they?
`25 A. One -- well, I worked with Kilpatrick on a
`
`Page 21
`
`1 previous expert report on JCMS in which I was
`2 deposed by Mr. Joao --
`3 Q. Right. Okay.
`4 A. -- in Washington when -- a month or two
`5 ago.
`6 Q. Okay.
`7 A. And before that, I worked on some other
`8 cases that were for Kilpatrick Townsend clients that
`9 are not relevant to JCMS.
`10 Q. Those were the ones that I was talking
`11 about. What were those cases --
`12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`13 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) -- that did not have
`14 anything to do with JCMS? I don't know what else to
`15 call them.
`16 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`17 THE WITNESS: They were about Ethernet
`18 patents.
`19 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) And did you submit --
`20 those were two cases?
`21 A. Well, it was -- it was actually -- there
`22 was one case that went through two phases, so -- and
`23 the initial -- it was an Ethernet patents case that
`24 dealt with some patents that had originally been
`25 granted to 3Com, to some people that I worked with
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 6
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 at 3Com.
`2 And in the initial phase, there was a
`3 joint defense group of, oh, at least eight different
`4 law firms that had different clients who had been
`5 charged by the current patent owner. The patent's
`6 been through two or three different owners and the
`7 current one is -- was about to expire, and so they
`8 were trying to extract some license fees from
`9 various companies, including clients of Kilpatrick
`10 Townsend.
`11 Q. Who was the patent owner?
`12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`13 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I mean, the
`14 patent was originally a 3Com patent and 3Com
`15 was acquired by HP. It became an HP patent and
`16 HP sold it to a patent assertion entity --
`17 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Okay.
`18 A. -- who was the -- and -- that had some
`19 obscure name that it's hard for me to remember.
`20 Q. Have you ever had any of your opinions
`21 stricken by a court or other judicial or
`22 quasi-judicial body?
`23 A. No.
`24 Q. Have you ever had your testimony or
`25 declarations limited by any court or judicial or
`
`1 A. It's a notice that the deposition -- wait
`2 a minute. At the top, it says "Notice of Deposition
`3 of Scott Andrews," so I'm a bit confused.
`4 No, I haven't seen this before.
`5 Q. Okay. Let me look.
`6 The cover page reads "Notice of Deposition
`7 of Richard Bennett." In the body of it, it says
`8 that "patent owner, by and through its attorneys,
`9 will conduct cross-examination by deposition of
`10 Richard Bennett..."; correct?
`11 A. That's what it says.
`12 Q. And you're Richard Bennett?
`13 A. Yes, I am.
`14 Q. Do you understand this -- notwithstanding
`15 a -- apparently a typographical error that appears
`16 at the very top of the second page, you understand
`17 this to be the notice of deposition that required
`18 you to come here and appear today?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. Okay. With respect to Exhibit 2, we've
`21 previously identified that as the declaration you
`22 submitted in the '130 IPR; correct?
`23 A. Correct.
`24 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form. It's
`25 a -- can we not call it the '130 IPR? Let's
`
`Page 23
`
`1 quasi-judicial body?
`2 A. No.
`3 Q. Have you had any -- other than in this
`4 case, have you had any occasion when a court or a
`5 judicial or quasi-judicial body has found your
`6 testimony to be insufficient?
`7 A. No.
`8 Q. With respect to -- I'd like to talk about
`9 a couple of things having to do with -- let me back
`10 up.
`11 MR. RITCHESON: Let me just for the record
`12 so, Clay, you can maybe mark on your copies,
`13 you know, what we have done with respect to
`14 marking of documents, Exhibit 1 is Notice of
`15 Deposition of Richard Bennett.
`16 (Patent Owner's Exhibit 1 was marked for
`17 identification.)
`18 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Have you seen this
`19 document before?
`20 A. Yes, I have.
`21 Q. What do you understand that document to
`22 be?
`23 A. Huh?
`24 Q. What do you understand that document to
`25 be?
`
`Page 25
`1 call it by its IPR number or the '130 patent in
`2 IPR number blank, because he has another '130
`3 IPR declaration, which is the source of all of
`4 this confusion.
`5 MR. RITCHESON: I don't think anybody's
`6 confused.
`7 MR. HOLLOWAY: Okay.
`8 (Patent Owner's Exhibit 3 was marked for
`9 identification.)
`10 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) With respect to
`11 Exhibit No. 3, have you seen this document before?
`12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Which one's Exhibit 3?
`13 THE WITNESS: It's the --
`14 MR. HOLLOWAY: I got it.
`15 THE WITNESS: What is this? The initial
`16 application? Is that what this is?
`17 Yes. Yeah. This is an application, a
`18 patent disclosure, for -- that was the --
`19 apparently the initial document that became the
`20 '130 patent, but unlike the actual '130 patent,
`21 the initial disclosure related solely to a
`22 vehicle monitoring system, and I believe what I
`23 have here is the initial filing.
`24 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Okay. And this is the
`25 filing dated -- am I reading this correctly on the
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 7
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1 front page -- March 27, 1996?
`2 A. Yes.
`3 Q. Okay. And in your declaration, you state
`4 that you believe that there is no disclosure of
`5 premises control in this application; is that
`6 accurate?
`7 A. That's correct.
`8 Q. Okay. With respect to Exhibit No. 3, is
`9 it true that there is disclosure of the remote
`10 access by a -- an owner, there's remote access to a
`11 central office computer?
`12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`13 THE WITNESS: "Central office computer,"
`14 I'm not sure what that means.
`15 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) A computer at the --
`16 let's call it the central security office.
`17 A. As I recall, this disclosure primarily
`18 deals with systems that are inside a motor vehicle
`19 or a vehicle that relate to a server computer that
`20 hosts the website. Figure 5B shows a website.
`21 Q. Just for clarification, there are a couple
`22 of numbers that appear. Let's use the -- you see at
`23 the very bottom of the page, it says, "Petitioner
`24 Coxcom, LLC - Exhibit 1004," and I think it says
`25 "page 8"?
`
`1 the website.
`2 So like -- essentially, any process
`3 control system that involves a controller and a
`4 control device that are separate and distinct
`5 from each other physically, where there is a
`6 communication that takes place between the
`7 controller and the control device, we can say
`8 there are three parts to that system. In fact,
`9 I'd be hard pressed to describe a process
`10 control system that operates from afar that
`11 does not have three components.
`12 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) With respect to the
`13 specific disclosures here, looking at, for example,
`14 the figure you pointed us to, Figure 5B on page 8,
`15 is it true that the vehicle systems can be
`16 controlled by a communication pathway that goes from
`17 the home or personal computer 150 to the server
`18 computer 510, obviously through the website, to the
`19 CPU 4? Is that what's disclosed in Exhibit 3?
`20 A. I believe --
`21 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`22 THE WITNESS: -- that is disclosed in this
`23 exhibit.
`24 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Okay. With respect to
`25 the -- the control device -- strike that.
`
`Page 27
`
`1 Do you see that?
`2 A. Yes, I do.
`3 Q. Let's use that number, because later on
`4 there's other numbers on pages. Let's use that
`5 number.
`6 So on page 8 at 5B, you said?
`7 A. Yes.
`8 Q. Okay. With respect to the disclosures in
`9 Exhibit 3, is this a three-control device system?
`10 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`11 THE WITNESS: Is this a three-device
`12 system?
`13 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Three-control device.
`14 A. Three-control device.
`15 MR. HOLLOWAY: Same objection.
`16 THE WITNESS: I'm not really sure how to
`17 answer that, because it -- primarily, it -- it
`18 appears that there are two control device.
`19 There's a control device, a sensing -- there's
`20 sensing that takes place in the vehicle and
`21 reporting to this website through a
`22 communication mechanism, and I think the
`23 communication mechanism is said to include a
`24 communication processor that facilitates
`25 communication between the vehicle system and
`
`Page 29
`1 Is the home and/or personal computer 150 a
`2 control device as that term is used in this exhibit?
`3 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`4 THE WITNESS: I understand a home or
`5 personal computer to be the controller.
`6 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Okay. Or control
`7 device? Is that the term that's used in Exhibit 3?
`8 A. Yeah. It's the same thing.
`9 Q. Okay. And is the home and/or personal
`10 computer presumably located at a home?
`11 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`12 THE WITNESS: I don't see any reason why
`13 it would have to be. Home computer and
`14 personal computer are essentially synonyms --
`15 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Understood.
`16 With respect to --
`17 A. -- so home computer could travel.
`18 Q. Okay. With respect to the server computer
`19 510, where is that located?
`20 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`21 THE WITNESS: It's -- it is located
`22 wherever it's located. It's not inside the
`23 vehicle.
`24 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) If you add to the --
`25 our discussion the Figure 11B on page 15, you see a
`
`800-567-8658
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`973-410-4040
`
`Petitioner CoxCom, LLC - Exhibit 1016 Page 8
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 similar group of images, and I'd like to
`2 particularly talk about the on-line service and/or
`3 Internet processing site.
`4 Do you see that?
`5 A. Yes, I do.
`6 Q. And next to it there is a central security
`7 office.
`8 Do you see that?
`9 A. Yes, I do.
`10 Q. Do you understand that those are two
`11 alternative forms of providing an intermediary
`12 control device between the personal computer 150 and
`13 the vehicle controller CPU 4?
`14 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`15 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that I do
`16 understand that.
`17 Q. (By Mr. Ritcheson) Okay. Do you
`18 understand -- is it your understanding that the home
`19 and/or personal computer 150 can transmit control
`20 signals to computer 970 in the central security
`21 office?
`22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Objection. Form.
`23 THE WITNESS: There -- it's