Page 1
`·1· · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3· · · · · · · Case No. IPR2015-01979
`·4· · · · · · · · ·Patent 8,141,154
`·5
`·6· - - - - - - - - - - - - -· - - - - - - x
`· · PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`·8
`· · · · ·vs.
`·9
`· · FINJAN, INC.,
`10
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`11
`· · .
`12· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`13
`14· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF AVIEL RUBIN, PH.D.
`15· · · · · · · · · ·Pikesville, Maryland
`16· · · · · · · · · · Friday, May 20, 2016
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · ·9:00 a.m.
`18
`19
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · * * *
`21
`22· Assignment No. J0357971
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
`·2
`·3· · · ·Whereupon, this is the deposition of AVIEL RUBIN, PH.D.
`·4· who appeared as a witness called by the Plaintiff in the
`·5· above-styled caption, examined on Friday, May 20, 2016
`·6· conducted at the Doubletree Inn, 1726 Reirsterstown Road,
`·7· Pikesville, Maryland commencing at 9:00 a.m.. and was
`·8· reported and transcribed by T. S. Hubbard, Jr. a Notary
`·9· public for the State of Maryland.
`10
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · · * * * * * *
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`·1
`·2· A P P E A R A N C E S:
`·3
`·4· COOLEY, LLP
`·5· By:· Orion Armon, Esquire
`·6· Suite 900
`·7· 380 Interlocken Crescent
`·8· Broomfield, Colorado 80221
`·9· Phone: 720.566.4119
`10· Email:· OArmon@xooley.com
`11· Attorneys for the Defendant
`12
`13· MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
`14· By: Shouvik Biswas, Esquire
`15· Suite 400
`16· 1650 Tysons Boulevard
`17· McLean, Virginia 22102
`18· Phone: 703.760.7774
`19· Email:· SBiswas@MOFO.com
`20· Attorneys for the Defendant
`21
`22
`23· · · · · · · · · · * * * *
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`·1
`·2· A P P E A R A N C E S:· (continued)
`·3
`·4· KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
`·5· By:· Michael Lee, Esquire
`·6· 990 Marsh Road
`·7· Menlo Park 94025
`·8· Phone:· 650.752.1716
`·9· Email: MHLee@KramerLevin.com
`10· Attorneys for the Plaintiff
`11
`12
`13
`14· KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
`15· By:· Jeffrey H. Price, Esquire
`16· 1177 Avenue of the Americas
`17· New York, New York 10036
`18· Phone:· 212.715.7502
`19· Email:· JPrice@KramerLevin.com
`20· Attorneys for the Plaintiff
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`·1
`·2· A P P E A R A N C E S:· (continued)
`·3
`·4
`·5
`·6· FINJAN, LLC
`·7· By:· S. H. Michael Kim, Esquire
`·8· Sr. Director, IP Counsel
`·9· Suite 600
`10· 2000 University Avenue
`11· East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`12· Phone:· 650.397.9567
`13· Email:· MKim@Finjan.com
`14· Attorneys for the Plaintiff
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21· · · · · · · · · · · · * * * *
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· · · · · · · · TABLE OF CONTENTS
`·2· Witness:
`·3· AVIEL RUBIN, PH.D.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page
`·4· Examination
`·5· by Mr. Lee· · · ..............· · · · · · ·7, 210
`·6· by Mr. Armon· ·.................· · · · · ·203
`·7· · · · · ·INDEX OF PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS
`·8· Exhibit 1· ·Declaration· · · · · · · · · · · 8
`·9· Exhibit 2· ·Exhibit 1034 in Declaration· · ·18
`10· Exhibit 3· ·Decision of the Court· · · · · ·36
`11· Exhibit 4· ·' 154 Patent· · · · · · · · · · 41
`12· Exhibit 5· ·Petition for Inte Parte· · · · ·45
`13· · · · · · · Review
`14· Exhibit 6· ·"U.S. Patent Application· · · · 49
`15· · · · · · · Publication 2005 /· 0108562,
`16· · · · · · · Khazan, et al and Palo Alto
`17· · · · · · · Networks Exhibit 1003
`18· Exhibit 7· ·Design and Implementation of· · 123
`19· · · · · · · Distributed Retro Machine for
`20· · · · · · · Network Computers, Palo Alto
`21· · · · · · · Networks Exhibit 1004
`22· Exhibit 8· ·Hand drawn Diagram· · · · · · · 188
`23
`24· · · · · · · · · · · * * * * *
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G
`·2· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Orion Armon, Cooley, LLP on
`·3· · · ·behalf of the petitioner, Palo Alto Networks,
`·4· · · ·and Dr. Aviel Rubin.
`·5· · · · · · MR. LEE:· Michael Lee from Kramer Levin
`·6· · · ·representing Finjan.
`·7· · · · · · MR. PRICE:· Jeffrey Price from Kramer
`·8· · · ·Levin representing defendant Finjan.
`·9· · · · · · MR. KIM:· Michael Kim in house counsel
`10· · · ·with Finjan.
`11· · · · · · MR. BISWAS:· I am Shouwik Biswas with
`12· · · ·Morrison Foerster representing Palo Alto
`13· · · ·Networks.
`14· (Whereupon, AVIEL RUBIN, PH.D. is sworn:)
`15· EXAMINATION BY MR. LEE:
`16· · · ·Q· · Please state your full name and address
`17· for the record?
`18· · · ·A· · My full name is Aviel Rubin.· I am at 3
`19· Thornhaugh Court, Pikesville, Maryland 21208.
`20· · · ·Q· · Do you understand why you are here
`21· today?
`22· · · ·A· · Yes, I do.
`23· · · ·Q· · Why are you here?
`24· · · ·A· · I am here because you wanted to take my
`25· deposition in this case.
`
`Page 8
`·1· · · ·Q· · Did you offer any opinions in this case?
`·2· · · ·A· · Yes, I have.
`·3· · · ·Q· · What are those opinions?
`·4· · · ·A· · The full opinions are stated in my
`·5· declaration.· Everything that is in there is my
`·6· opinion, so I can state the whole thing.
`·7· · · ·Q· · Can you give me a summary of your
`·8· opinion?
`·9· · · ·A· · Will you be able to provide my
`10· declaration to me?
`11· · · ·Q· · Sure.
`12· (Whereupon, Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 is marked
`13· for Identification.)
`14· · · · · · MR. LEE:· You have been handed what has
`15· · · ·been marked as Exhibit No. 1 entitled
`16· · · ·"Declaration of Aviel D. Rubin in Support of
`17· · · ·Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`18· · · ·Patent Number 8,141,154."
`19· BY MR. LEE:
`20· · · ·Q· · Do you recognize Exhibit No. 1?
`21· · · ·A· · Yes, I do.
`22· · · ·Q· · What is Exhibit No. 1?
`23· · · ·A· · Exhibit No. 1 is the Declaration that I
`24· submitted in this case in support of the IPR
`25· petition.
`
`

`

`Page 9
`·1· · · ·Q· · Are you able to give a summary of your
`·2· opinion?
`·3· · · ·A· · Yes.· In my declaration there is a
`·4· section called "Summary of Opinion," page one or
`·5· page 4 as it is marked as an exhibit, and the
`·6· summary is that each of the claims of the '154
`·7· patent addressed in a declaration are invalid as
`·8· obvious in the 2005 time frame in light of
`·9· knowledge of skill in the art at the time of the
`10· teachings, suggestions, motivations, present in
`11· the prior art.
`12· · · ·Q· · Can you go to page 73 of your
`13· declaration.
`14· · · ·A· · I assume you are referring to the page
`15· numbers at the bottom where it says "Exhibit,"
`16· because there are also page numbers.
`17· · · ·Q· · I am referring to the page number above
`18· that.
`19· · · ·A· · The one that is printed on the document.
`20· · · ·Q· · Correct.
`21· · · ·A· · I am there.
`22· · · ·Q· · Did you sign your declaration on
`23· September 25, 2015?
`24· · · ·A· · Yes.
`25· · · ·Q· · That is your signature on page 73
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· correct?
`·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
`·3· · · ·Q· · Was it your understanding that as of
`·4· September 25, 2015, you are supposed to put into
`·5· your declaration all the opinions that you have in
`·6· this case?
`·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
`·8· · · ·Q· · Is there any another opinion that is not
`·9· in the declaration.
`10· · · ·A· · Sorry?
`11· · · ·Q· · Do you have another opinion that is not
`12· in the declaration?
`13· · · ·A· · No.
`14· · · ·Q· · Are there any corrections that you would
`15· like to make at this time?
`16· · · ·A· · No.
`17· · · ·Q· · As you sit here on May 20, 2016, is
`18· there anything that you were aware of concerning
`19· the bases of your opinions that were not included
`20· in Exhibit No. 1?
`21· · · ·A· · No.
`22· · · ·Q· · Can you describe to me the process of
`23· writing your declaration?
`24· · · ·A· · Sure.· The process of forming the
`25· opinions or writing the actual writing of the
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· declaration?· Which are you asking?
`·2· · · ·Q· · Is there a difference?
`·3· · · ·A· · No, I mean there was a bunch of work
`·4· that happened before I started writing.· I want to
`·5· know if you're including that or just the writing
`·6· of it?
`·7· · · ·Q· · Sure, start with that.
`·8· · · ·A· · The process involved getting up to speed
`·9· on the case, reading a lot of materials, like the
`10· '154 patent, reading prior art references, and
`11· performing an analysis.
`12· · · · · · I worked with a couple of assistants
`13· that worked for me in doing this.
`14· · · · · · And working with counsel as well,
`15· receiving the legal standard from them and then
`16· applying the legal standard to the analysis and
`17· then kind of a group effort in terms of producing
`18· the text.
`19· · · · · · I would have conversations with my staff
`20· and the lawyers and we would draft up the text and
`21· I will read it, approve it, and then we came up
`22· with the final draft and I read the whole thing
`23· making sure that it is containing all of my
`24· opinions and signed off on the document.
`25· · · ·Q· · When you said that you had assistants
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· from your company, is that Harbor Labs?
`·2· · · ·A· · Yes.· Harbor Labs.
`·3· · · ·Q· · Who were these assistants?
`·4· · · ·A· · Seth Nielsen who worked with me at the
`·5· time that I was doing this work, but is no longer
`·6· with Harbor Labs and Paul Martin has been with
`·7· Harbor Labs for a while.
`·8· · · ·Q· · What exactly did Seth and Paul do in
`·9· connection with your declaration?
`10· · · ·A· · We had a lot of discussions together.
`11· They helped me with the analysis.
`12· · · · · · So, for example, if I was considering
`13· whether or not a piece of prior art was relevant
`14· or whether it met the claim limitations, I would
`15· have discussions with them.· They would have
`16· discussions with the lawyers.· I have discussions
`17· with the lawyers and we worked as a team.
`18· · · · · · They would help draft some portions of
`19· the text in the background section under my
`20· direction.· I think that is probably about it.
`21· · · ·Q· · Did they help draft any other portion
`22· other than the background section of your
`23· declaration?
`24· · · ·A· · They were definitely involved in the
`25· conversations that led to some of that texts. I
`
`

`

`Page 13
`·1· don't remember who specifically wrote the words
`·2· the first time.· I made editing passes through the
`·3· document as we went.
`·4· · · ·Q· · During your conversations with Seth and
`·5· Paul, did you exchange any emails?
`·6· · · ·A· · I am sure that we did.
`·7· · · ·Q· · Did you exchange any documents of any
`·8· kind besides the drafts of the declaration?
`·9· · · ·A· · I don't know.
`10· · · ·Q· · Would you be surprised if you exchanged
`11· documents during your conversation with Paul and
`12· Seth about the declaration?
`13· · · ·A· · I don't know why we would have.· I mean
`14· I emailed them all day long on other matters too
`15· in other cases and we send documents to each
`16· other, but whether we sent documents relating to
`17· this case to each other like prior art references,
`18· it is possible.
`19· · · · · · I just don't recall.
`20· · · ·Q· · Did you send drafts of the declaration
`21· back and forth to each other?
`22· · · ·A· · I think so.
`23· · · ·Q· · You mentioned legal counsel that you
`24· worked with?
`25· · · ·A· · Right.
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · Who were the legal counsel that you
`·2· worked with?
`·3· · · ·A· · I worked with Orion here and at times
`·4· there have been other lawyers, but I don't really
`·5· remember their names, but I worked most closely
`·6· with Orion.
`·7· · · ·Q· · Are there any other names that you can
`·8· remember other than Orion?
`·9· · · ·A· · There is someone named Robert, but I'm
`10· not sure if it was this declaration.· I just know
`11· there is a lawyer named Robert who I think is with
`12· this firm.
`13· · · ·Q· · With the firm called Cooley?
`14· · · ·A· · Cooley, yes, but I'm not even certain
`15· about that.
`16· · · ·Q· · Do you recall working with any attorneys
`17· at other law firms other than Cooley?
`18· · · ·A· · Yes.
`19· · · ·Q· · Which ones?
`20· · · ·A· · Morrison & Foerster.
`21· · · ·Q· · Do you recall any names of attorneys
`22· that you worked with at Morrison Foerster?
`23· · · ·A· · I believe I was retained by Michael
`24· Jacobs and I spoke with him, but I don't think I
`25· worked with him very much and I am blanking on the
`
`Page 15
`
`·1· names of the lawyers that I spoke with.
`·2· · · ·Q· · You primarily worked with Orion for this
`·3· case, correct?
`·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
`·5· · · ·Q· · Can you give me a ballpark of how much
`·6· you worked with Orion compared with other
`·7· attorneys?
`·8· · · ·A· · I think 85 percent of the time if not
`·9· more.
`10· · · ·Q· · Any other law firms that you remember
`11· other than Cooley and Morrison & Forester.
`12· · · ·A· · No, I don't think so.
`13· · · ·Q· · Can you go to the section of your report
`14· entitled "Materials Considered."· I believe it
`15· starts on page 79.· You list a number of documents
`16· from Exhibit 1001 to 1035.
`17· · · ·A· · Yes.
`18· · · ·Q· · Why did you list these documents?
`19· · · ·A· · These are the materials that I
`20· considered in this case.
`21· · · ·Q· · Does this list from other Exhibits 1001
`22· to 1035 identify all of the materials considered
`23· in this case?
`24· · · ·A· · I believe so.
`25· · · ·Q· · Do you have any other material that is
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· not listed on the materials considered?
`·2· · · ·A· · None that I can recall right now.
`·3· · · ·Q· · Do you see where you listed Exhibit
`·4· 1034.· It is entitled, "Press Release MA 86
`·5· Security Complete Acquisition of Finjan."
`·6· · · ·A· · Yes.
`·7· · · ·Q· · Why did you cite this document?
`·8· · · ·A· · I could take the time now to go through
`·9· my declaration and see where it is referenced to
`10· try to answer that, if you like.
`11· · · ·Q· · I actually did not see it referenced in
`12· your declaration anywhere and that is why I am
`13· asking why you cite it, but you can take the time
`14· to take a look for yourself if you want.
`15· · · ·A· · I don't remember why that is cited.
`16· · · ·Q· · Do you understand what Exhibit 1034 is
`17· regarding?
`18· · · ·A· · Just what I can understand right now
`19· from the title.
`20· · · ·Q· · Do you have any understanding of MA 86
`21· Security acquisition of Finjan?
`22· · · ·A· · Do you have that document?
`23· · · ·Q· · Would you like a copy of that document?
`24· · · ·A· · Yes, please.
`25· (Whereupon, Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 is marked
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`·1· for Identification.)
`·2· BY MR. LEE:
`·3· · · ·Q· · You were handed an exhibit marked as
`·4· Exhibit Number 2 entitled MA 86 Finjan.· Is this
`·5· Exhibit 1034 cited in your declaration?
`·6· · · ·A· · It is labeled Exhibit 1034 and it has
`·7· the same title, so I imagine it is.
`·8· · · ·Q· · Does this refresh your memory of what
`·9· Exhibit 1034 is?
`10· · · ·A· · I will just take a moment to read.· No,
`11· I don't remember this document.
`12· · · ·Q· · Do you see in the paragraph starting
`13· with, "Finjan provides active real-time content
`14· inspection and code analysis technology focused on
`15· identifying maleware delivered inbound through the
`16· web channel."
`17· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Counsel, where are you
`18· · · ·reading from?
`19· · · · · · MR. LEE:· It is from Exhibit 1034.
`20· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· At what page?
`21· · · · · · MR. LEE:· Page 2.
`22· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, I see that.
`23· BY MR. LEE:
`24· · · ·Q· · Can you explain the relevance of this
`25· sentence to the patent at issue in this case?
`
`Page 18
`·1· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· I object to that question as
`·2· · · ·vague and is also outside the scope of the
`·3· · · ·report.
`·4· · · · · · Also foundation.
`·5· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure I understand
`·6· · · ·the question.
`·7· BY MR. LEE:
`·8· · · ·Q· · What is it that you are not able to
`·9· understand?
`10· · · ·A· · You are asking me how a press release
`11· relates to the '154 patent.· This press release
`12· came out five years after the filing date and I am
`13· not sure that I know what you are asking me and
`14· how to answer you.
`15· · · ·Q· · I'm trying to understand why you cited
`16· this article and how it relates to the '154 patent
`17· because it is cited in your declaration regarding
`18· the '154 patent.
`19· · · · · · So if you can explain?
`20· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objections.
`21· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It is not cited in my
`22· · · ·declaration in the sense that I have it used
`23· · · ·as a citation for a particular statement that
`24· · · ·I am making in the declaration.
`25· · · · · · It is listed as materials considered
`
`Page 19
`·1· · · ·which tells me that at some point I may have
`·2· · · ·seen or received this document, but I didn't,
`·3· · · ·as far as I can tell, I did not use this
`·4· · · ·document in any place in my declaration or
`·5· · · ·referred to it in any specific way.
`·6· BY MR. LEE:
`·7· · · ·Q· · I'm trying to understand why you cited
`·8· this document here in your materials considered?
`·9· · · ·A· · I think that it is likely that this may
`10· have been something that I or somebody on my team
`11· looked at at some point and very likely did not
`12· use because I don't have a specific, according to
`13· you, and I think it makes sense, there is nothing
`14· anywhere in the document that refers to it.
`15· · · · · · So when making a list I think it is good
`16· to be exhaustive and to include more rather than
`17· less in case I leave something out.
`18· · · · · · So right now I believe that this
`19· document was not used in any way in forming my
`20· opinions.
`21· · · ·Q· · Did you consider any other documents
`22· regarding Finjan into your analysis of the '154
`23· patent?
`24· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, ambiguous.
`25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Which one specifically?
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· BY MR. LEE:
`·2· · · ·Q· · This article that is in Exhibit 1034 is
`·3· regarding Finjan, correct?
`·4· · · ·A· · Right.
`·5· · · ·Q· · My question was whether you considered
`·6· any other documents regarding Finjan in preparing
`·7· your declaration?
`·8· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection.
`·9· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think if you ask me a
`10· · · ·specific one I can try to answer it and look
`11· · · ·at the document, but as kind of a catchall, I
`12· · · ·am not sure.
`13· BY MR. LEE:
`14· · · ·Q· · Sitting here today, can you recall any
`15· Finjan documents or any documents with Finjan
`16· other than Exhibit 1034?
`17· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection.
`18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I have trouble answering
`19· · · ·that because I reviewed a lot of documents
`20· · · ·over a period of time and I listed all the
`21· · · ·ones here that at the time that I wrote the
`22· · · ·report I considered that I had looked at.
`23· · · · · · I rather look at a specific document
`24· · · ·like I did with this one where I could see if
`25· · · ·I can refresh my memory and recall what was
`
`

`

`Page 21
`·1· · · ·in the document before I answer a question
`·2· · · ·like that.
`·3· BY MR. LEE:
`·4· · · ·Q· · Going back to Exhibit 1034 that sentence
`·5· starting with, "Finjan provides active real-time
`·6· content and code analysis."
`·7· · · · · · Do you have any other understanding of
`·8· what Finjan's active real-time content inspection
`·9· and code analysis technology is?
`10· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation and
`11· · · ·calls for speculation.
`12· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I am not sure what Finjan,
`13· · · ·what products they have or what their
`14· · · ·products are doing.
`15· BY MR. LEE:
`16· · · ·Q· · So you don't understand what Finjan's
`17· active real-time content inspection is, right?
`18· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objections.
`19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· In 2009, when this press
`20· · · ·release came out, I don't know what Finjan's
`21· · · ·products did or what that was.
`22· BY MR. LEE:
`23· · · ·Q· · Did you ever have any understanding of
`24· Finjan's products or technologies?
`25· · · ·A· · Yes.
`
`Page 22
`·1· · · ·Q· · What is your understanding of Finjan's
`·2· products and technologies?
`·3· · · ·A· · In the late 1990s, so I think in the
`·4· 1998, 1999 time frame, they were looking at mobile
`·5· code security and active content and I understood
`·6· at that time what their challenges were and what
`·7· they were trying to do in the marketplace.
`·8· · · ·Q· · What were they trying to do in the
`·9· marketplace?
`10· · · ·A· · They were trying to protect
`11· organizations from mobile code.
`12· · · ·Q· · What do you mean by mobile code?
`13· · · ·A· · Code that could be portable across
`14· multiple platforms and that would be expected to
`15· run in a particular execution environment.· It
`16· could move from one machine to another machine.
`17· · · ·Q· · Can you give us some examples of this
`18· mobile code?
`19· · · ·A· · Java.
`20· · · ·Q· · Is there any kind of executable example
`21· of a mobile code?
`22· · · ·A· · It depends.· Most binary executables
`23· would not be considered mobile code.
`24· · · ·Q· · Are there any binary executables that
`25· would be considered mobile code?
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, that is
`·2· · · ·ambiguous.
`·3· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I suppose it depends on
`·4· · · ·what environment you are talking about.
`·5· BY MR. LEE:
`·6· · · ·Q· · Can you explain?
`·7· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection.
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I could set up a test bed
`·9· · · ·network where all of the machines were
`10· · · ·identical, the same architecture, the same
`11· · · ·compilers, the same execution environment,
`12· · · ·the same memory size, and for certain
`13· · · ·executables you would be able to take them
`14· · · ·and run them on any one of the machines and I
`15· · · ·could imagine applications that you could
`16· · · ·build that would be where those could be
`17· · · ·considered mobile code.
`18· BY MR. LEE:
`19· · · ·Q· · Would WIN32.dll be mobile code?
`20· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Counsel, you are asking
`21· · · ·these questions in general or in terms of one
`22· · · ·of the patents-in-suit?· I will object on
`23· · · ·that basis.· Lack of foundation.
`24· · · · · · MR. LEE:· Counsel, if you can keep your
`25· · · ·objections to form, I would appreciate it, at
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· · · ·least to the rules set forth.
`·2· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection, lack of
`·3· · · ·foundation.
`·4· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Could you repeat the
`·5· · · ·question.
`·6· BY MR. LEE:
`·7· · · ·Q· · I'm trying to understand whether binary
`·8· executables would be mobile code and I gave the
`·9· example of WIN32.dll.· That is a binary
`10· executable, right?
`11· · · ·A· · Yes.
`12· · · ·Q· · Is that also mobile code?
`13· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation,
`14· · · ·ambiguous.
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· In general, I would not
`16· · · ·consider any binary executable that in a
`17· · · ·multiplatform environment to be mobile code.
`18· · · · · · I would consider Java or Java Script or
`19· · · ·some code that can run on multiple platforms
`20· · · ·to be mobile code.
`21· BY MR. LEE:
`22· · · ·Q· · So WIN32.dll would not run on multiple
`23· platforms.· It just runs on Windows.· I am just
`24· trying to understand.
`25· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection.
`
`

`

`Page 25
`·1· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Right.· If you have WIN32
`·2· · · ·binary and you put it on a UNIX machine, it
`·3· · · ·could not run because it is a different
`·4· · · ·architecture.
`·5· BY MR. LEE:
`·6· · · ·Q· · Please direct your attention to a
`·7· section in your declaration regarding legal
`·8· principals used in analysis, specifically, the
`·9· product's reasonable interpretation section,
`10· please start on page 11.
`11· · · ·A· · I am there.
`12· · · ·Q· · Do you see where you state:· "I
`13· understand that Inter Partes Review, the claim
`14· terms to be given their broadest reasonable
`15· interpretation (BRI) in light of the
`16· specification."
`17· · · ·A· · Yes.
`18· · · ·Q· · What do you mean by "in light of the
`19· specification"?
`20· · · ·A· · Well, the specification sets the context
`21· for the claim terms and so you wouldn't give a
`22· claim term a meaning that did not make sense in
`23· the light of a particular specification.· You have
`24· to look at the specification.
`25· · · ·Q· · What do you mean by "in the context of
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· the specification"?
`·2· · · ·A· · I am not sure why that is not clear.
`·3· · · ·Q· · Do you mean that the claim terms have to
`·4· be consistent with the specification or limited by
`·5· the specification?· I am just trying to understand
`·6· what you mean by "in the context"?
`·7· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, compound.
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That was two questions
`·9· · · ·there, so maybe we can break it down?
`10· BY MR. LEE:
`11· · · ·Q· · I'm trying to understand what you mean
`12· by "in the context" giving me examples of like
`13· boundaries of what "in the context" means.· Does
`14· that make sense?
`15· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection.
`16· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· To me it is clear what it
`17· · · ·means to say "in the context" of something.
`18· · · · · · You are in a particular context, so in
`19· · · ·that context you interpret it, but I am not
`20· · · ·sure why that is not clear.
`21· BY MR. LEE:
`22· · · ·Q· · What effect does being "in the context"
`23· have on being in the context of the specification
`24· have in forming your opinion about the '154
`25· patent?
`
`Page 27
`·1· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, calls for a legal
`·2· · · ·conclusion.
`·3· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It means that you are
`·4· · · ·looking at the claim terms taking into
`·5· · · ·account the specification that.
`·6· · · · · · I mean the word that comes to my mind is
`·7· · · ·context which is what provides you with the
`·8· · · ·context for the analysis.
`·9· BY MR. LEE:
`10· · · ·Q· · Can the claim term be defined as
`11· something that is never discussed in the
`12· specification?
`13· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, calls for
`14· · · ·speculation, lack of foundation.
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What do you mean?· Can you
`16· · · ·give me an example of what you mean?
`17· BY MR. LEE:
`18· · · ·Q· · Say there is a claim term and it is
`19· defined with something that is not written in the
`20· specification.
`21· · · ·A· · Where is it defined?
`22· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, ambiguous.· Same
`23· · · ·objections.
`24· BY MR. LEE:
`25· · · ·Q· · I am saying, defined in terms of
`
`Page 28
`
`·1· construction?
`·2· · · ·A· · Oh, by the Court?
`·3· · · ·Q· · No.· By anyone.
`·4· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objections.
`·5· BY MR. ARMON:
`·6· · · ·Q· · Would that be a valid construction?
`·7· · · ·A· · You are saying that --
`·8· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objections.
`·9· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· -- that somebody is
`10· · · ·defining the claim term and then your
`11· · · ·question is whether or not that definition is
`12· · · ·valid?
`13· · · · · · Only the Court can impose a definition
`14· · · ·on the claim term, otherwise you look at the
`15· · · ·claims and then you look at the
`16· · · ·specification.
`17· · · · · · In IPR you look at the broadest
`18· · · ·reasonable interpretation in light of the
`19· · · ·specification.
`20· BY MR. LEE:
`21· · · ·Q· · For the '154 patent, you applied BRI,
`22· the broadest reasonable interpretation for claim
`23· terms, correct?
`24· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation.
`25· BY MR. LEE:
`
`

`

`Page 29
`
`·1· · · ·Q· · The ones listed on page 12?
`·2· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Same objection.
`·3· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· So there were four BRIs,
`·4· · · ·four terms for which I used BRI
`·5· · · ·interpretations.
`·6· BY MR. LEE:
`·7· · · ·Q· · And that is the first function, the
`·8· second function, transmitter and receiver,
`·9· correct?
`10· · · ·A· · Right.
`11· · · ·Q· · And the rest of claim terms you gave
`12· them the ordinary meaning they would have for a
`13· person of ordinary skill in the art reading the
`14· '154 patent?
`15· · · ·A· · No, I mean I applied the BRI standard
`16· for my analysis.· These are four terms for which I
`17· used specific definitions.· I think that other
`18· terms like -- well, which other term are you
`19· asking?· You may ask specific other term.
`20· · · ·Q· · Do you see in paragraph 26, you say, "I
`21· have interpreted claim terms for which the
`22· petitioner has not proposed a BRI construction by
`23· giving them the ordinary meaning they would have
`24· to the POSA reading the '154 patent with its
`25· priority date."
`
`Page 30
`
`·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
`·2· · · ·Q· · Are you saying that the rest of the
`·3· claim terms other than the four you listed on page
`·4· 12, you interpreted with the claim ordinary
`·5· meaning?
`·6· · · ·A· · I used the standard that is described
`·7· here, yes, in this paragraph in my declaration.
`·8· · · ·Q· · But my question is different.· I am
`·9· asking which claim terms you applied the plain
`10· ordinary meaning versus the BRI.
`11· · · · · · This sentence seems to say that you're
`12· saying you are applying the plain ordinary meaning
`13· for anything that is not listed here on page 12,
`14· the first function, second function, transmitter
`15· and receiver.
`16· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, lack of
`17· · · ·foundation.
`18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What it says is that when
`19· · · ·I perform my analysis, and I rendered my
`20· · · ·opinions I interpreted claim terms for which
`21· · · ·the petitioner did not propose a BRI
`22· · · ·construction by giving them the ordinary
`23· · · ·meaning they would have to one of ordinary
`24· · · ·skill in the art reading the '154 patent with
`25· · · ·the priority date in mind and in light of the
`
`Page 31
`·1· · · ·specification and file history, so that is
`·2· · · ·what I did.
`·3· BY MR. LEE:
`·4· · · ·Q· · Did you apply the plain ordinary meaning
`·5· to any claims terms in the '154 patent in
`·6· rendering your analysis?
`·7· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation.
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Can I take a look at the
`·9· · · ·patent, please?
`10· BY MR. LEE:
`11· · · ·Q· · In order to answer my question you are
`12· asking to take a look at the patent?
`13· · · ·A· · Yes, I want to look at the claims to
`14· answer that.
`15· · · ·Q· · Just to be clear.· Do you list any claim
`16· terms in the plain ordinary meaning in your
`17· declaration?
`18· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation.
`19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I use a lot of words from
`20· · · ·the claims in my analysis like "security
`21· · · ·computer" for example, and when there are
`22· · · ·words in the claims that are not these four
`23· · · ·terms, then I applied plain ordinary meaning.
`24· BY MR. LEE:
`25· · · ·Q· · Is it fair to say that other than the
`
`Page 32
`
`·1· four terms, the first function, the second
`·2· function, transmitter and receiver, you applied
`·3· the plain ordinary meaning in rendering your
`·4· opinion of the '154 patent?
`·5· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation.
`·6· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think I answered that
`·7· · · ·already and when I read through paragraph 26
`·8· · · ·of my declaration, so if there is a nuance in
`·9· · · ·the way you are asking it now, that is kind
`10· · · ·of different from what I said before, then I
`11· · · ·am missing that nuance and I do not
`12· · · ·understand the question.
`13· · · · · · I don't want to read it again, but I
`14· · · ·read you the standard that I applied for
`15· · · ·those opinions for other claim terms and I
`16· · · ·just don't understand how what you are asking
`17· · · ·now is different.
`18· BY MR. LEE:
`19· · · ·Q· · I am just trying to get clarity into
`20· what you applied the plain ordinary meaning for.
`21· · · · · · There are four claims listed on page 12
`22· where you say you applied the broadest reasonable
`23· interpretation and I am trying to get clarity on
`24· whether other than these four claim terms
`25· everything else is applied to plain ordinary
`
`

`

`Page 33
`
`·1· meaning?
`·2· · · ·A· · But when I read you the section of my
`·3· report from paragraph 26 how does that not answer
`·4· your question?
`·5· · · ·Q· · When you read the sentence on page 11,
`·6· you did not list the claim terms that you are
`·7· proposing for BRI, as opposed to the plain
`·8· ordinary meaning, it doesn't name anything
`·9· specific?
`10· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection, foundation.
`11· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It says, "I have
`12· · · ·interpreted claim terms for which the
`13· · · ·petitioner has not proposed a BRI
`14· · · ·construction by giving them the ordinary
`15· · · ·meaning they would have to the person of
`16· · · ·ordinary skill in the art reading the '154
`17· · · ·patent."
`18· · · · · · I think that answers your question and
`19· · · ·if it doesn't then there is something about
`20· · · ·the question that I don't understand.
`21· BY MR. LEE:
`22· · · ·Q· · To be clear.· The petitioner has only
`23· proposed a BRI construction for four claim terms,
`24· the first function, the second function,
`25· transmitter and receiver, correct?
`
`Page 34
`
`·1· · · ·A· · Right.
`·2· · · ·Q· · It just doesn't say that here in the
`·3· sentence that you read.
`·4· · · · · · MR. ARMON:· Objection.· Foundation.
`·5· BY MR. LEE:
`·6· · · ·Q· · That is what I'm trying to ask.
`·7· · · ·A· · Are you asking me if there are any BRI
`·8· terms that the petitioner put forward that I am
`·9· not using?
`10· · · ·Q· · Sure.
`11· · · ·A· · That is what you are asking?· I am only
`12· using these fou