Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 1
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`·1· ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`· · ·FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`·2· ·CASE NO.: C.A. No.: 12-032-RGA
`· · ·-------------------------------------------x
`·3· ·M2M SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
`· · ·liability company,
`·4
`·5· · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,
`·6· · · ·-against-
`·7
`· · ·ENFORA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`·8· ·NOVATEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`· · ·a Delaware corporation, and NOVATEL WIRELESS,
`·9· ·IN., a Delaware corporations,
`10
`11· · · · · · · · · · Defendants.
`· · ·-------------------------------------------x
`12
`13
`14
`15· · · · · · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of
`16· · · · · · · · · · · DR. RAY W. NETTLETON
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ·New York, New York
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · May 8, 2015
`19
`20
`21
`22· ·Reported By:
`23· ·Eileen Mulvenna
`24· ·CSR/RMR/CRR
`25· ·Job No.: 10016500
`
`Page 1
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`·2
`·3
`· · · · · FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
`·4· · · · Attorneys for Plaintiff
`· · · · · · · · 11 Huntington Avenue
`·5· · · · · · · Boston, Massachusetts· 02199-7610
`· · · · · BY:· ·MARC N. HENSCHKE, ESQ.
`·6· · · · · · · mhenschke@foley.com
`·7
`·8
`· · · · · PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP
`·9· · · · Attorneys for Novatel Defendants
`· · · · · · · · 1117 South California Avenue
`10· · · · · · · Palo Alto, California· 94304
`· · · · · BY:· ·CHRIS KENNERLY, ESQ.
`11
`12
`13· · · · PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER BARATZ, LLP
`· · · · · Attorneys for Telit
`14· · · · · · · 1500 Broadway
`· · · · · · · · New York, New York· 10036
`15· · · · BY:· ·DAVID LOEWENSTEIN, ESQ.
`16
`17
`18· ·A L S O· P R E S E N T:
`19· · · · · · · JONATHAN POPHAM, Videographer
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·3346, Enfora Enabler IIIG
`
`Page 4
`
`·2· · · WITNESS· · · · · · EXAMINATION BY· · · · · PAGE
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·AT Commands Over SMS
`
`·3· · · DR. RAY NETTLETON
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · ·Application Note
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY· · · · · · · · 6
`
`·4· ·Exhibit 7· · · ·Bates Nos.· · · · · · · · · · · 38
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE· · · · · · · 229
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_00007149 through
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY· · · · · · · 296
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · ·7156, Security in Enfora
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`
`·7· · ·NETTLETON· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 1· · · ·No Bates numbers, Opening· · · · 9
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · ·Expert Report of Dr. Ray
`
`10· · · · · · · · · ·W. Nettleton
`
`11· ·Exhibit 2· · · ·No Bates numbers, Reply· · · · · 9
`
`12· · · · · · · · · ·Expert Report of Dr. Ray
`
`13· · · · · · · · · ·W. Nettleton
`
`14· ·Exhibit 3· · · ·No Bates numbers, US· · · · · · 12
`
`15· · · · · · · · · ·Patent 8,094,010
`
`16· ·Exhibit 4· · · ·Bates Nos,· · · · · · · · · · · 37
`
`17· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0003365 through
`
`18· · · · · · · · · ·93, Enfora Enabler IIIG AT
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·Command Reference
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·Devices
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 8· · · ·Bates Nos.· · · · · · · · · · · 38
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0020433 through
`
`10· · · · · · · · · ·20466, Users Guide
`
`11· ·Exhibit 9· · · ·Bates No.· · · · · · · · · · · ·39
`
`12· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0016234, Diagram
`
`13· ·Exhibit 10· · · Bates Nos.· · · · · · · · · · · 39
`
`14· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0016235 through
`
`15· · · · · · · · · ·16244, Coding Designing
`
`16· · · · · · · · · ·Rules
`
`17· ·Exhibit 11· · · Bates Nos.· · · · · · · · · · · 40
`
`18· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0011493 through
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·11540, MT 3050 User Guide
`
`20· ·Exhibit 5· · · ·Bates Nos.· · · · · · · · · · · 38
`
`20· ·Exhibit 12· · · No Bates numbers,· · · · · · · ·49
`
`21· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0007222 through
`
`22· · · · · · · · · ·7228, AT Commands Over SMS
`
`23· · · · · · · · · ·Application Note
`
`24· ·Exhibit 6· · · ·Bates Nos.· · · · · · · · · · · 38
`
`25· · · · · · · · · ·ENFA_M2M_0003341 through
`
`21· · · · · · · · · ·Transcript of Thomas
`
`22· · · · · · · · · ·Andrew Cone
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 2
`
`

`
`Page 5
`·1· · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Good morning.
`·2· ·We're on the record.
`·3· · · · · This is the video deposition of
`·4· ·Dr. Ray W. Nettleton in the matter of
`·5· ·M2M Solutions LLC versus Enfora
`·6· ·Incorporated, et al., Civil Action
`·7· ·No. 12-032-RGA, filed in the
`·8· ·US District Court for the District of
`·9· ·Delaware.
`10· · · · · This deposition is taking place
`11· ·at Paul Hastings, 75 East 55th Street,
`12· ·New York, New York.
`13· · · · · Today's date is May 8, 2015, and
`14· ·the time is 8:59 a.m.
`15· · · · · My name is Jonathan Popham.· I'm
`16· ·the videographer representing Aptus
`17· ·Reporting.
`18· · · · · Video and audio will be recorded
`19· ·until all counsel have agreed to go off
`20· ·the record.
`21· · · · · Would all present please
`22· ·voice-identify themselves for the
`23· ·record, beginning with the witness.
`24· · · · · THE WITNESS:· Ray Nettleton.
`25· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· I'm Marc Henschke
`Page 7
`
`·1· ·issue that you're facing today that would
`·2· ·restrict you from doing that?
`·3· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·I'll ask a series of questions.
`·5· ·You'll provide answers.· If you don't
`·6· ·understand a question, please let me know and
`·7· ·I'll try to rephrase it; otherwise I'll
`·8· ·assume you understood the question.
`·9· · · · ·A.· · ·All right.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · ·Fair?
`11· · · · · · · · Your counsel may object from
`12· ·time to time.· Unless he instructs you not to
`13· ·answer, please go ahead and answer the
`14· ·question subject to the objection.
`15· · · · · · · · Understood?
`16· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · ·We have a court reporter taking
`18· ·down your testimony.· I'd appreciate your
`19· ·help in not speaking over one another.· I'll
`20· ·try to give you the courtesy of letting you
`21· ·finish your answer before I ask another
`22· ·question and, likewise, I'd ask you to try to
`23· ·refrain from speaking while I'm speaking.
`24· · · · ·A.· · ·I will do that.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · ·What brings us here today is the
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· · · · ·from Foley & Lardner on behalf of the
`·2· · · · ·plaintiff, M2M Solutions.
`·3· · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Chris Kennerly
`·4· · · · ·with Paul Hastings for the Novatel
`·5· · · · ·defendants.
`·6· · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Our certified
`·7· · · · ·court reporter is Eileen Mulvenna.
`·8· · · · · · · · Would you please swear in the
`·9· · · · ·witness.
`10· ·DR. RAY NETTLETON,
`11· · · having been duly sworn by Eileen Mulvenna,
`12· · · a Notary Public of the State of New York,
`13· · · was examined and testified as follows:
`14· ·EXAMINATION
`15· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`16· · · · ·Q.· · ·Good morning, Dr. Nettleton.
`17· · · · ·A.· · ·Good.
`18· · · · ·Q.· · ·You understand you're under oath
`19· ·today?
`20· · · · ·A.· · ·I do.
`21· · · · ·Q.· · ·You understand you're here to
`22· ·provide complete and accurate testimony to
`23· ·the best of your ability?
`24· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · ·Is there any physical or mental
`
`Page 8
`·1· ·lawsuit M2M Solutions LLC v. Enfora, Inc.;
`·2· ·Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc.; and Novatel
`·3· ·Wireless, Inc.· That's Case No. 12-32-RGA.
`·4· · · · · · · · If I refer to M2M, will you
`·5· ·understand that I'm referring to the
`·6· ·plaintiff, M2M Solutions LLC?
`·7· · · · ·A.· · ·Very good.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · ·There's also a technical term
`·9· ·"M2M," and I'll try to distinguish it if that
`10· ·comes up.
`11· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`12· · · · ·Q.· · ·When I refer to Novatel, will
`13· ·you understand that I'm referring to the
`14· ·Novatel defendants?
`15· · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah.· Novatel and Enfora.
`16· · · · ·Q.· · ·Right.
`17· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`18· · · · ·Q.· · ·And Enfora, Inc.; Novatel
`19· ·Wireless Solutions, Inc.; and Novatel
`20· ·Wireless, Inc.
`21· · · · ·A.· · ·Right.
`22· · · · ·Q.· · ·If there's a distinction in your
`23· ·mind in answering a question between any of
`24· ·those companies, please make that clear.
`25· · · · ·A.· · ·I will.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 3
`
`

`
`Page 9
`
`·1· · · · · ·Q.· · ·In general, I'll be talking
`·2· · ·about the Novatel accused products, that sort
`·3· · ·of thing.· By that I mean the products
`·4· · ·accused in the case irrespective of any
`·5· · ·distinction between those companies.
`·6· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`·7· · · · · ·Q.· · ·You have before you a couple of
`·8· · ·exhibits.· Exhibit 1 is your opening expert
`·9· · ·report in this case.
`10· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`11· · · · · ·A.· · ·I do.
`12· · · · · · · · · (Nettleton Exhibit 1, No Bates
`13· · · · · ·numbers, Opening Expert Report of Dr.
`14· · · · · ·Ray W. Nettleton, marked for
`15· · · · · ·identification.)
`16· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`17· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And Exhibit 2 is your reply
`18· · ·expert report in this case.
`19· · · · · · · · · Do you see that?
`20· · · · · ·A.· · ·I do.
`21· · · · · · · · · (Nettleton Exhibit 2, No Bates
`22· · · · · ·numbers, Reply Expert Report of Dr. Ray
`23· · · · · ·W. Nettleton, marked for
`24· · · · · ·identification.)
`25
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·prepared?
`·2· · · · ·A.· · ·Over 700-page document, no, I
`·3· ·don't.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·Well, for example, there are
`·5· ·some sections that talk about legal
`·6· ·principles.· Is that something you prepared
`·7· ·or counsel prepared?
`·8· · · · ·A.· · ·I almost always leave it to
`·9· ·counsel to prepare that kind of preamble.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · ·Any other sections regarding the
`11· ·more technical issues that you recall counsel
`12· ·preparing?
`13· · · · ·A.· · ·I don't recall that.
`14· · · · ·Q.· · ·Again, to -- to speed us along,
`15· ·I may questions about your reports.· And when
`16· ·I do that, I mean to include both your
`17· ·opening report and your reply report,
`18· ·Exhibits 1 and 2.
`19· · · · ·A.· · ·Very good.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·If there's a distinction between
`21· ·the two, I'll try to make that clear.· And,
`22· ·similarly, if you believe there's a
`23· ·distinction, please make that clear.
`24· · · · ·A.· · ·Okay.
`25· · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Let me also
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`·2· · · · · ·Q.· · ·I'm going to leave those in
`·3· · ·front of you.· You're more than welcome to
`·4· · ·look through those at any time if you need to
`·5· · ·to answer a question.· Typically I'll refer
`·6· · ·you to particular paragraphs to speed us
`·7· · ·along.
`·8· · · · · ·A.· · ·I'd appreciate that.
`·9· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Exhibits 1 and 2, your reports
`10· · ·in this case, do you recognize those?
`11· · · · · · · · · (Witness peruses the exhibits.)
`12· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, I do.
`13· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Who prepared those reports?
`14· · · · · ·A.· · ·They were prepared jointly by
`15· · ·myself and counsel under my direction and
`16· · ·supervision.
`17· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Are there any sections of those
`18· · ·reports that counsel prepared and -- and then
`19· · ·you reviewed before you signed them?· Or
`20· · ·explain how that worked.
`21· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yeah, the -- counsel prepared a
`22· · ·good portion of it.· I reviewed all of it and
`23· · ·made changes and suggestions as I went along.
`24· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you recall which particular
`25· · ·portions, if any, that your -- your counsel
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· · · · · ·introduce the asserted patent.· That's
`·2· · · · · ·Exhibit 3.
`·3· · · · · · · · · (Nettleton Exhibit 3 , No Bates
`·4· · · · · ·numbers, US Patent 8,094,010, marked
`·5· · · · · ·for identification.)
`·6· · · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Do you need a
`·7· · · · · ·copy?
`·8· · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· Yes, please.
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· (Handing.)
`10· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`11· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Have you seen that before?
`12· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, I have.
`13· · · · · ·Q.· · ·That's a good thing.
`14· · · · · · · · · You have before you Exhibit 3.
`15· · ·It's US Patent 8,094,010, referred to as the
`16· · ·'010 or the '010 patent.
`17· · · · · · · · · Do you understand that?
`18· · · · · ·A.· · ·I do.
`19· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Were you aware of this patent
`20· · ·before you were contacted about engagement as
`21· · ·an expert in this case?
`22· · · · · ·A.· · ·No.
`23· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you understand you're here to
`24· · ·testify about M2M's infringement allegations
`25· · ·directed to Novatel as set forth in your
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 4
`
`

`
`Page 13
`·1· ·reports that are directed to Novatel in this
`·2· ·case?
`·3· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, I do.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·Unless I state otherwise in my
`·5· ·question, will you understand that my
`·6· ·questions are directed only to your opinions
`·7· ·as to Novatel in this case as set forth in
`·8· ·your reports, Exhibits 1 and 2, and not your
`·9· ·opinions that you may have with respect to
`10· ·Telit, Sierra or other defendants?
`11· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, I do.
`12· · · · ·Q.· · ·Am I correct that you do not
`13· ·provide any opinion on the validity or
`14· ·invalidity of the '010 patent in your
`15· ·reports?
`16· · · · ·A.· · ·That's correct.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · ·Is it correct that you haven't
`18· ·done any analysis of validity or invalidity
`19· ·with respect to the '010 patent?
`20· · · · ·A.· · ·That's also correct.
`21· · · · ·Q.· · ·You don't have basis to opine on
`22· ·the validity or invalidity of the '010
`23· ·patent?
`24· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · ·You don't have any basis to say
`
`Page 15
`·1· · ·you're welcome to look at that paragraph or
`·2· · ·others as needed to answer my questions.
`·3· · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· Chris, I may need
`·4· · · · · ·to take you up on the copy of the
`·5· · · · · ·expert report you offered me earlier.
`·6· · · · · ·Mine seems to be paginated differently.
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Okay.· I do know
`·8· · · · · ·that the paragraph numbers are off or
`·9· · · · · ·they repeat, so that may be part of the
`10· · · · · ·confusion, but I'm happy to provide you
`11· · · · · ·with a copy.· Will this one work,
`12· · · · · ·double?· That will be quicker for you.
`13· · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· Yes.
`14· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`15· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Are you at page 15 of your
`16· · ·report, sir?
`17· · · · · ·A.· · ·I am.
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you see you begin to address
`19· · ·this claim element at paragraph 18?
`20· · · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`21· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And in general, you assert
`22· · ·that -- well, strike that.
`23· · · · · · · · · There are four interfaces that
`24· · ·you accuse of meeting the programmable
`25· · ·interface limitation; correct?
`
`Page 14
`·1· ·whether Novatel's invalidity defenses have
`·2· ·merit?
`·3· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·I want to ask you about your
`·5· ·opinions with respect to certain claim
`·6· ·elements.· In Claim 1 of the '010 patent,
`·7· ·there is an element that we -- or at least I
`·8· ·refer to as 1(C).· It's a programmable
`·9· ·interface for establishing a communication
`10· ·link with at least one monitored technical
`11· ·device.
`12· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`13· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you recall that claim
`14· ·element?
`15· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, I have it.
`16· · · · ·Q.· · ·There are a few claim
`17· ·constructions that bear on this claim
`18· ·element?
`19· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·You've reviewed the court's
`21· ·claim construction?
`22· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`23· · · · ·Q.· · ·If you'd like -- I believe you
`24· ·address this claim element in paragraph 18 of
`25· ·your report, beginning on page 15.· Again,
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· · ·I don't accuse anything. I
`·2· ·provide opinions.
`·3· · · · ·Q.· · ·So in your report, you opine
`·4· ·that there are four interfaces in the Novatel
`·5· ·accused products that satisfy this claim
`·6· ·element; correct?
`·7· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · ·And those are the serial
`·9· ·interface, the GPIO interface, the ADC
`10· ·interface, and the OBD2 interfaces?
`11· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`12· · · · ·Q.· · ·And am I correct that you assert
`13· ·that these interfaces in the accused products
`14· ·are programmable using what are called AT
`15· ·commands?
`16· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you know how many AT commands
`18· ·are available in the accused products?
`19· · · · ·A.· · ·A great many.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you know if it's in the
`21· ·hundreds?
`22· · · · ·A.· · ·I'm guessing yes, but I don't
`23· ·know.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · ·It wouldn't surprise you that
`25· ·there are at least a hundred; right?
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 5
`
`

`
`Page 17
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· · ·It would not.
`·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·You do not state in your
`·3· ·reports, Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2, whether any
`·4· ·particular AT command is more important than
`·5· ·any other AT command; is that correct?
`·6· · · · ·A.· · ·No, I don't.
`·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·You don't state in your reports,
`·8· ·Exhibits 1 and 2, whether any particular AT
`·9· ·command is more valuable than any other?
`10· · · · ·A.· · ·No, I don't.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · ·What's your understanding of
`12· ·what it means for an interface to be able to
`13· ·be directly programmed, as used in the
`14· ·court's construction?
`15· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, programmed means that it
`16· ·is capable of accepting a command or
`17· ·instruction that changes its configuration or
`18· ·that returns a value, depending on the
`19· ·command.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·In your answer, you cited two
`21· ·things; changing a configuration or returning
`22· ·a value.· Is there any other activity that
`23· ·you would say falls under the scope of
`24· ·directly programming?
`25· · · · ·A.· · ·Following an instruction as
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· · · · ·room.)
`·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·So in providing your opinions as
`·3· ·reflected in your reports, Exhibits 1 and 2,
`·4· ·as to the directly programmed requirement, am
`·5· ·I correct that you've applied an
`·6· ·understanding that that requirement means
`·7· ·that the interface needs to be programmed as
`·8· ·opposed to the host processor?
`·9· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.· I think consistent with
`10· ·the discussion that went on at the Markman
`11· ·hearing.
`12· · · · ·Q.· · ·You'd agree that the court's
`13· ·construction doesn't define what it means to
`14· ·be directly programmed?
`15· · · · ·A.· · ·That's correct.· And the term
`16· ·doesn't appear in the -- in the patent in
`17· ·that context.
`18· · · · ·Q.· · ·And you've applied a particular
`19· ·meaning to that in providing your opinions in
`20· ·this case that you've derived on your own,
`21· ·essentially?
`22· · · · ·A.· · ·I derived it having reviewed the
`23· ·colloquy between the judge and the -- and the
`24· ·parties.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you believe it would be
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· ·defined in the AT manual, if you like.
`·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·Following an instruction?
`·3· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·Anything else?
`·5· · · · ·A.· · ·I think that's it.
`·6· · · · ·Q.· · ·Now, in -- in your answers
`·7· ·citing changing a configuration, returning a
`·8· ·value or following an instruction, are you
`·9· ·addressing what it means to program, or are
`10· ·you addressing also what it means to directly
`11· ·program?
`12· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, I'm not sure what
`13· ·"directly program" means.· No meaning has
`14· ·been offered.· And -- by either side.· And so
`15· ·I make no distinction between programmed and
`16· ·directly programmed other than that it is the
`17· ·interface that is programmed and not the
`18· ·processor.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · ·The processor is, in the Novatel
`20· ·accused products, the host processor?
`21· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`22· · · · ·Q.· · ·And the host processor is a CPU
`23· ·essentially; is that fair?
`24· · · · ·A.· · ·Essentially.
`25· · · · · · · · (Mr. Loewenstein entered the
`
`Page 20
`·1· ·reasonable for another similarly educated
`·2· ·expert to arrive at a different meaning for
`·3· ·the term "directly programmed"?
`·4· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, different interpretations
`·5· ·are not uncommon, but from my point of view,
`·6· ·there's only one reasonable interpretation.
`·7· ·I'm not aware that anyone has offered an
`·8· ·alternative.
`·9· · · · ·Q.· · ·The interfaces that you assert
`10· ·are the programmable interfaces of the claim,
`11· ·each of those is connected to, but separate
`12· ·from the host processor; is that fair?
`13· · · · ·A.· · ·Can you repeat that.
`14· · · · ·Q.· · ·Yes.
`15· · · · · · · · The interfaces that you assert
`16· ·satisfy the programmable interface claim
`17· ·element, the serial interface, GPIO
`18· ·interface, ADC interface and OB2 -- strike
`19· ·that -- OBD2 interface -- when I say "the
`20· ·interfaces," do you understand that I'm
`21· ·referring to those four?
`22· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`23· · · · ·Q.· · ·And if -- if I need to make a
`24· ·distinction between them, I will.· If I just
`25· ·say the interfaces, do you understand that
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 6
`
`

`
`Page 21
`
`·1· ·I'm referring to all four?
`·2· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`·3· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you agree that those
`·4· ·interfaces are connected to the host
`·5· ·processor?
`·6· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·Would you agree that they're
`·8· ·separate from the host processor?
`·9· · · · ·A.· · ·Separate, yes.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · ·And is it because the interface
`11· ·is separate from the host processor that you
`12· ·say directly programming the interface means
`13· ·not programming the processor, but instead
`14· ·programming only the interface?
`15· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, it's conceivable that
`16· ·there is a portion of the processor that
`17· ·solely interacts with a given interface, in
`18· ·which case that portion of the processor
`19· ·could be programmed.· But in that case, I
`20· ·would consider that portion of the processor
`21· ·to be part of the interface.
`22· · · · ·Q.· · ·What would be the basis for
`23· ·considering a portion of that separate
`24· ·component part of the interface?
`25· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, because it's separate,
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· ·determine whether that was the case.
`·2· · · · ·Q.· · ·You have not looked at the code
`·3· ·in the accused products?
`·4· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
`·5· · · · ·Q.· · ·In the accused products, do you
`·6· ·know how the host processor communicates with
`·7· ·the interfaces that we're discussing?
`·8· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, there are electrical
`·9· ·connections between the two.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · ·And specifically do you know
`11· ·what connections there are, buses, exactly
`12· ·what type of connection?
`13· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, I haven't specified in my
`14· ·report what exactly those connections are.
`15· ·It's sufficient for my analysis to assume
`16· ·that there are connections.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · ·Do you know -- do you know what
`18· ·the connections are?
`19· · · · ·A.· · ·No.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·You've not reviewed the products
`21· ·to the extent to determine what those
`22· ·connections are?
`23· · · · ·A.· · ·It's sufficient that there are
`24· ·connections.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · ·Well, sufficient or not, I'm
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· ·logically speaking, there would be -- under
`·2· ·my construction, there would be a portion of
`·3· ·the processor that was dedicated to talking
`·4· ·to that interface.
`·5· · · · ·Q.· · ·But that wouldn't make it part
`·6· ·of the interface?
`·7· · · · ·A.· · ·Logically it -- it might, yeah.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · ·As a structural issue, the host
`·9· ·processor and the interface are separate
`10· ·structures; correct?
`11· · · · ·A.· · ·They're logically separate
`12· ·structures.· They may be on the same chip, of
`13· ·course.
`14· · · · ·Q.· · ·How is it that you would be able
`15· ·to draw a distinction between -- strike that.
`16· · · · · · · · How would you be able to tell
`17· ·whether only the interface was being
`18· ·programmed, thus satisfying the directly
`19· ·programmed element, or also some other
`20· ·component, such as the host processor, were
`21· ·being programmed and not satisfying that
`22· ·element?
`23· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, host processor, of course,
`24· ·is connected, as we discussed earlier.· And I
`25· ·would have to look at the -- the code to
`
`Page 24
`·1· ·just asking about the analysis that you did.
`·2· · · · · · · · So did you review information
`·3· ·that showed exactly what those connections
`·4· ·are?
`·5· · · · ·A.· · ·I don't believe so.
`·6· · · · ·Q.· · ·You don't state in your reports,
`·7· ·Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2, whether the host
`·8· ·processor and any of the interfaces are
`·9· ·located on the same chip; correct?
`10· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, that's immaterial as well.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · ·And material or not, you
`12· ·don't -- you don't address that issue and
`13· ·your reports; correct?
`14· · · · ·A.· · ·It's only sufficient that
`15· ·they're logically separate and, no, I
`16· ·haven't.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · ·Am I correct that you don't know
`18· ·whether the host processor and any of the
`19· ·interfaces that are discussed in your report
`20· ·are located on separate chips?
`21· · · · ·A.· · ·I haven't made that analysis.
`22· ·And again, it's immaterial.
`23· · · · ·Q.· · ·But you don't know one way or
`24· ·the other?
`25· · · · ·A.· · ·I may have known at some point.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 7
`
`

`
`Page 25
`
`·1· · ·I'm not sure that I do.
`·2· · · · · ·Q.· · ·It's not addressed in your
`·3· · ·reports; correct?
`·4· · · · · ·A.· · ·I don't recall.· If you know
`·5· · ·otherwise, please direct me.
`·6· · · · · ·Q.· · ·I don't believe it's addressed
`·7· · ·in your reports.· Can you confirm that?
`·8· · · · · ·A.· · ·Nor do I.
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· Could I get
`10· · · · · ·clarification?· You're saying
`11· · · · · ·specifically what isn't addressed? I
`12· · · · · ·missed that.
`13· · · · · · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Whether the host
`14· · · · · ·processor is on the same chip as any of
`15· · · · · ·the four interfaces that are addressed
`16· · · · · ·as being the programmable interface.
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· You want to look
`18· · · · · ·at your report, take some time, go off
`19· · · · · ·the record perhaps?
`20· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I could.
`21· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`22· · · · · ·Q.· · ·If you want to review your
`23· · ·report and you think there's an error in your
`24· · ·testimony, let me know.· I didn't ask you a
`25· · ·question just now.
`
`Page 27
`
`·1· ·of his reply report in which these
`·2· ·issues are addressed.
`·3· · · · · THE WITNESS:· For which I thank
`·4· ·you.
`·5· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· I object to that.
`·6· ·That's improper.· I'm happy for him to
`·7· ·look at his report, but -- but you're
`·8· ·not the witness.· I understand the
`·9· ·report says what it says, but --
`10· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· You want him to
`11· ·look at portions of the report or a
`12· ·report that aren't relevant to what
`13· ·we're talking about, or do you want him
`14· ·to be directed to the relevant
`15· ·information?· That really is the issue.
`16· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Yeah.
`17· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· He was looking at
`18· ·the wrong report.· I gave him the right
`19· ·report to look at.
`20· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· I don't
`21· ·necessarily have a problem with you
`22· ·advancing the ball, but I don't -- I
`23· ·don't appreciate putting a document in
`24· ·front of him to answer a question.
`25· ·Okay.
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· · · · · (Witness peruses the exhibit.)
`·2· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· I thought there
`·3· ·was a question either just asked or
`·4· ·pending about what is or isn't in his
`·5· ·report.
`·6· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· He answered that
`·7· ·he didn't believe it was there, and
`·8· ·then you asked your question.
`·9· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· What I'm
`10· ·suggesting is that he take a look at
`11· ·his report and, if we need to go off
`12· ·the record to do that, that that's what
`13· ·we do.
`14· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· I understand.
`15· ·I'm clarifying that there's no question
`16· ·pending.· He's welcome to look at his
`17· ·report.
`18· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· Are we off the
`19· ·record?
`20· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· No, we're not.
`21· · · · · (Witness peruses the exhibit.)
`22· · · · · MR. KENNERLY:· Counsel, you just
`23· ·handed the witness a document.· What
`24· ·was that?
`25· · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· It was a portion
`Page 28
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · MR. HENSCHKE:· What we were
`·2· · · · · ·doing was allowing him time to review
`·3· · · · · ·his report.· I gave him the report to
`·4· · · · · ·review.· I don't see how that's
`·5· · · · · ·answering any question.
`·6· · · · · · · · · I would suggest, Dr. Nettleton,
`·7· · · · · ·you read that section of the report in
`·8· · · · · ·its entirety for as long as you need
`·9· · · · · ·to.
`10· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Very good.
`11· · · · · · · · · (Witness peruses the exhibit.)
`12· ·BY MR. KENNERLY:
`13· · · · · ·Q.· · ·For the record, Dr. Nettleton,
`14· · ·what section did your counsel direct you to?
`15· · · · · ·A.· · ·I'm reading Section Roman III,
`16· · ·capability of the accused programmable
`17· · ·interfaces to be directly programmed.
`18· · · · · ·Q.· · ·That's in Exhibit 2, your reply
`19· · ·report?
`20· · · · · ·A.· · ·Sorry.· Exhibit 2.
`21· · · · · · · · · (Witness peruses the exhibit.)
`22· · · · · ·A.· · ·Having reviewed this, I'm not
`23· · ·sure that there's anything in here that
`24· · ·suggests that they're separate or integrated.
`25· · · · · ·Q.· · ·And by "here," you mean
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1017 p. 8
`
`

`
`Page 29
`
`·1· ·Exhibit 2, your reply report?
`·2· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.· The section that I just
`·3· ·referenced.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·Thank you.
`·5· · · · · · · · Next question:· Your opinion is
`·6· ·that the -- strike that.
`·7· · · · · · · · I say accused interfaces. I
`·8· ·think you might have objected to that term --
`·9· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, they have been accused. I
`10· ·haven't accused them.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · ·Fair.· So I'll call them the
`12· ·accused interfaces just so we have a shorter
`13· ·phrase.
`14· · · · ·A.· · ·Fair enough.· Okay.
`15· · · · ·Q.· · ·Your opinion is that the accused
`16· ·interfaces are able to be programmed by SMS
`17· ·messages or IP transmissions carrying AT
`18· ·commands; is that correct?
`19· · · · ·A.· · ·That's correct.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·And in the instance of SMS
`21· ·messages, the SMS messages are programming
`22· ·instructions; is that right?
`23· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · ·And in the case of IP
`25· ·transmissions, it's the IP transmissions that
`
`Page 31
`
`·1· ·the right way to frame these questions. I
`·2· ·believe paragraph 14 of your reply sets forth
`·3· ·at least some of your opinions about how this
`·4· ·works with respect to programming the accused
`·5· ·interfaces.
`·6· · · · · · · · Do you see paragraph 14?
`·7· · · · ·A.· · ·I do.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · ·And reviewing paragraph 14 or
`·9· ·just listening to my questions on their own,
`10· ·I want to walk through this and make sure I
`11· ·understand correctly.
`12· · · · · · · · As you explain in paragraph 14,
`13· ·and perhaps elsewhere, an AT command is sent
`14· ·to the accused product to change the
`15· ·configuration of the accused interface; is
`16· ·that right?
`17· · · · ·A.· · ·Or to give it instructions.
`18· · · · ·Q.· · ·Oh, and -- and by that you mean
`19· ·instructions, say, to return a value?
`20· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, for example.
`21· · · · ·Q.· · ·And that's based on your opinion
`22· ·that asking for a value is programming?
`23· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · ·Can you tell me more about why
`25· ·you believe asking for a value is
`
`Page 30
`
`·1· ·are programming instructions?
`·2· · · · ·A.· · ·That contain programming
`·3· ·instructions.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · ·Contain.
`·5· · · · · · · · Explain what you mean by that.
`·6· ·You focused on "contain."
`·7· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, the IP messages have --
`·8· ·and the SMS messages have initial parts that
`·9· ·authenticate the transmissions.· And I
`10· ·wouldn't consider those to be part of the
`11· ·programming instructions.
`12· · · · ·Q.· · ·Based on your understanding --
`13· ·or your testimony about what programming
`14· ·includes, why would you not consider them
`15· ·part of the programming instructions?
`16· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, we're talking about
`17· ·programmable interfaces.· They're -- the
`18· ·authentication section, I don't believe, is
`19· ·actually used in the interfaces themselves.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · ·It is used in the interfaces?
`21· · · · ·A.· · ·The authentication is -- is
`22· ·performed before the AT instructions are
`23· ·passed on to the interface.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · ·Maybe going through your reply
`25· ·report where you explain how this works is
`
`Page 32
`
`·1· ·programming.
`·2· · · · ·A.· · ·Well, I think it pertains to the
`·3· ·court's inter- -- construction on -- on
`·4· ·programmable interfaces.· And I'm trying to
`·5· ·figure out where that is.· Page 3.· On
`·6· ·page 6, these constructions are provided.
`·7· · · · ·Q.· · ·Excuse me.· Page 6 of your
`·8· ·opening report, Exhibit 1?
`·9· · · · ·A.· · ·Yes, Exhibit 1.· I beg -- beg
`10· ·your pardon.
`11· · · · · · · · It simply says an interface that
`12· ·is able to be directly programmed, and that's
`13· ·my interpretation of that.
`14· · · · ·Q.· · ·But my question was why merely
`15· ·asking for a value constitutes programming,
`16· ·in your opinion.