FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________
`
` APPLE INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` VIRNETX INC. AND APPLICATION
` INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
` Patent Owner
` _______________
`
` Case No. IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
` Case No. IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
` Case No. IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2)
` _______________
`
` DEPOSITION OF FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
` Washington, D.C.
` Thursday, March 3, 2016
`
`Reported by: John L. Harmonson, RPR
`Job No. 103298
`
`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
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 1
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple v. VirnetX
`IPR2016-00332
`
`Page 1 of 137
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________
`
` APPLE INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` VIRNETX INC. AND APPLICATION
` INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
` Patent Owner
` _______________
`
` Case No. IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
` Case No. IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
` Case No. IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2)
` _______________
`
` DEPOSITION OF FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
` Washington, D.C.
` Thursday, March 3, 2016
`
`Reported by: John L. Harmonson, RPR
`Job No. 103298
`
`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
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 1
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple v. VirnetX
`IPR2016-00332
`
`Page 1 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 2
`
` March 3, 2016
` 9:32 a.m.
`
` Deposition of FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D., held at
`the offices of Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th
`Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., before John L.
`Harmonson, a Registered Professional Reporter and
`Notary Public of the District of Columbia, who
`officiated in administering the oath to the
`witness.
`
`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
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 2
`
`Page 2 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`On Behalf of Petitioner, Apple Inc.:
` SIDLEY AUSTIN
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: SCOTT BORDER, ESQ.
` THOMAS BROUGHAN III, ESQ.
`
`On Behalf of Patent Owner, VirnetX Inc.:
` PAUL HASTINGS
` 875 Fifteenth Street
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: DANIEL ZEILBERGER, ESQ.
` JOSEPH PALYS, ESQ.
`
`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
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 3
`
`Page 3 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
`--------------------------------------------------
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` 9:32 a.m.
`--------------------------------------------------
` Whereupon,
` FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.,
` after having been first duly sworn or affirmed,
` was examined and did testify under oath as
` follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Monrose.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. This is not the first time you've been
` deposed in this series of proceedings, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. So as you know, if you need to take a
` break, please let me know. If you don't mind,
` let me finish my line of questioning, but if you
` need a break, again just let me know.
` Give your counsel time to object. To
` the extent that he does not instruct you not to
` answer, please answer my question.
` All right. Let's start with your
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 4
`
`Page 4 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`declaration in -- So there's three declarations
`you've filed, as you might recall, the 810, 811
`and the 812 proceedings. Is it okay if we just
`refer to them as 810, 811, 812?
` A. That will be fine.
` Q. There's two that involve Beser and
`there's one that involves Aventail. Do you have
`copies of them already?
` A. I do.
` Q. So let's start with the 811. I'll
`just hand your counsel -- this is Exhibit 216 in
`the 811 proceeding.
` All right. Why don't we -- why don't
`we turn to Paragraph 30. Do you have it?
` A. I do. Paragraph 30.
` Q. Why did you bold "in the connection
`request" in Paragraph 30?
` A. As stated here in my declaration, I
`believe that the petitioner points to the
`connection request, and I'm responding to that
`alleged as meeting the limitations. And
`furthermore, during the deposition of
`Dr. Tamassia, he in fact indicated that what he
`was pointing to is in fact the connection
`request.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 5
`
`Page 5 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
` And so as I state here, this is
`indicated in box G in his flow chart during
`beginning of step 2 in Aventail.
` Q. So in your view, the connection
`request refers solely to the actions identified
`in box G from Exhibit 2014?
` A. I'm responding to what Dr. Tamassia
`points to as the connection request in box G.
` Q. What is your opinion as to what the
`connection request is in Aventail?
` A. So as stated in my declaration,
`Aventail discloses a series of steps for
`configuring -- in its administration guide for
`configuring Aventail Connect. So in particular,
`the summary of those features are described on
`pages 11 through 13 in the multiphased approach.
` So I would like to go through the
`multiphase approach to be clear of what's
`happening here. So the first part, DNS lookup is
`received at Aventail Connect from a client
`application. If the DNS -- if the destination
`host name in the DNS lookup matches the
`redirection rule or the DNS proxy option is
`enabled at the domain and the domain cannot be
`looked up directly, a false DNS entry is created.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 6
`
`Page 6 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` It goes on to explain what the purpose
`of the redirection rules are, and then it
`specifically mentions that the checking of the
`redirection rules occur in that claimed step 1.
`Okay?
` Again, on pages 11 to 13 of Aventail,
`it states in step 2 -- so this is after step 1,
`"The client application requests a connection to
`a remote host, and this connection request is
`checked by Aventail Connect. The connection may
`contain a previously created false entry that
`indicates whether the connection should be
`proxied."
` It also mentions that during this
`stage, this is when a SOCKS negotiation would
`happen, and more importantly, that Aventail
`Connect will then send a proxy request to the
`extranet server. In particular, it says in
`steps -- let's call it 2B, "When the connection
`is completed, Aventail Connect begins the SOCKS
`negotiation."
` The third step is that the application
`at that point then transmits and receives data in
`step 3.
` So there are three explicit steps in
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 7
`
`Page 7 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
`Aventail Connect.
` Q. So in your view, the connection
`request in the Aventail system occurs after the
`redirection rules are checked?
` A. So if my memory serves me correctly,
`and as stated in the declaration, in part 1,
`Aventail states: "If the destination host name
`in the DNS lookup matches a redirection rule, or
`the DNS proxy option is enabled and the domain
`cannot be looked up directly, a false entry is
`created by Aventail Connect and returned to the
`application."
` It says: "A redirection rule," and
`we'll expand on it, "defines for destination what
`type of traffic, in particular whether it's TCP
`or UDP, will be allowed to be routed to that
`destination and the type of proxy redirection."
` Aventail is specific in providing a
`table that says what the proxy redirection fields
`relate to. And as shown in the declaration,
`copied from Aventail, it provides some options
`including the ability to redirect, and that's
`redirect all traffic through its extranet server,
`perform no redirection, or deny service. In this
`case, deny service is to a specific destination.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 8
`
`Page 8 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` So in step 1, the redirection rules
`are checked.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to ask that question
`again because I don't think you answered it.
` Is it your opinion that the connection
`request in Aventail is checked after the
`redirection rules are checked? Let me restate
`that.
` Is it your view that the connection
`request occurs after the redirection rules are
`checked?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think you asked
` exactly what I answered.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. You never told me that the connection
`request occurs after the redirection rules are
`checked. Is that your testimony?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. To be clear, is it your opinion that
`the connection request in Aventail occurs after
`the redirection rules are checked?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: What I give an opinion
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 9
`
`Page 9 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
` to was the petitioner's claim that in their
` specified connection request, which again
` Dr. Tamassia pointed to in his deposition
` what he was referring to, that in that case
` the redirection rules are not checked.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Dr. Monrose, my question is: Is it
`your opinion that the connection request in
`Aventail occurs after the redirection rules are
`checked?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: In my declaration I
` responded to the petitioner's alleged
` meeting of that limitation and showed that
` in fact the request, whether it is the proxy
` request that they're responding to or the
` connection request that they point to, are
` not checked against the redirection rule.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. So you have no independent opinion as
`to when the connection request occurs in
`Aventail, correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know what you
` mean by "independent," but Aventail
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 10
`
`Page 10 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` specifically says that it happens after step
` 1.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. So you would agree that, in your
`opinion, the connection request occurs after step
`1 in Aventail?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Let me ask it a different way: In
`your opinion, are the redirection rules checked
`in step 1 as laid out in pages 11 and 12 of
`Aventail?
` A. In step 1, Aventail does disclose
`conditions where the redirection rules are
`checked.
` Q. And in your view, the connection
`request occurs after those actions, correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: In my opinions expressed
` in the declaration, I responded to the
` alleged meeting of those limitations and
` argued why I disagreed with their expert's
` opinion that in fact this is not checked in
` those cases.
`BY MR. BORDER:
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 11
`
`Page 11 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` Q. So you agree with me that you don't
`have your own opinion as to when the connection
`request occurs in Aventail?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: My opinion is based on
` what is stated in Aventail Connect. They
` are separate steps. So maybe I just don't
` understand your question.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. My question is: Do you, in your
`opinion, believe that the connection request in
`Aventail occurs after the redirection rules are
`checked?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection to form.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Is there something you don't
`understand about that question?
` A. I thought I've answered your question.
`I said given the interpretation of what's
`specified by Aventail Connect, that step 2, this
`connection request happens after step 1.
` Q. And step 1 includes checking the
`redirection rules?
` A. That is correct.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 12
`
`Page 12 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
` Q. And that's your opinion?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Okay. Now, when you stated that
`you -- Well, let's go back to Paragraph 30. When
`you stated that you were responding to what
`Dr. Tamassia points to as the connection request
`in box G, do you agree that you're relying solely
`on Dr. Tamassia's deposition testimony for that
`opinion?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: So back to Paragraph 30,
` you said?
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Yes.
` A. So in Paragraph 30 and 31, Apple's --
`Dr. Tamassia gave a clarification of where this
`step -- what is meant by -- what his
`understanding of what is meant by the connection
`request. I did an analysis based on what
`Dr. Tamassia points to and, as explained in the
`declaration, that logic, in my opinion, is flawed
`because the redirection rules are not checked at
`that point.
` Q. And in Paragraphs 30 and 31 you don't
`cite to any portion of Dr. Tamassia's
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 13
`
`Page 13 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
`declaration, correct?
` A. In Paragraph 30, I do refer to his
`depo and the statements made about box G.
` Q. Okay. Let me repeat that question.
` In Paragraphs 30 and 31, you don't
`cite to any portion of Dr. Tamassia's
`declaration, correct?
` A. His declaration, that is correct.
` Q. And the only testimony you rely on are
`two lines on page 234 of his deposition, correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: His deposition, in my
` opinion, was clarifying statements made in
` his declaration. So the fact that I
` looked -- reviewed his deposition to see how
` he's clarifying the declaration means I'm
` relying on more than just his deposition.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Well, Dr. Monrose, I don't think
`there's any page limits on your declaration, and
`I don't see any citations to his declaration
`here, correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. I think you answered that before.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 14
`
`Page 14 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection;
` argumentative.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Let me just ask a question.
` A. You guys -- Again, I'm not a lawyer.
`I put this on the table. I'm not a lawyer. My
`understanding of how this works is the petitioner
`makes an alleged -- shows where they believe the
`limitations are met. An expert in certain cases
`provides his or her opinion in respect to that
`limitation that the petitioner points out.
` In this particular case, Dr. Tamassia
`clarified a statement or his understanding of
`statements made in the declaration, and I
`reviewed those statements. And under that
`understanding -- what he points to in his
`deposition, which I will agree with you in my
`declaration, I don't specifically cite to his
`declaration but I do cite to his deposition which
`clarifies statements made in his declaration and
`says he's referring to box G.
` Q. And in your view, the entire basis of
`your opinion is based on just two lines of
`Dr. Tamassia's deposition?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection;
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 15
`
`Page 15 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
` foundation. Form.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Correct?
` A. I think that's a stretch. I think
`it's the context of what was -- He specifically
`points to that in those two lines, but the
`surrounding context points to his understanding
`of what the connection request is, and he says
`that's indicated by box G.
` Q. But you don't cite to any of this
`additional context that you just mentioned,
`correct?
` A. Again, maybe if I had more experience
`in this and realized that lawyers would -- I had
`to say exactly where it matches his
`declaration -- I just said looking at what he
`said in his deposition, and what he points to in
`that deposition, my understanding of what he said
`there implies that box G is the connection
`request. And in that case, the redirection rules
`are not checked.
` Q. Did you review the entirety of
`Dr. Tamassia's deposition?
` A. I went through looking for the places
`in which he was trying to justify what he said
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 16
`
`Page 16 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
`here. So not with a fine-tooth comb. I didn't
`go through all the pages in here. I went
`through, I looked, and I tried to understand the
`context in which he made those statements.
` Q. So to be clear, you did not review the
`entire deposition transcript of Dr. Tamassia?
` A. I read the transcript to try and
`understand what was being said here. And I'm
`sure if -- and it's a painful exercise reading
`these transcripts because this thing jumps all
`over and so I had to focus it. At one point he
`was asked where is the connection request. And
`that's the point where he says that, the way he
`says that's the connection request.
` I don't know how you guys do it as
`lawyers, but it's difficult to keep track of
`everything that's going on here. So I had to
`review it, and then I looked at the portion in
`which he says this is where I believe the
`connection request is.
` Q. Do you agree that he at least
`discusses this issue in other parts of his
`deposition?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Foundation.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 17
`
`Page 17 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: To be honest, I would
` have to go back and look specifically.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. And of course you don't cite to any of
`the other portions of his testimony where he
`discusses what his view is as to the connection
`request?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. In Aventail, correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe here, in my
` view, I turn to what I felt was the clearest
` statement of what box G was referring to.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. And you obviously have no other
`testimony -- Strike that.
` And you obviously have no testimony as
`to the other testimony that Dr. Tamassia gave
`with respect to box G and the connection request
`in Aventail, correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: The only statements I've
` made in my declaration with respect to his
` deposition on this particular matter is
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 18
`
`Page 18 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` referenced in Paragraph 30.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Did you review the entirety of
`Dr. Tamassia's declaration?
` A. I did. It's very long.
` Q. How do you define "connection
`request"?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Are you asking this in
` the abstract? In something specific? In
` deposition?
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. I'm asking with respect to your bolded
`cite -- With respect to Paragraph 30, you've
`bolded "in the connection request." What is your
`definition of "connection request"?
` A. In that bolded paragraph, it's what he
`says box G is the connection request. His bolded
`is just that he specified the connection request
`is box G. It's not my opinion, and I'm not
`saying anything else. He specified box G is the
`connection request.
` Q. And if your opinion is wrong -- in
`other words, if he did not specify that box G is
`the connection request -- you agree that the
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 19
`
`Page 19 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
`conclusions you've reached, at least with respect
`to Paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 are not valid,
`correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: You asked a very
` compound question. Can you repeat, please?
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Well, you just told me that your
`analysis here is based on what you think
`Dr. Tamassia has testified to. Correct?
` A. In Paragraph 30, I'm referring to what
`he points out in his declaration -- in his
`deposition to be connection request via box G.
` Q. So if there are other portions of his
`testimony where he elaborates on what he believes
`that connection request is, and that it is not
`solely confined to box G, you agree that your
`analysis here is incorrect?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: I do not. Because I
` would have to look at all the other claimed
` analysis that he also pointed to something
` else as the connection request. I looked at
` what he claimed is the connection request
` there in box G.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 20
`
`Page 20 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
` And I believe that my duty is to
` assess his opinion, and I did, and, one, I
` respectfully disagree with what it said, and
` more specifically for box G pointed to that
` part of the deposition. It's clear that the
` redirection rules are not checked. I can't
` say more than that.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. So I'm handing you what is previously
`marked Exhibit 2013 in the 811 proceeding. I'm
`sure you recognize that.
` And I'm looking at step 1 here. It
`states: "The application does a DNS lookup to
`convert the host name to an IP address."
` Do you agree that at least in one
`example, that host name would come from a user
`attempting to communicate with a remote host?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: So step 1 says the
` application does a DNS lookup. And remember
` that in Aventail, the application -- I mean
` Aventail Connect does a DNS lookup to
` convert the host name to an IP address.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. So in your view, the application
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 21
`
`Page 21 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
`that's mentioned there is Aventail Connect?
` A. This says, "How does Aventail Connect
`work?"
` Q. In your view, in step 1, when it says
`"the application," that's referring to Aventail
`Connect and not other software on the computer?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: As stated in my
` declaration, Aventail Connect is simply an
` administration guide for configuring
` Aventail Connect, which is an application
` designed to run on a workstation and which
` routes traffic, network traffic from an
` application to a proxy server.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Okay. My question is: When it states
`"the application" in step 1 on the first page of
`Exhibit 2013 that I just handed you, you believe
`that's Aventail Connect?
` A. The administration guide says Aventail
`Connect is an application designed to run on a
`workstation.
` Q. Is that a yes?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: It's an application
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 22
`
`Page 22 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` designed to run on a workstation.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. The specific reference to "the
`application" in step 1 on page 11 of -- or page 1
`of Exhibit 2013, "the application," in your view,
`refers to Aventail Connect and not any other
`software running on the client computer? That's
`your view?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: In my declaration, to
` the best of my recollection, I did not opine
` on that matter and said what Aventail
` discloses, and it is a guide for configuring
` Aventail Connect, which the guide says it's
` an application designed to run on a
` workstation.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. So you don't know one way or the other
`what "the application" actually refers to in step
`1 in Exhibit 2013?
` A. It says it's Aventail Connect. How
`does Aventail Connect work? It's an
`application designed to run -- Aventail Connect
`is an application designed to run on a
`workstation.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 23
`
`Page 23 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
` Q. The host name that's mentioned in that
`first step, you agree that would come from a
`user?
` A. So the broader context of what the
`Exhibit 2013 -- so if I go back to page 7 on
`Exhibit 109, Aventail Connect is a client
`component of the Aventail intranet center.
` Your question about in the proceedings
`at hand, I don't recall any discussion --
`opinions on my part on whether or not there was a
`user there.
` Q. Well, so now we're talking about
`Exhibit 1009.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So let me hand this to your counsel.
`This is the full Aventail Connect document. This
`is Exhibit 1009 in the 811 proceeding.
` You've got a copy, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me have you go to the top of
`page 8, please. It says: "Windows TCP/IP
`networking applications such as Telnet, e-mail,
`web browsers and FTP use Winsock (Windows
`sockets) to gain access to networks or the
`Internet."
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 24
`
`Page 24 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 25
`
`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
`
` You agree that these networking
`applications, could that be what Aventail is
`referring to when it says, "The application does
`a DNS lookup to convert the host name to an IP
`address," in step 1 of Exhibit 1009?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Foundation.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Could that be the application that
`it's referring to?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: I've done no analysis of
` whether or not the TCP/IP-enabled network
` applications pointed to here, e-mail or web
` browsers, are the same applications referred
` to in step 1.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Did you read Exhibit 1009?
` A. I had to go through Exhibit 1009.
` Q. Did you read the entirety of 1009?
` A. I had to go through the parts which
`the petition was pointing to met the alleged
`limitations.
` Q. Do you believe you have an
`understanding of how the system described in
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 25
`
`Page 25 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
`Aventail works?
` A. I do. It's an admin guide.
` Q. So do you agree that Aventail Connect
`works with Windows TCP/IP applications?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: It says it can work with
` TCP or UDP.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. And one of those applications would be
`a browser, for example?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: I mean, hypothetically
` speaking, it -- I don't know the context in
` which you're asking me this, so I need
` context. But it does say, as in the guide,
` the TCP networking applications, and it
` gives examples. Your example is a web
` browser, and a web browser is listed here.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. And so at least one of the places that
`Aventail Connect -- at least in the steps -- Let
`me strike that.
` Let's stay on Exhibit 1009, page 11,
`and it says: "The application does a DNS lookup
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 26
`
`Page 26 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
`to convert the host name to an IP address."
` Could one example of that host name
`come from a user entering a host name into a
`browser?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: So again, to the best of
` my recollection, that specific example that
` you point to, the administration guide does
` not provide that example.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Dr. Monrose, you're holding yourself
`out to be a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`correct?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And you read the entirety of this
`administrator's guide?
` A. I read the guide.
` Q. And you understand how the system
`works.
` A. I do. And you said there's a web
`browser, and I'm saying I didn't give an opinion
`on whether or not there is a user -- it says
`there's a user sitting at the web browser and
`that's the same application mentioned in 1A.
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 27
`
`Page 27 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` Q. So you have no idea where the host
`name mentioned in step 1A could come from?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: There are possibilities.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. What possibilities?
` A. It says there it converts the host
`name.
` Q. Where does the host name come from?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Aventail says it will
` connect its -- Aventail Connect is a client
` component. So it receives it from the
` client.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. In this case, what is the client?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Scope.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Let me ask this: Do you agree that
`one place it could receive it from is a regular
`browser?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Hypothetically, without
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 28
`
`Page 28 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` any other context, yeah, it could be a
` browser.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Now, if a user were to enter a host
`name into a browser, would you call that a
`connection request?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: I made no statements
` about what a connection request is. I
` pointed to what Dr. Tamassia and the
` petition said is the connection request and
` I outlined there are several steps in
` Aventail. The first being a DNS lookup to
` convert the host name. We went through
` that. And the second being the application
` requests a connection. Two different steps.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. So you haven't formed your own opinion
`as to what a connection request is in Aventail?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Objection; form.
`BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Correct?
` MR. ZEILBERGER: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: My opinion is that step
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2015-00810
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1066, p. 29
`
`Page 29 of 137
`
`
`
`FABIAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` 1 and step
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
