` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`Page 1
`
` CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` et al.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v. Civil Action No.
` 6:15-cv-00163
` ALCATEL-LUCENT, S.A., et al.,
` Defendants.
`_______________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF RICH SEIFERT
` Menlo Park, California
` Friday, June 10, 2016
` Volume I
`
`REPORTED BY:
`TAVIA MANNING, CSR No. 13294, CLR, CCRR
`JOB NO. 108691
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-1
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` June 10, 2016
` 9:06 a.m.
`
` Deposition of RICH SEIFERT, Volume I, held at
`McDermott Will & Emery, 275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100,
`Menlo Park, California, before Tavia Manning, Certified
`Shorthand Reporter No. 13294, Certified LiveNote
`Reporter, California Certified Realtime Reporter.
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-2
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` THOMPSON & KNIGHT
` Counsel for Plaintiff
` 1722 Routh Street
` Dallas, TX 75201
` BY: JUSTIN COHEN, ESQ.
`
` McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
` Counsel for AMS
` 227 West Monroe Street
` Chicago, IL 60606
` BY: BRENT HAWKINS, 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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-3
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA;
` FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 2016; 9:06 A.M.
`
` (Deposition Exhibits 1 through 19 were
` premarked for identification.)
`
` RICH SEIFERT,
` having been first duly sworn by the court reporter,
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Seifert.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. My name is Justin Cohen. I am representing the
`plaintiffs in this case, ChriMar Systems, Inc. and
`ChriMar Holding Company.
` Are you are familiar with them?
` A. I am.
` Q. Now, you've been deposed numerous times before;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know about how many?
` A. Between 10 and 20.
` Q. So you generally understand the process and the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-4
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`rules?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Any reason you can't offer full and truthful
`testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Anything affecting your ability to understand
`my questions today?
` A. No.
` I do want to go on the record -- if you notice,
`I've got -- we don't have video here, but if you notice,
`I've got an earpiece on and I've got an iPod sitting in
`front of me. I suffer from tinnitus, ringing of the
`ears. And this helps mask it. It makes me tolerate it
`a little bit better. It's actually a creation of my own
`design. So I just wanted to make sure you don't think
`I'm getting messages from somewhere else or from
`anywhere, so...
` Q. Thank you.
` A. And at some point, I may have to change
`earpieces, because the batteries last a finite time.
` Q. Can you hear my questions okay?
` A. I can hear you fine. It's not a hearing aid.
`It's actually injecting a masking sound, which helps
`relieve the ringing.
` Q. Okay. Thank you for that.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-5
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` If you answer my questions, I can assume you
`understood it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you don't understand some portion of my
`question, you'll ask me to clarify?
` A. I will.
` Q. Great.
` Now, can you tell me about how you went about
`preparing for today's deposition?
` A. I reviewed all of the materials that I used in
`preparing my report. I reread my report. I reread
`some, but not all, of the prior art that I cited to in
`my report. And I spent time with the attorneys for AMX
`reviewing portions of my report and the -- and the
`analyses that went into it.
` Q. And which attorneys did you meet with?
` A. I met with David Bluestone and telephonically
`with Hersh Mehta.
` Q. And when did you meet with them?
` A. Over the past few days.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. Brent came in yesterday just to say hi, but was
`not a party -- was not part of the preparation.
` Q. And when you refer to your report, you're
`referring to the May 2nd invalidity report?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-6
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. That's the report, yes.
` Q. And did you also review your rebuttal report?
` A. I did.
` Q. Did you notice any issues or corrections that
`we need to make to your reports?
` A. There is one minor correction I would like to
`make, if I may see the invalidity report.
` Q. Certainly.
` Previously marked as Exhibit 1 is the main body
`of the report.
` A. That's fine.
` In paragraph 430, it says that:
` "It is my opinion that each and every asserted
` claim of the '012 Patent is invalid due to
` either anticipation and/or obviousness, as
` explained in the sections above and in detail
` in the attached claim charts."
` That should read, not just the '012 Patent, but
`all of the asserted patents.
` Q. Thank you.
` A. And I think it's pretty obvious because I
`address all of the asserted patents in the report, but
`that one line is an artifact.
` Q. Were there anything else?
` A. (Witness shakes head.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-7
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
` Q. Is it fair to say that all of your opinions in
`this case are in your invalidity report and your
`rebuttal report?
` A. Including that --
` Q. Correction.
` A. -- that correction, yes.
` Q. Any other opinions?
` Have you formed any other opinions that are not
`contained within these two reports?
` A. No.
` Q. And you've been hired on behalf of AMX for this
`particular case; correct?
` A. That's correct. Actually, I was hired by
`McDermott, Will & Emery, representing AMX.
` Q. Are you working on behalf of any other entities
`opposed to ChriMar at this time?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And who is that?
` A. Specifically, Dell.
` And my understanding is that there are a large
`number of joint defendants as part of a joint-defense
`team that have access to my work. I don't know all of
`them.
` Q. Are you working with any other law firms in
`connection with the ChriMar litigation?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-8
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. I am not working -- that's not true. I am
`trying to remember their name. I have -- there's two
`other law firms that I -- that I am working with,
`Vasquez, Benisek & Lindgren, representing a number of
`clients.
` And I believe they're called LT Pacific Law
`Group, and I am -- they are representing a small company
`whose name I can't remember.
` Q. That's okay.
` And Norton Rose Fulbright, are you working with
`them, who's representing Dell?
` A. And Norton Rose Fulbright, representing Dell.
` Q. Any others you can think of?
` A. Not that I've had direct contact with.
` Like I say, I am aware there are a number of
`other law firms representing codefendants in the case
`that are part of a joint-defense team that -- but the
`arrangement is that I work with McDermott, Will & Emery,
`and they work with whoever else is also associated.
` Q. So in connection with this case, your invoices
`go to McDermott, Will & Emery?
` A. No.
` In this case, my invoices go to an expert
`witness broker, who McDermott, Will & Emery found me
`through this expert witness broker. And so the broker
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-9
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`pays my invoices, and McDermott pays the broker.
` Q. Fair enough.
` You also served an invalidity report in the --
`what we call the ChriMar 1 case.
` Do you recall that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Did you review that report?
` A. At what time?
` Q. At any time after serving that report, have you
`reviewed it?
` A. No.
` Since -- if I recall -- well...
` Q. It would have been about March of 2015.
` A. Oh, I understand that it was around March of
`2015.
` I am trying to recall if I was deposed on that
`report. If I was deposed on that report, I surely would
`have reviewed it and prepared for that deposition.
` Q. I don't believe there was a deposition.
` A. I don't believe there was a deposition, and
`that's why I am saying I don't believe I've gone back to
`that report.
` For sure not in preparation for today.
` Q. Okay. I am assuming you would stand by all of
`your opinions that were contained in that report?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-10
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. I believe they're all consistent with my
`opinions in this report.
` Q. And there's nothing you can think of where your
`opinions or interpretation changed from that report to
`your current reports?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. Have you worked with the other experts in this
`case?
` A. Which other experts?
` Q. Mr. Bakewell? Mr. Crayford? Mr. Geier?
` A. I have spoken with Mr. Bakewell on the
`telephone.
` Q. Have you spoken to any of the other experts?
` A. Not the two you mentioned.
` Are there any others?
` Q. I believe the other two, Mr. Geier and
`Mr. Crayford.
` Have you spoken to either of them?
` A. In what timeframe?
` Q. In the last six months.
` A. No.
` Q. Have you talked to them in connection with your
`work in this case?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you know them personally?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-11
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. I know Mr. Crayford very well.
` Q. And how do you know him?
` A. Ian and I have drunk each other under the table
`a number of times in British pubs. Ian and I worked
`together through the IEEE standards body. Ian, at the
`time, was at Advanced Micro Devices, and we worked
`together in the development of standards and consuming
`large amounts of British ale.
` Q. Okay. How about Mr. Geier, do you know him
`personally?
` A. No, I don't.
` Q. And you've never talked to him before?
` A. I don't believe so. He might have been, you
`know, a voice in a multiway conference call at some
`point, but I have never had any direct interaction with
`him.
` Q. Have you reviewed his reports in this case?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you talked to him to make sure that your
`opinions are consistent with his opinions?
` A. No.
` Q. And the same questions for Mr. Crayford.
` Have you talked to him in connection with this
`case?
` A. I have not spoken with Ian with respect to this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-12
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`case.
` Q. And have you reviewed any of his reports or
`draft reports?
` A. No, I have not.
` Q. And you haven't worked with him to make sure
`that your opinions are consistent with his opinions in
`this case?
` A. I have no idea what his opinions are in this
`case.
` Q. When did you first become aware of ChriMar?
` A. I first became aware of ChriMar somewhere in
`the early 2000s, when ChriMar was litigating on the
`Cummings '260 Patent against defendant Cisco Systems.
` Q. And what was your capacity at that time?
` A. I was engaged by Cisco Systems as an expert.
` Q. And did you issue some reports and declarations
`in that case?
` A. I issued a number of reports, both invalidity,
`rebuttal reports, non-infringement declarations in
`support of motions, probably somewhere between five and
`12 documents.
` Q. And that was in connection with your work as an
`expert; correct?
` A. That was all in connection with my work as an
`expert, retained by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-13
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`were representing Cisco.
` Q. In connection with your work as an expert, did
`you do a fair amount of research into ChriMar, their
`Cummings '260 Patent and the prior art?
` A. With respect to the '260 Patent at that time,
`yes, I looked at prior art. I rendered invalidity
`opinions. I testified at Markman hearings. I did what
`was asked of me.
` Q. Did you ever search to see if ChriMar had any
`additional published patent applications?
` MR. HAWKINS: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. Did you know that they had additional patent
`applications pending at this time?
` A. No.
` Q. To your knowledge, did Cisco know that they had
`additional patent applications pending?
` A. I have no knowledge of what Cisco knew.
` Q. Did you ever talk to Cisco about the
`possibility that ChriMar had additional patent
`applications?
` MR. HAWKINS: Objection to form. Outside the
`scope of the witness's expert report and what he's being
`offered for today.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-14
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: At what time?
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. In the early the 2000s.
` A. No.
` Q. Now, you've had a fair amount of involvement
`with the IEEE organization over the years; correct?
` A. That's an understatement.
` Q. Can you tell me just briefly about your
`involvement with the IEEE?
` A. I was an attendee at the very first IEEE 802
`formation meeting in February of 1980 at the now
`nonexistent Jack Tar Hotel in San Francisco.
` I attended numerous meetings of the 802, as the
`802 standards committee formed and it divided into
`different task forces and different working groups.
` I was heavily involved early on with the
`development of 802.3, the so-called Ethernet
`specification, because I was involved, even before --
`even before 802, in the development of the Xerox, DEC,
`Intel Ethernet -- actually, DEC, Intel, Xerox is the
`proper word -- Ethernet specifications. And much of
`that work was subsumed into the IEEE 802.3 standards.
` Later on, when I moved to California and became
`chief technology officer at a start-up company here, we
`were more involved in 802.4 technology, so-called token
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-15
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`bus. And I continued to attend the meetings and was
`actively involved in 802.4.
` After that, I became an independent consultant,
`and many, many clients would engage me to help further
`their interests in the standards community. So I would
`attend standards meetings on their behalf.
` I have written or coauthored a number of the
`IEEE 802 standards. I have chaired 802.3 task forces.
` That's pretty heavily involved, until 2002.
` Q. So about 2002 is when your involvement, more or
`less, stopped?
` A. 2002 -- I believe the March of 2002 standards
`meeting was the last time I attend a plenary as a member
`of IEEE 802.3.
` However, I keep up on it. I'm still on the
`e-mail distribution lists for 802.3 and 802.1. I still
`get questions from people on the committee when issues
`come up and they don't have the historical context for
`why something might be in the standard.
` So to that extent, I am still involved, but I
`am not -- not currently a member of 802.3 or an active
`participant.
` Q. Are you a member of the IEEE?
` A. No.
` Q. Your last involvement was about 2002?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-16
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
` A. My last involvement with the IEEE -- with the
`actual development of IEEE standards was in 2002.
` Q. And one of the things you said, before 2002,
`was that companies would hire you to attend meetings and
`participate on their behalf; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is it fair to say that that would be --
`your involvement would be to advance their interests in
`the standards committee?
` A. Sometimes it's to advance their interests.
`Sometimes it's to keep an ear to the ground and see what
`the industry trends and consensus is so that they can
`maybe adjust their product plans and strategy.
` Sometimes it's because they're short on
`manpower. They need -- they want to be up on exactly,
`you know, what's the state of the standards world. And
`it's easier to send somebody who's known and respected
`in the community there and can talk to people there than
`to send a junior person, who has no knowledge of how the
`committees operate.
` Q. So to understand that last statement, is it
`fair to say people would hire you because you
`potentially would have more influence than, say, a
`junior person with no past history of involvement?
` A. In some cases, yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-17
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. When you attend in that capacity, as a
`consultant, do you disclose who you're working for?
` A. Always. I believe it is -- it wasn't at the
`time, but it is now a requirement that you identify the
`organization that you're representing, even though
`membership in the IEEE task force or working group is on
`an individual basis.
` But I was -- I was never secretive about who I
`was representing. Sometimes I would be representing two
`or more parties at the same time.
` Q. And would you identify both of those parties?
` A. Of course.
` Q. And you would do that routinely?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you find that was common practice during
`your time period?
` MR. HAWKINS: Objection to form. Outside the
`scope of the expert report and what Mr. Seifert is here
`for.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was common
`practice. I can't get into the mind of other people. I
`can't always tell who is there as an employee and who is
`there as a consultant.
` But I always took the moral high road.
`//
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-18
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. Did you have any involvement with the 802.3af
`or "at" groups?
` A. What do you mean by "involvement"?
` Q. Attend any of their meetings?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Which meetings?
` A. I don't recall. It's a long time ago.
` An 802.3 plenary meeting, for example, where
`it's the entire 802.3 working group, there may be 3-,
`4-, 500 people attending meetings.
` There are meetings going on simultaneously of
`various task forces. So one group may be working on
`gigabit Ethernet, and another group working on frame
`extensions, and another group working on
`Power-over-Ethernet, and another group working on
`various aspects that may or may not ultimately result in
`the development of a standard. And you're there for --
`they last for a week. The meetings last for roughly a
`week.
` And while I might have been primarily involved
`in one activity, if there is a break in my meeting and
`I'm walking down the hallway and looking in on what's
`going on, I might walk into an af meeting and sit in the
`back of the room or sit in the front of the room and see
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-19
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 20
`where they are in the development process; see who's in
`the room, listen and get myself up to speed. And
`it's -- you know, if I've got a spare hour, I would do
`that. And I would sign in if I did that.
` But that was the extent of my involvement. I
`did not write -- I did not -- I was not assigned
`specific tasks to perform in the group, but the
`meeting -- all meetings are open to everyone, everyone
`who pays the attendance fee. And I would -- I would
`have dropped into an af meeting, from time to time.
` Q. Is it fair to say that you weren't
`substantively involved in developing the "af" or "at"
`standards?
` A. I was not substantively involved.
` Q. You had mentioned before that you worked as an
`expert on behalf of Cisco in the Cummings '260 case;
`correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And what was the result of that case?
` A. My understanding of the result is that the
`asserted claims were -- were declared -- Claim 1, I
`believe, was declared invalid, as a matter of law, at
`summary judgment. And Cisco was declared to have not
`infringed Claim 1 as a matter of summary judgment, and I
`believe that was upheld on appeal.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-20
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` I believe there was additional work with
`respect to later -- some later claims, 14 or 17 or 18.
`It's hard to remember claim numbers. I believe I
`discuss it in my report, if you want -- if you want me
`to point to that.
` But there were other claims that were -- that
`were either rendered -- declared invalid and also upheld
`on appeal.
` Q. And was that result expected?
` MR. HAWKINS: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Expected by whom?
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. By you.
` Were you surprised by the result?
` A. I was -- I was not surprised, because I believe
`that my opinions were correct. And I believe it was
`partly due to my opinions that those results came out.
`The laws of physics are the laws of physics, and the
`prior art is the prior art.
` It was the first time I had seen a patent claim
`rendered invalid as a matter of law. I thought that was
`interesting. I wouldn't say surprising, but I thought
`that was interesting.
` Q. And you have been an expert in patent cases for
`approximately the last 18 to 20 years?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-21
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. I think I worked on my first case -- we can
`check my résumé, if you want. It's in -- my résumé is
`in the report, so it speaks for itself.
` It was in the 1990s, mid/late 1990s.
` Q. And about how many times have you seen claims
`ruled invalid as a matter of law over your span?
` A. That was the first and only time.
` Q. None since?
` A. Not as a matter of law, no.
` Q. Now, moving on, you had mentioned sort of the
`laws of physics and the prior art is the prior art.
`We're going to get into the prior art. But to make sure
`we're on the same page, I just wanted to go through a
`few electrical principles and basics of electrical
`engineering and nomenclature for Ethernet, if that's
`okay.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And one of the things you talk about in your
`report is Ohm's Law.
` Can you give me a description of Ohm's Law?
` A. Sure.
` Ohm's Law describes the relationship among
`voltage, current, and impedance, and the three are
`interdependent. So Ohm's Law says that the current in a
`circuit is directly proportional to the voltage and it's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-22
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`inversely proportional to the impedance.
` Q. So if it's a linear circuit, one changes, and
`it's directly related to changes in the others?
` A. Right. The three are interrelated.
` I mean, you can -- there's, you know, the
`famous Ohm's Law formula, which can be presented any --
`any of three ways. You can make any of the three
`variables the independent -- the dependent variable.
`And, you know, the current is dependent on the voltage
`and the impedance. The voltage is dependent on the
`current and the impedance. You could look at it, you
`know, any way you like. But Ohm's Law tells you the
`relationship among those three.
` Q. And typically, we're talking about current.
` Does that apply to direct current and
`alternating current?
` A. Yes.
` In the high school version of Ohm's Law, they
`typically deal with DC and scalar quantities.
` But Ohm's Law holds for complex voltages,
`complex currents, and complex impedances. So, yes, it's
`true in both cases.
` Q. In the context of this case, is it fair to say
`we're mostly talking about the high school version and
`direct current and V equals IR?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-23
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. HAWKINS: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: This case -- it's a general
`statement. I mean, you have to talk to me about which
`patent and which element you're talking about, because
`capacitance is important in certain aspects of, you
`know -- of this case, and capacitance is not part of the
`high school version of Ohm's Law.
` So I don't think we are always dealing with
`simple scalar voltages, scalar currents, and for sure
`not scalar impedances.
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. Fair enough.
` What is an impedance?
` A. Well --
` MR. HAWKINS: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: -- the Court has construed
`"impedance." And so for the purposes of this case, if I
`can look at the Court's construction --
`BY MR. COHEN:
` Q. You have your report in front of you.
` A. I have my report in front of me.
` I believe the Court construed "impedance" as
`"opposition to the flow of current," but I can check
`that.
` Yes. The Court construed "impedance" as
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-24
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`"opposition to the flow of current."
` Q. And what does that mean to you, as you
`understand it as a person of ordinary skill in the art?
` A. Right.
` That means that a component or an element that
`has impedance will, to some extent, oppose the flow of
`current.
` Q. And I believe in your report you've said -- and
`please correct me if I am wrong -- that it's a
`characteristic of -- nearly every conductive wire has
`some element of opposition to flow of current?
` A. Short of, you know, going down the road to
`Stanford, into their superconductor laboratory, yes.
`And anything -- anything -- anything that conducts
`current has conductance.
` Impedance is the reciprocal of conductance, so
`we're only talking about the value. If it has a
`conductance of X, it has an impedance of 1 over X. If
`it has an impedance of X, it has a conductance of 1 over
`X.
` So a wire has an impedance. A resistor has an
`impedance. Almost anything through which current can
`flow is going to have an impedance.
` Arguably -- arguably, you know, air has an
`impedance. It is very, very, very high, and it's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-25
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`usually so high that we ignore it. But it sure does
`oppose the flow of current.
` Q. Quite a bit?
` A. Quite a bit.
` Q. On that vein, a lot of what we talk about and
`you discuss in the prior art are isolation transformers.
` Can you describe for me how an isolation
`transformer works in the context of current and current
`flow?
` A. Well, I talk about -- I don't think I
`specifically talk about isolation transformers.
` Can you point me to --
` Q. We talk about --
` A. -- where I use that term?
` Q. That might be my term in terms of talking about
`the transformers in the Ethernet equipment at the end of
`the --
` A. That might be your term. That's my point.
` Q. Okay. Well, let's start with the general of a
`transformer, and then we'll move on to the prior art in
`the Ethernet context.
` A. Okay.
` Q. How does a transformer work in respect to
`current?
` Maybe let's start with direct current, and then
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-26
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`we'll move on to something --
` A. Well, a transformer is a pair of two or more
`magnetically coupled inductances.
` And in the Ethernet context, in the context of
`a transformer used, you know, to carry Ethernet signals
`or to pass -- or to pass Ethernet pulses, in some form
`or another, what the transformer does is it takes
`current in one winding. The current in that winding
`induces a flux in the magnetic core. The flux in the
`magnetic core induces a voltage or a current in the
`secondary winding, and that is a way of transferring
`energy from one of the windings to the other windings,
`so that you can get energy transfer without having a
`physical connection between the wires of the -- without
`having a tangible physical connection. You have a
`magnetic flux physical connection between the wires on
`one side and the wires on the other.
` Q. And in the direct current context, how do you
`describe the impedance between the two coils?
` A. What do you mean by "direct current" in this
`case?
` Q. Well, can electric charge flow from one coil to
`the other?
` A. Energy can flow from one coil to the other.
` Q. Electrons don't travel from one coil to the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2057-27
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
`other?
` A. Electrons don't travel from one coil to the
`other, but that is not the relevant issue.
` The relevant issue is whether I can get energy
`to pass from one coil to the other.
` Q. And in this case, "current" was defined as the
`flow of electric charge; correct?
` A. "Current" is defined as the flow -- I
`believe...
` Q.