UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` 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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
` 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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2016-00574 USPN 8,902,760
`
`
`
`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.
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
