Patent Owner’s Submission of
`Proposed Supplemental Information
`Pursuant to Motion filed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 1
`
`
`Proposed Supplemental Information
`Pursuant to Motion filed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 1
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`
` 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
` 4
`
` 5 EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, )
` )
` 6 Plaintiff, )
` )
` 7 vs. ) Case No.
` ) C.A. 15-545-SLR-SRF
` 8 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. )
` LTD., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS )
` 9 AMERICA, INC., )
` )
` 10 Defendants. )
` ______________________________)
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14 CONFIDENTIAL -- OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` 15 SOURCE CODE
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF JOHN DAVID VILLASENOR,
`
` 19 taken on behalf of STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC., at
`
` 20 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, 555 Twin
`
` 21 Dolphin Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores,
`
` 22 California, beginning at 9:02 A.M., Friday,
`
` 23 August 25, 2017, before QUYEN N. DO, Certified
`
` 24 Shorthand Reporter No. 12447.
`
` 25
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 2
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 2
`
`Q Is it software code? How would you
`
` 3 describe the code it's in?
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
`A I'm not --
`
`MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
`THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand --
`
`MR. SCHULTZ: That's a poor question. Let
`
` 8 me think about it. I'll ask it again later. All
`
` 9 right.
`
` 10
`
`Q (By Mr. Schultz) And just so I'm clear as
`
` 11 your opinion on noninfringement, your
`
` 12 noninfringement opinion is based on what you claim
`
` 13 Evolved has said is the scope of the claim, right?
`
` 14
`
`A Among other things. I think I was very
`
` 15 clear about that. My noninfringement opinion is
`
` 16 based, first and foremost, on the language of, for
`
` 17 example, the first transmitting element in Claim 1;
`
` 18 the language -- the plain language of that element;
`
` 19 as well as the -- there's some text in the patent
`
` 20 that supports the interpretation -- the "only if"
`
` 21 interpretation; and then Evolved also confirmed
`
` 22 and -- and made very clear its view of that claim
`
` 23 element in the IPR that I cited somewhere here. Let
`
` 24 me see where.
`
` 25
`
`Q Okay.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 94
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 3
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
`A I think I cited it somewhere here.
`
`Yeah, I cited this, for example, in
`
` 3 paragraph 272 of the -- of the '236 patent.
`
` 4
`
`Q So it's your opinion, as you've read the
`
` 5 '236 patent and Claim 1, that one of skill in the
`
` 6 art would understand that first transmitting step to
`
` 7 be "only if"?
`
` 8
`
`MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 9 Misstates testimony.
`
` 10
`
`THE WITNESS: Yeah, I -- I -- I -- I --
`
` 11 I -- I'm not sure I have anything to add. I mean,
`
` 12 I -- I've read -- to understand the claim, you
`
` 13 read -- read the claim, the claim element, and you
`
` 14 also read the specification, and in this case we
`
` 15 also have other evidence provided by the patentee.
`
` 16 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
`Q Right, but that's not my question.
`
`My question is, Is it your opinion that
`
` 19 one of skill in the art reading Claim 1 of the '236
`
` 20 patent, in that first transmission limitation, would
`
` 21 understand that that transmission of stored Msg3
`
` 22 data only occurs when those two conditions are true?
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
`THE WITNESS: I mean, my -- I -- I agree
`
` 25 with the "only if" interpretation of Evolved. So I
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 95
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 4
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 want to make sure I -- that's not taken out of
`
` 2 context. I -- I agree that -- that -- you know, if
`
` 3 you look at what I've said -- what -- what -- I've
`
` 4 characterized Evolved's statement in paragraph 280,
`
` 5 and I've cited -- I've cited that also in
`
` 6 paragraph 272, and -- and that's consistent with my
`
` 7 own reading of -- of the claim and -- and -- and in
`
` 8 light of the specification.
`
` 9 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 10 Q Okay. So I'm trying to separate out what
`
` 11 Evolved has said. I'm just asking, is it your
`
` 12 opinion, as of one of skill in the art, that reading
`
` 13 Claim 1 of the '236 patent, that first transmitting
`
` 14 limitation should be interpreted as "only if"?
`
` 15 MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 16 THE WITNESS: Again, I want to make sure
`
` 17 that it depends -- I want to make sure that my
`
` 18 understanding of "only if" is the same as your
`
` 19 understand [sic] of -- -standing of "only if." And
`
` 20 so my understanding of the "only if" is that
`
` 21 there -- these -- these two -- these two conditions,
`
` 22 and both of them would -- both of them would need to
`
` 23 be met in order for -- for a -- in a system meeting
`
` 24 or a method meeting Claim 1, both of those
`
` 25 requirements here would -- would need to be met.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 96
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 5
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 2
`
`Q And you -- and you would agree that one of
`
` 3 skill would understand that transmission of stored
`
` 4 Msg3 data to only occur when those two conditions
`
` 5 are true.
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
`MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
`THE WITNESS: I would understand that this
`
` 8 transmitting element transmitting the data stored in
`
` 9 the Msg3 buffer would occur only if those things
`
` 10 are -- are true; that's right.
`
` 11 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 12
`
`Q And then it's your opinion that that's
`
` 13 further confirmed by Evolved's statements in the
`
` 14 IPR.
`
` 15
`
`MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 16 Misstates testimony.
`
` 17
`
`THE WITNESS: Yeah. Evolved seems to have
`
` 18 a similar view of -- of the -- the scope of that
`
` 19 element.
`
` 20
`
`MR. SCHULTZ: Looks like we need to take a
`
` 21 break for the tape, so . . .
`
` 22
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of
`
` 23 Media 1. We are off the record. The time is
`
` 24 11:07 a.m.
`
` 25
`
`(Break taken from 11:07 a.m. to
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 97
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 6
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3 MR. SCHULTZ: I have no further questions
`
` 4 at this time.
`
` 5 MR. STIERNBERG: I just have a few short
`
` 6 questions. If it's all right, I'll just sit here
`
` 7 and kind of . . .
`
` 8 EXAMINATION
`
` 9 BY MR. STIERNBERG:
`
` 10 Q Dr. Villasenor, could you get Exhibit 1,
`
` 11 your report, in front of you, please.
`
` 12 A Yes.
`
` 13 Q And I'd like you to turn, first, to
`
` 14 paragraph 23, which, I believe, is in the legal
`
` 15 principles section.
`
` 16 A Yes.
`
` 17 Q Are you there?
`
` 18 A Yes.
`
` 19 Q In paragraph 23, could you look, let's
`
` 20 see, five lines up from the bottom where it starts
`
` 21 "I further understand." Do you see that?
`
` 22 A Yes.
`
` 23 Q Could you read that sentence into the
`
` 24 record?
`
` 25 A "I further understand that statements
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 307
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 7
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 made by a patent owner during an inter
`
` 2 partes," p-a-r-t-e-s, "review proceeding
`
` 3 can narrow the meaning from [sic] a
`
` 4 claim."
`
` 5 Q Could you also read the last sentence of
`
` 6 that paragraph into the record, please.
`
` 7 A "I apply" -- I'm sorry.
`
` 8 "For the term" -- "For terms that the
`
` 9 Court did not construe, I applied the
`
` 10 plain and ordinary meaning of the term to
`
` 11 a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
` 12 the time of the alleged invention."
`
` 13 Q So was the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
` 14 the claim terms that you applied, in your analysis
`
` 15 in your report, based on statements made by Evolved
`
` 16 during an inter partes review proceeding?
`
` 17 A No. It's based on the -- my reading of --
`
` 18 of the patent.
`
` 19 Q Do you recall reviewing documents from an
`
` 20 inter partes review proceeding?
`
` 21 A I do. And those documents were consistent
`
` 22 with how I understand those terms.
`
` 23 Q Just so that we're on the same page, if
`
` 24 you look at paragraph 269 of your report . . .
`
` 25 A Yeah.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 308
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 8
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 Q This section is titled "IPR Proceedings
`
` 2 for the '236 Patent." Do you see that?
`
` 3 A Yes.
`
` 4 Q And there's a reference here to
`
` 5 "IPR2016-00757." Do you see that?
`
` 6 A Yes.
`
` 7 Q Is that the -- one of the IPR proceedings
`
` 8 that you reviewed?
`
` 9 A Yes.
`
` 10 Q If you could look at paragraph 272 of your
`
` 11 report.
`
` 12 A Yes.
`
` 13 Q Could you read . . . actually . . . yeah,
`
` 14 could you read that paragraph into the record. You
`
` 15 don't have to include the citations.
`
` 16 A "Evolved asserts that 'A person of
`
` 17 ordinary skill would read the claims as
`
` 18 transmitting Msg3 data only if the
`
` 19 condition in 1(e) is satisfied.'... This
`
` 20 means that, under Evolved's view, a person
`
` 21 of ordinary skill would read the claims as
`
` 22 not transmitting Msg3 data when the 'only
`
` 23 if' condition in 1(e) is not satisfied."
`
` 24 Q From your review of the documents in -- in
`
` 25 a inter partes review proceeding, was it your
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 309
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 9
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 understanding that the parties had a disagreement
`
` 2 over whether the word "if" means "only if"?
`
` 3
`
`A I think that was a point of -- of -- of
`
` 4 disagreement, if I remember correctly.
`
` 5
`
`Q And do you provide an opinion, in your
`
` 6 report, on whether the word "if" should mean "only
`
` 7 if" independent of those IPR proceedings?
`
` 8
`
`A I don't recall. My -- my recollection,
`
` 9 from the patent, is that -- that the patent itself,
`
` 10 even absent the IPR, would be interpreted with "only
`
` 11 if."
`
` 12
`
`Q Are you referring to -- are you referring
`
` 13 to paragraph 273?
`
` 14
`
`A Yeah. This is -- there's text in the
`
` 15 patent itself, which I reviewed, and is available
`
` 16 independent of the IPR. That supports that
`
` 17 position.
`
` 18
`
`Q And that's describing an embodiment of the
`
` 19 patent, right?
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
`A That's right.
`
`Q Can you flip to paragraph 276? And just
`
` 22 read that paragraph to yourself.
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`A Yes.
`
`Q Have you read it?
`
`A Yes.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 310
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 10
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 Q Okay. Can you read the last two sentences
`
` 2 of that paragraph into the record?
`
` 3 A "I understand that statements made by
`
` 4 a patent owner during an IPR proceeding
`
` 5 can determine the scope of a claim. In
`
` 6 light of Evolved's statement [sic] in the
`
` 7 IPR for all Asserted '236 Claims, the data
`
` 8 stored in the msg3 buffer is transmitted
`
` 9 'only if' (a) there is data stored in the
`
` 10 msg3 buffer and (b) the specific message
`
` 11 is the random access response . . .
`
` 12 message."
`
` 13 Q So I want to focus on the -- on the first
`
` 14 part of that sentence, where you say, "In light of
`
` 15 Evolved's statements in the IPR for all Asserted
`
` 16 '236 Claims." Do you see that?
`
` 17 A I do.
`
` 18 Q So the basis of your opinion that the word
`
` 19 if means "only if" is Evolved's arguments to the
`
` 20 Patent Office, right?
`
` 21 A That corroborates. That -- that's not the
`
` 22 only source of that, but that is consistent with
`
` 23 what I could conclude from the patent as well.
`
` 24 Q You don't provide that opinion anywhere in
`
` 25 your report, right?
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 311
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 11
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 A I don't know that I directly state that,
`
` 2 but it -- it doesn't matter, because once Evolved
`
` 3 has stated it, then that's -- that's sufficient.
`
` 4 Q You understand that patents are supposed
`
` 5 to be -- strike that.
`
` 6 You understand that claims are -- are --
`
` 7 to one of ordinary skill in the art are meant to be
`
` 8 understood in light of the prosecution history,
`
` 9 right?
`
` 10 A That's right.
`
` 11 Q And you -- you've also stated, I think, in
`
` 12 paragraph 23, that they're to be understood in light
`
` 13 of statements made during IPR proceedings, right?
`
` 14 A That's right.
`
` 15 Q And you based your understanding of the
`
` 16 word "if," in the claims of the '236 patent, on
`
` 17 those IPR proceedings, right?
`
` 18 A But, again, it's same understanding, so
`
` 19 it -- it's -- it's -- I guess I am not sure I
`
` 20 understand the question. So I -- I -- I believe
`
` 21 that the patent, read without the IPR, leads to the
`
` 22 "only if" conclusion, and that is also what Evolved
`
` 23 states in the IPR. So, even if someone were to take
`
` 24 a position, absent the IPR, that it has a broader
`
` 25 meaning, that is foreclosed, then, once you have the
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 312
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 12
`
`
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 IPR. So my view is consistent in -- I -- I consider
`
` 2 them consistent.
`
` 3 Q You're not taking a position one way or
`
` 4 the other on this "if" versus "only if" argument in
`
` 5 the IPR proceedings, right?
`
` 6 A I guess I'm not sure I understand the
`
` 7 question.
`
` 8 Q You're not opining anywhere, on your
`
` 9 report, that "if" should mean "only if" versus "if,"
`
` 10 right?
`
` 11 A I'm -- I'm not doing the analysis. I --
`
` 12 I'm simply stating the fact that Evolved has argued
`
` 13 for the narrower potential interpretation, and,
`
` 14 therefore, that's the interpretation that -- that
`
` 15 matters here.
`
` 16 Q Okay.
`
` 17 MR. STIERNBERG: No more questions from
`
` 18 me.
`
` 19 MR. SCHULTZ: None from me.
`
` 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's
`
` 21 proceeding. The number of media used is four. We
`
` 22 are off the record. The time is 5:25 p.m.
`
` 23 (The deposition concluded at 5:25 p.m.)
`
` 24 --oOo--
`
` 25
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 313
`
`ZTE/HTC v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-00757
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2011
`Page 13
`
`
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
