Samsung Petitioners’ Submission in
`Response to Proposed Supplemental
`Information from Patent Owner Pursuant to
`Motion filed Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0001
`
`
`Response to Proposed Supplemental
`Information from Patent Owner Pursuant to
`Motion filed Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0001
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0002
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 A I'm sorry. Which page?
`
` 2 Q You -- page 7, I believe, is the summary
`
` 3 of your opinions.
`
` 4 A Oh, I see.
`
` 5 Q If you want to refer to that or the table
`
` 6 of contents, whatever you want to refer to, to
`
` 7 answer these questions. I was just trying to give
`
` 8 you a road map.
`
` 9 A That's correct. I haven't -- I have not
`
` 10 opined on the noninfringing alternatives.
`
` 11 Q Okay. And I think we testified earlier
`
` 12 you're not offering opinions on invalidity, right?
`
` 13 A Correct.
`
` 14 Q And you're not offering opinions as to the
`
` 15 benefits of LTE, correct?
`
` 16 A I have not offered those opinions.
`
` 17 Q And you're not offering opinions in
`
` 18 rebuttal to Dr. Cooklev's opinions as to the
`
` 19 correlation between the LTE benefits and the
`
` 20 asserted patents, right?
`
` 21 A I don't believe I've addressed that.
`
` 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. We've been going
`
` 23 about an hour. Why don't we take a short break?
`
` 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at
`
` 25 10:02 a.m.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 54
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0003
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 I have addressed.
`
` 2 Q The first transmitting element is the one
`
` 3 that you opine as a basis of noninfringement, right?
`
` 4 A I focus my -- my discussion on that, but
`
` 5 that element, of course, relates to several of the
`
` 6 prior elements.
`
` 7 Q Are you opining that the accused Samsung
`
` 8 products do not determine whether there is data
`
` 9 stored in the Msg3 buffer when the uplink grant
`
` 10 signal is on the specific message?
`
` 11 A I'm not sure I understand the question.
`
` 12 Q I'm just asking, are you opining that this
`
` 13 determination step does not occur in the Samsung
`
` 14 accused products?
`
` 15 A I'd have to look at exactly what I said.
`
` 16 I -- I framed my response in light of the first
`
` 17 transmitting element. But, again, there are --
`
` 18 there are implications in that element relating to
`
` 19 some of the other elements.
`
` 20 Q Okay. And what about the second
`
` 21 determination step in Claim 1; are you opining that
`
` 22 the accused Samsung products do not infringe,
`
` 23 because they do not perform that determination step?
`
` 24 A Same answer.
`
` 25 Q What about the last, transmitting new data
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 60
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0004
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 limitation; do you opine that the accused Samsung
`
` 2 products do not perform that transmission of new
`
` 3 data?
`
` 4 A I don't believe I addressed the -- that
`
` 5 "transmitting new data" claim element in my report.
`
` 6 Q Now, you do not offer any opinions that
`
` 7 the accused Samsung products do not infringe
`
` 8 dependent Claims 2 through 6 for independent reasons
`
` 9 beyond the one you provided for Claim 1, right?
`
` 10 A That's correct. In -- in other words,
`
` 11 just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I
`
` 12 believe those claims are not infringed. But -- but
`
` 13 the reason that I've expressed is that the
`
` 14 independent claim does not infringe, and so, of
`
` 15 course, that means the associated dependent claims
`
` 16 cannot be infringed.
`
` 17 Q Right. But you don't have any independent
`
` 18 opinions of noninfringement on any of the dependent
`
` 19 claims, right?
`
` 20 A It's confusing to use the word
`
` 21 "independent" in that question.
`
` 22 Q Okay.
`
` 23 A So I -- I don't have any distinct opinions
`
` 24 that apply only to any of the dependent claims.
`
` 25 Q Okay. All right. And the same would be
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 61
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0005
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 19 Q And just so I'm understanding, your HARQ
`
` 20 retransmission -- adaptive retransmission is your
`
` 21 basis of your noninfringement opinion, right?
`
` 22 MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 23 THE WITNESS: Again, I -- I wouldn't --
`
` 24 yeah, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
`
` 25 The -- the -- just so the record is clear,
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 83
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0006
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 in paragraph 280, I reference Evolved's statements
`
` 2 in the IPR regarding "only if." And -- and my
`
` 3 noninfringement opinion is based on the fact that
`
` there is a
`
` 5 transmission that falls outside, that does not meet
`
` 6 Evolved's "only if" requirement.
`
` 7 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 8 Q And so that's -- I'm just trying to get
`
` 9 some clarity on that.
`
` 10 So your opinion is, is that in the
`
` 11 adaptive retransmission, there's transmission of
`
` 12 stored data in the Msg3 buffer in response to an
`
` 13 uplink grant on the PDCCH.
`
` 14 A There is transmission of the data that is
`
` 15 stored in the Msg3 buffer in response to an uplink
`
` 16 grant on PDCCH; that is correct.
`
` 17 Q And when does that occur?
`
` 18 A I'm not sure I understand the question.
`
` 19 Q Well, you -- you didn't say "adaptive
`
` 20 retransmission," so I'm trying to understand what
`
` 21 scenario you're referring to --
`
` 22 A Yeah, that's -- yeah --
`
` 23 Q -- when that occurred.
`
` 24 A -- the scenario when that would occur
`
` 25 would be that if there is a -- an initial Msg3
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 84
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0007
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 transmission (and it would be a Scenario 3 that I
`
` 2 talked about before), and for whatever reason the
`
` 3 base station does not receive the whole transmission
`
` 4 and doesn't -- doesn't get it (it gets cut off or
`
` 5 something), and so then it will send a -- an uplink
`
` 6 grant on PDCCH; and, in response to that, then the
`
` 7 UE will transmit the data stored in the Msg3 buffer,
`
` 8 thereby placing it -- taking an action that places
`
` 9 it -- that violates Evolved's requirement for that
`
` 10 claim element. Therefore, that claim element is not
`
` 11 met.
`
` 12 Q And that process of resending the Msg3
`
` 13 that you just described is adaptive retransmission?
`
` 14 A People can call it that. But, again,
`
` 15 whatever you call it, that -- I'm -- I'm focused on
`
` 16 the language of the claim, and that claim, as
`
` 17 Evolved has said it, must -- that -- how -- what
`
` 18 that -- actually, the language of that first
`
` 19 transmitting element and what that -- that element
`
` 20 must mean if we take Evolved's statements to the --
`
` 21 to PTO and
`
` which, by contrast,
`
` 22 do not do what is required by the language in light
`
` 23 of Evolved's statements.
`
` 24 Q Right. But in LTE that's called adaptive
`
` 25 retransmission, right?
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 85
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0008
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 A It's called adaptive retransmission,
`
` 2 but -- but, again, that -- that's the -- to me
`
` 3 that's not the -- the core -- that -- that's not the
`
` 4 point with respect to -- if you want to evaluate
`
` 5 infringement, you just look at the claim element --
`
` 6 or I'm looking at the claim element. I'm -- I'm
`
` 7 looking at what Evolved says -- what the patent says
`
` 8 the claim element requires, what Evolved says the
`
` 9 claim element requires, and then what
`
` do, and there's a difference.
`
` do not do what that claim element requires
`
` 12 for the reason I -- I have identified in, for
`
` 13 example, paragraph 284 and elsewhere.
`
` 14 (Exhibit 7 marked)
`
` 15 BY MR. SCHULTZ:
`
` 16 Q So I've handed you Exhibit 7, which is
`
` 17 36.321. You see that?
`
` 18 A I do.
`
` 19 Q All right. And, if you could turn to
`
` 20 Section 5.4.2, which is titled "HARQ operation," is
`
` 21 on Bates-labeled page EVOLVED-586169.
`
` 22 A Okay.
`
` 23 Q Do you understand that this provides --
`
` 24 this portion of the LTE standard provides the
`
` 25 operation of the HARQ entity?
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 86
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0009
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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 A I'm not --
`
` 5 MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand --
`
` 7 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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0010
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 A I think I cited it somewhere here.
`
` 2 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 Q Right, but that's not my question.
`
` 18 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 MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 24 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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0011
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0012
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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 MR. STIERNBERG: Objection. Form.
`
` 7 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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0013
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`John David Villasenor - CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - 8/25/2017
`Evolved Wireless, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`
` 1 thought was most important was the key portion that
`
` 2 I did, in fact, cite in my report and confirm.
`
` 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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0014
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0015
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0016
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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 A That's right.
`
` 21 Q Can you flip to paragraph 276? And just
`
` 22 read that paragraph to yourself.
`
` 23 A Yes.
`
` 24 Q Have you read it?
`
` 25 A Yes.
`
`Depo International, Inc.
`(763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9722 | info@depointernational.com
`
`Page 310
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0017
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0018
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0019
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`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
`EXHIBIT 1048-0020
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`ERRATA SHEET
`
`NAME OF CASE: Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF (D. Del.)
`
`DATE OF DEPOSITION:
`
`August 25, 2017
`
`NAME OF WITNESS:
`
`John David Villasenor, Ph.D.
`
`Reason Codes:
`1.
`To clarify the record.
`2.
`To conform to the facts.
`3.
`To correct transcription and/or translation errors.
`
`Page
`12
`13
`14
`14
`16
`26
`30
`82
`82
`95
`
`Line
`1
`20
`3
`4
`23
`19
`9
`11
`14
`3
`
`“transmitting
`buffer”
`element is
`as the code
`In terms of the
`I haven’t
`about “pulled
`the data,” but
`Not sure if I’d call it a flow
`preamble information
`believe that
`it’s a set
`prach-ConfigIndex
`
`97
`97
`101
`119
`128
`130
`138
`138
`145
`149
`149
`153
`192
`
`221
`291
`292
`
`9
`10
`6
`17
`6
`8
`11
`12
`5
`11
`25
`20
`23
`
`7
`2
`1
`
`
`
`Should Read
`Now Reads
`consider it an exhaustive
`consider an exhaustive
`ISO
`HISO
`highlights kind
`highlight kind
`example, it doesn’t
`example, doesn’t
`been discussing
`been in discussing
`where I was doing
`there I was doing
`I’m -- quite
`I -- quite
`got a -- multiple function got multiple functions
`used to
`used for
`of the -- of the ’236
`of my report
`patent
`transmitting
`buffer
`element in Claim 18 is
`as does the code
`Terms of the
`Haven’t
`about pulled
`the data, but
`If I call it a flow
`preamble meditation
`believe that create
`it’s -- set
`prach-
`ConfigurationIndex
`FrequencyOffset
`
`
`prach-FreqOffset
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reason
`1
`3
`1
`1
`1
`1
`3
`1
`1
`2
`
`1, 3
`1, 3
`2
`1
`3
`3
`1, 3
`1, 3
`1, 3
`3
`1
`1
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`1, 3
`3
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0021
`
`
`
`PROFFERED BY SAMSUNG PETITIONERS
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE
`
`Page 2
`Reason
`3
`1, 2
`3
`1, 2
`3
`2, 3
`1
`1, 2
`3
`2
`see
`below
`
`Should Read
`
`
`line 1870
`
`1938
`
`2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning of
`meaning from
`matters
`matters here. I understand that in an IPR, the
`here.
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`applies. I was not asked to analyze, and I did
`not provide an opinion regarding, the claim
`language under that standard.
`
`Now Reads
`
`line 8- -- 1870
`
`18- -- 1938
`
`
`2616
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`292
`292
`292
`294
`295
`295
`299
`299
`301
`308
`313
`
`Line
`10
`21
`22
`9
`4
`14
`5
`17
`11
`3
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Note re: page 313, line 15: I understand from counsel that Plaintiff seeks to introduce portions
`of my testimony as evidence in several IPR proceedings. I further understand from counsel
`that a broader claim construction standard applies in IPR proceedings than in district court
`proceedings. I was not asked to analyze, and I did not analyze, the claim language under the
`standard for IPR proceedings. Accordingly, I provide the above clarification to place my
`deposition testimony in context.
`
`I, John David Villasenor, Ph.D., do hereby certify that I have read pages 1-313 of the
`transcript of my deposition taken on August 25, 2017, and found the same is a correct
`transcription of the answers given to the questions therein propounded, except for the
`corrections noted in this attached Errata Sheet.
`
`
`Signed:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`October 9, 2017
`
`ZTE/HTC
`EXHIBIT 1048-0022
`
`
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
