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 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _____________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _____________
` TALARI NETWORKS, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
` Patent Owner.
` _____________
`Case IPR2016-00976 U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`Case IPR2016-00977 U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048
` _____________
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` Taken at:
` La Quinta Inn & Suites
` 1 Holiday Park Drive
` Board Room
` Butte, Montana
` January 24, 2017
` 8:30 a.m.
`
` Job No. 117580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 1
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`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 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _____________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _____________
` TALARI NETWORKS, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
` Patent Owner.
` _____________
`Case IPR2016-00976 U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`Case IPR2016-00977 U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048
` _____________
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` Taken at:
` La Quinta Inn & Suites
` 1 Holiday Park Drive
` Board Room
` Butte, Montana
` January 24, 2017
` 8:30 a.m.
`
` Job No. 117580
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 1
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`Page 2
`
` FOR THE PETITIONER:
` THOMAS FITZPATRICK
` CHARLES KOCH
` Attorneys at Law
` PEPPER HAMILTON
` 555 Twin Dolphin Drive
` Redwood City, CA 94065
`
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` ROBERT MATTSON
` THOMAS YEBERNETSKY
` Attorneys at Law
` OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`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
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 2
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
` I N D E X
` Witness: Page:
` KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` Examination by Mr. Mattson . . . . . 5
`
`Page 3
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (None marked.)
`
`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
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 3
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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 4
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` JANUARY 24, 2017; BUTTE, MONTANA
` - - -
` BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to Notice, the
` Deposition of Kevin Negus, Ph.D., was taken at the time
` and place and with the appearances of counsel hereinbefore
` noted before Jonny B. Nordhagen, Court Reporter - Notary
` Public for the State of Montana.
`
` The following proceedings were had:
`
` KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.,
` having been called as a witness by the
` patent owner, being first duly sworn, was
` examined and testified as follows:
`
` MR. MATTSON: I've Robert Mattson for Patent
` Owner with the Oblon firm.
` With me is my colleague Tom Yebernetsky.
` MR. FITZPATRICK: Tom Fitzpatrick from Pepper
` Hamilton.
` With me is my colleague Chuck Koch on behalf
` of Talari.
`
` /// ///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 4
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. MATTSON:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Negus. I see that you've
` got some materials with you. Are those your declarations
` in these proceedings?
` A. Amongst other documents. I have a binder of a
` few things I've printed out just thinking that they might
` be handy for answering your questions. I have put some
` little handwritten tabs just to keep track of which one is
` which. These are all printouts. There are no notes or
` annotations that were not in the originals of them.
` I have a copy of the Karol patent.
` I have my declaration from the '235, my declaration
` from the '048.
` I have the petition for the '235, the petition for
` the '048.
` The patent owner's response for the 235, Patent
` Owner's response for the '048.
` The Williams declaration.
` The PTAB's institution decision on the '235, the
` PTAB's institution decision on the '048.
` And I have a copy of the patent owner's
` infringement contentions in the district court case.
` I would be happy to have you examine it, if you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 5
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` want.
` Q. No, thank you. Would you prefer to work from
` your copies or do you want to work from mine?
` A. I'm fine working from your copies, it's no
` problem. It's just to the extent that you don't provide
` me copies and I feel the need to reference a document in
` one of my answers, I have these handy. That's all.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you what's been
` marked as Exhibit 1005 in IPR Proceeding 2016-00977 for
` the '048 patent. Is that your declaration that you
` provided for the 977 IPR relating to the '048 patent?
` A. (Perusing document) -- yes, as best as I can
` tell.
` Q. I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1003, which is
` Exhibit 1003 in both IPR proceedings. Is this the '048
` patent?
` A. (Perusing document) -- yes.
` Q. And the '048 is U.S. Patent No. 7,406,048?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as
` Exhibit 1005 in IPR 2016-00976 for the '235 patent. Is
` that the declaration that you provided in the 976 IPR for
` the '235 patent?
` A. (Perusing document) -- yes, as best as I can
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 6
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` tell.
` Q. I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1001 from both
` IPR proceedings, U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235. Is that the
` '235 patent in Exhibit 1001?
` A. (Perusing document) -- yes.
` Q. And I've also handed you Exhibit 1006 from
` both proceedings, U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617. Is that the
` Karol reference that you refer to in your declarations?
` A. (Perusing document) -- yes.
` Q. Let's talk a little bit about your background.
` You've been an expert witness in a number of proceedings
` relating to patents, right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Can you approximate for me how many such
` proceedings there are or were?
` A. I think it would depend a bit on what you
` would define as a "proceeding." Sometimes cases are
` serial, sometimes they involve many parties.
` So do you count, for example, a patent in suit as a
` case, or a matter, or do you count a representation, you
` know, or a consulting assignment, or whatever? That's my
` only confusion.
` Q. Yeah, let's do it by representation. How many
` patent representations have you been involved in as an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 7
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` expert witness?
` A. I don't have an exact number. Certainly, the
` ones where I've filed reports or declarations, I believe I
` cited to that in this declaration. Let's take a look at
` that list -- (perusing document.)
` As you can see, Paragraph 27, you know, if we just
` counted those, we've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
` 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 -- 22.
` There's been a few since this was served, say 25.
` But then some of these are serial, you know, where
` there were multiple cases associated with them, and then
` there are other assignments that I've had that were
` privileged, that there is no disclosure to the other
` side, and so I don't list them here.
` Q. If we include the representations that aren't
` listed, what do you approximate the number of
` representations to be?
` A. I don't have a meaningful -- you can see it's
` obviously at least 25, you know, so I'll say it's more
` than 25.
` Q. You think you've had at least 10 other
` representations that are privileged and not listed here?
` A. That sounds high, but several at least.
` Usually, if you didn't write a report, then there just
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 8
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` wasn't as much time and effort spent on it and it tends to
` get forgotten over the years.
` Q. How many representations do you have
` currently?
` A. I couldn't tell you right offhand, but
` typically, you know, five to seven at a given moment in
` time is not an uncommon number.
` Q. Do you think you have more than that right
` now?
` A. I don't have that coming to mind, that I have
` an unusually high number or an unusually low number for my
` practice at the current moment in time.
` Q. Just sitting here, you can't tell me for sure
` how many representations you presently have?
` A. No, I can't. I would want to -- not when you
` use the words "for sure," definitely not.
` Q. Is it fair to say that your technical
` experience is primarily in the fields of semiconductors
` and wireless communications?
` A. No, it's not fair to say that.
` Q. What areas of technical expertise do you have?
` A. At least the ones that are described --
` MR. FITZPATRICK: Excuse me. Object as to
` form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 9
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` THE WITNESS: At least those described in my
` résumé as well as the brief background that I provided in
` this declaration.
` Q. (By Mr. Mattson) I believe you say in your
` declarations that you are qualified by education and
` experience to testify as an expert in the field of
` telecommunications. Do you consider yourself to be an
` expert in the field of telecommunications?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you ever personally configured a router?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Under what circumstances?
` A. In developing routers as a chief technology
` officer of a company that designed, developed, and
` manufactured routers. I've also done it as part of work
` in other litigations where routers were the products that
` were accused of infringing a particular patent or patents.
` Q. When you said you were the CTO of a company,
` what company was that?
` A. That would be Proxim; P-R-O-X-I-M, Proxim.
` Q. When you worked with Proxim or for Proxim,
` what was the nature of your development with routers?
` A. Well, there were several routers. We sold
` quite a few routers. Some were routers more for inside
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 10
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` the enterprise. They were typically switches and routers
` with typically a DHCP gateway integrated into the router.
` In other cases, we did appliances that would, for
` example, balance, did a lot of load balancing across
` wireless and wired network segments. So we had a routing
` appliance that did that, certainly, that I can recall.
` We have also done routers more recently in my most
` recent company, which is Fastback Networks, where we've
` also integrated routers into our wireless backhaul
` equipment.
` Q. When you used the word "enterprise," what did
` you mean?
` A. "Enterprise" is usually a reference to
` business applications where companies link computers or
` client devices within their facilities to each other and
` to other facilities. So "enterprise" is a fairly standard
` industry term over, you know, the last 30 years that I've
` seen.
` For example, much of Cisco's switches and router
` products are directed to use within the enterprise. It's
` a very common use of routers.
` Q. So when you say "within the enterprise," how
` does that contrast to things that are not within the
` enterprise?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 11
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` A. Well, in very broad strokes, you often find
` that they're service provider products, typically products
` that are sold to, say, Verizon or AT&T as well as many
` much smaller service providers or products that are sold
` to the enterprise.
` You know, Ford or Boeing or GE would buy enterprise
` products which they would use to network devices either
` within their facilities or across their facilities.
` Typically, "within" is considered a local area
` network, a LAN; "across their facilities" is usually
` considered a wide area network or a WAN. I've worked on
` both LAN and WAN products extensively across my career.
` Q. What did you mean by "service provider"?
` A. Again, I think I've answered that question,
` but service providers are typically -- not exclusively,
` but typically they provide WAN connectivity. So if an
` enterprise wants to join multiple facilities, they'll
` typically look to a service provider to provide the
` physical connectivity between those enterprise locations
` or sites. And often, not always, the enterprises will own
` their own routing appliances within their facilities.
` Q. You mentioned an appliance that you had worked
` with that used load balancing. Was it just one appliance
` or were there several different appliances?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 12
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` A. Oh, there's probably been several over the
` years. It's a very mature technology.
` Certainly, one that comes to mind was one that we
` developed around, I would say about 1999 or 2000 at
` Proxim, you know, similar -- well, earlier than the
` patents in suit here in the district court matter.
` It was mainly meant to balance a network usage
` across wireless and wireline networks in the enterprise.
` That was the primary goal of that product.
` Q. What was the name of the product?
` A. It was called "Harmony," "Proxim Harmony." It
` was a family of products, so there were a family of
` wireless access points that were branded under Harmony and
` then a family of access point controllers which were
` routers, effectively.
` Q. Have you ever personally configured a router
` for load balancing?
` A. I certainly configured those Proxim Harmony AP
` controllers for load balancing.
` Q. Were there any other routers that you've
` configured for load balancing?
` A. Probably. You know, I've worked with so much
` networking equipment over the past 35 years, it's
` difficult to remember every one.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 13
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` Q. Have you ever configured a router for
` multipath routing?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is multipath routing?
` A. Routing where there can be multiple paths
` between a source and a destination.
` Q. Do you know from a VPN is?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. It's a virtual private network.
` Q. Have you ever personally configured a router
` for a VPN?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` Q. What were the circumstances?
` A. I believe that I've done that, again, while at
` Proxim. It would have been in the 1998 to 2003 time
` frame. I believe I've also done that in the context of
` litigation consulting for Cisco some years later than
` that.
` Q. Does the Karol reference disclose the use of
` VPNs?
` A. The Karol reference discloses whatever the
` Karol reference discloses relative to the asserted claims
` of the patents in suit. With respect to VPNs, I will have
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 14
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` summarized that in my declaration.
` Going by memory only, I believe that the VPN
` appears in some of the dependent claims of the '048
` patent, and so I would refer you to my declaration for
` the '048 patent.
` Q. Okay. Well, my question was whether Karol
` discloses a VPN. Do you know whether Karol discloses a
` VPN or not?
` A. I have a section on that in my declaration,
` and I would refer you to that. I would be happy to go
` take a look at that and answer your question in additional
` detail, if that's what you want.
` Q. Yes, please.
` A. (Perusing document) -- okay. So my discussion
` of --
` Q. Before you start, which declaration are you
` referring to?
` A. As I said in my previous answer, I'm looking
` to the '048 declaration, which is marked Exhibit 1005. I
` don't know whether that's unique, but probably not. The
` other one's marked Exhibit 1005 as well, so let's just
` call it "the '048 declaration."
` In this one, an exemplary claim that cites to a VPN
` is Claim 5.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 15
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` Q. Which paragraph are you in?
` A. I'm at Paragraph 262 to start with. At least
` from Paragraphs 262 to 278, you will find my analysis and
` opinion on this topic with respect to this specific claim
` limitation and Karol.
` Q. Okay. In Paragraph 266 of your declaration
` for the '048 patent, you state:
` "Karol does not explicitly disclose the
` exemplary embodiment wherein the 'Internet-based network'
` is a 'VPN.'"
` Right?
` A. Those are the words that I wrote at that
` paragraph.
` Q. Are those words a true statement?
` A. I'm sorry?
` Q. Are those words a true statement?
` A. In the context of all of the rest of
` Paragraphs 262 to 278, those are words that I wrote and
` they are all true statements.
` Q. So they might be false in another context?
` MR. FITZPATRICK: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: What other context do you have
` in mind, Counsel?
` Q. (By Mr. Mattson) I don't have any other
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 16
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` context in mind. You said that in the context of these
` paragraphs, it's a true statement. I was wondering if you
` knew of some other context where it would be a false
` statement.
` A. That isn't something that I've considered.
` Q. So is it your opinion that it would be obvious
` to try to use a VPN network with Karol?
` A. Right here in Paragraph 266 of my '048
` declaration:
` "In my opinion, the knowledge and common sense
` of the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
` the invention was sufficient to extrapolate from the
` disclosures of Karol to such an interpretation at least
` because this was within the skill of person of ordinary
` skill in the art at the time of the invention, obvious to
` try and yielded predictable results as evident by at least
` the following reasons."
` And I provide, let's see, seven enumerated reasons
` why I believe that's true. That's just with respect to
` the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill.
` In addition to that, I also consider the
` combination of Karol and an additional reference, which I
` denoted as "Stallings" in this declaration for shorthand,
` and provided reasons why a person of ordinary skill would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 17
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` be specifically motivated to combine Karol and Stallings.
` That said, it is my opinion that there is no
` need -- no requirement to explicitly combine Karol and
` Stallings, that simply the common sense and knowledge of
` the person of ordinary skill alone in combination with
` Karol would meet the limitations of this exemplary
` Claim 5 which includes, amongst other limitations, that a
` selected network interface is a VPN.
` Q. If the selected network interface is a VPN,
` where would the VPN interface be located in the context of
` Karol?
` A. Well, a VPN is effectively a tunnel, an
` encapsulating tunnel through, typically considered to be
` through an internet-based network, a network that's based
` on IP protocol.
` So Karol describes, amongst many things, the use of
` a parallel network for connectivity between disparate
` sites with one path being connection oriented and another
` path being connectionless oriented, typically over an
` IP-based protocol.
` So one would normally look to the CL-CO gateway or
` additional routers disclosed within Karol as being the
` interface into the connectionless path between the
` disparate sites as being the place where a VPN interface
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 18
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` would be located.
` That said, I note that Karol -- again, my
` description of Claim 1, so not just the cited details
` here for Claim 5, would be appropriate for showing where
` that network interface is.
` Q. When you said that the interface could be at
` other routers in Karol, what other routers are you talking
` about?
` A. Those would be the other additional routers
` that are described in Karol.
` I'll point you to my expert declaration here in the
` '048 and the description of Claim 1. I reference that
` here in Paragraph 262 and describe that the controller,
` Claim 1, which includes network interfaces, is described
` in Paragraph -- for at least the reasons summarized in
` Paragraphs 148 to 204 above.
` Q. Have you ever personally configured a router
` for frame relay?
` A. I think I may have done that in the context of
` litigation previously but not for this particular case.
` Frame relay is very old, obsolete technology at this point
` in time.
` Q. "At this point in time," do you mean today as
` we sit here?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 19
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` A. Yes, yes. I mean, it was old 20 years ago,
` but it's extremely old today.
` Q. Have you ever configured a router for
` multiprotocol label switching?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you ever configured a router for
` asynchronous transfer mode?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. Have you ever configured a router for network
` failover?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you ever configured a router for OSPF?
` A. I believe so, but often OSPF is just a default
` so there's not really much configuration required.
` Q. Are you familiar with the OSPF specification?
` A. Not right off -- I don't have it memorized.
` I've seen it before.
` Q. What networks have you personally designed
` that include both LAN and WAN?
` A. Is that a question?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. Well, let me start in smaller steps, maybe.
` Have you ever personally architected a network that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 20
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` has both a LAN and a WAN?
` A. I've developed products that bridge from a LAN
` to a WAN, so --
` Q. Those were the router products you were
` talking about before?
` A. Correct, or at least those would be some of
` them, yes.
` Q. Have you ever personally written network
` routing software?
` A. I've supervised engineers who were writing
` Layer 3 software.
` Q. What were the circumstances for that
` supervision?
` A. At least while I was the chief technology
` officer of Fastback Networks as well as the chief
` technology officer of Proxim, Incorporated.
` Q. What does "OES" -- I'm sorry, what does "OSPF"
` stand for?
` A. Well, I can look it up for you, but if we're
` doing a --
` Q. "Open shortest path first"?
` A. Yeah. I was going to say, if you want to do a
` memory test, I'm going to say "open shortest path first,"
` but I'd prefer not to guess from memory.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 21
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` Q. Do you have an understanding of how OSPF
` works?
` A. I have a general understanding, yes.
` Q. Does OSPF use link-state advertisements?
` A. I believe it can use link-state
` advertisements.
` Q. Is a link-state advertisement the same thing
` as an LSA?
` A. That's the acronym that I believe the Karol
` patent uses for "link-state advertisement." Whether
` that's a standard industry acronym, I just don't remember.
` These are very old protocols.
` Q. What is a link-state advertisement?
` A. I'm going strictly by memory, but as I recall
` it, it's a multicast update that advertises, effectively,
` the current status of a particular link between one router
` port and another router port.
` Q. How frequently do those updates occur in OSPF?
` A. That, I don't recall.
` Is there a specific claim that you're interested
` in? I'm not familiar with where the frequency of update
` is claimed in either of the asserted '235 or '048 patent
` claims.
` Q. What portions of a network use link-state
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 22
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` advertisements?
` A. So you didn't answer my clarification
` question, Counsel. Are you just not planning to answer my
` question?
` Q. No. What portions of a network use link-state
` advertisements?
` A. What portions of what networks?
` Q. Well, let's just talk about the CL network in
` Karol. Do any portions of Karol's CL network use
` link-state advertisements?
` A. You'll have to point me to something specific
` in Karol.
` Q. Figure 1. There are depicted CL networks in
` Figure 1. Does Karol disclose using link-state
` advertisements in connection with Figure 1?
` A. I'll have to read it -- (perusing document.)
` All right, Counsel, I've taken just a brief look
` here at the Karol reference with respect to link-state
` advertisements. I'm not aware of any asserted claim of
` either the '235 or the '048 patent that recites a
` limitation of link-state advertisements and certainly the
` recited limitations are what are reflected in my
` declarations in this matter, but it does appear that
` there is a description of an exemplary embodiment of a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 23
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` network -- or at least of the CL-CO gateways that also
` appear in Figure 1 where there is a description of the
` concept of having the CL-CO gateways generate link-state
` advertisements. That does seem to be within the Karol
` patent.
` Q. Where is that description in Karol?
` A. Well, one exemplary place, at least, would be
` at Column 14, lines 23 to 27, for example.
` Q. Have you ever heard of a MinLSInterval?
` A. A what?
` Q. MinLSInterval, M-I-N-L-S-I-N-T-E-R-V-A-L.
` A. In what context?
` Q. In the context of OSPF.
` A. Again, I'm not familiar with that being a
` limitation in any of the asserted claims of the '235
` patent or the '048 patent.
` I don't recall that term specifically, and I don't
` really see how that's relevant to any of the asserted
` claims of the '235 or '048 patents.
` Q. In the context of OSPF, have you ever heard of
` an InfTransDelay spelled I-N-F-T-R-A-N-S-D-E-L-A-Y?
` A. Well, again, I'm going by memory, but I don't
` recall that being a recited limitation of any of the
` asserted claims of the '235 patent or of the asserted
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 24
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` claims of the '048 patent.
` And then as a parameter within OSPF, it's been
` awhile since I've read the OSPF specification and I
` really don't have it memorized. Of course, if that had
` been a limitation in any of the asserted claims, I
` probably would have looked at it in the context of my
` analysis that I did for this matter.
` Q. Your declarations include analysis of OSPF,
` right?
` A. I don't know that they do or don't
` specifically include an analysis of OSPF because OSPF was
` not a limitation that was asserted -- or, excuse me, not a
` limitation that I saw within any of the asserted claims of
` the '235 or '048 patents.
` Q. I may have missed your answer previously, but
` have you ever heard of an InfTransDelay in the context of
` OSPF?
` A. I may have.
` Q. But sitting here today, you don't recall?
` A. As I said previously, I don't have the OSPF
` specification memorized, and I'm not -- it's not apparent
` to me, and you certainly have not provided any context for
` me whatsoever as to what, if any, asserted claim of the
` '235 or '048 patent recites a limitation that would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`FatPipe, Ex. 2007, pg. 25
`Talari v. FatPipe
`IPR2016-00976
`
`
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN NEGUS, Ph.D.
` require a detailed description of OSPF at the level that
` you're asking me in order to show
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
