`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. [PR2016-01198
`
`U.S. Patent 9,179,005
`
`DECLARATION IN SUPPORT PATENT OWNER
`
`RESPONSE TO INTER PARTES PETITION
`
`
`
`Voip-Pal EX. 2009
`IPR2016—01 198
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2009
`IPR2016-01198
`
`
`
`IPR20 1 6-0 1 198
`
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal
`
`1, Stuart Gare, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`In 2005 I was employed by Smart 421, a company headquartered in
`
`Ipswitch, England as a Lead Consultant.
`
`2.
`
`In June 2005 Smart 421 was retained by Digifonica perform a high
`
`level technical review and appraisal of the Digifonica VoIP application software
`
`and development processes. My understanding of the terms of the engagement
`
`were that all information received by Smart 421 regarding Digifonica’s system was
`
`to remain confidential.
`
`3.
`
`In June 2005 Smart 421 received numerous documents
`
`from
`
`Digifonica electronically on the Smart 421 FTP site.
`
`I have reviewed an email
`
`from Clay Perreault at Digifonica to John Rutter dated: “6/6/05, 5:37 PM” (Ex.
`
`2005) which is also cc’d to me.
`
`I have also reviewed an email from Clay Perreault
`
`to John Rutter dated: “6/15/05, 3:28 PM” (Ex. 2006) which is also cc’d to me.
`
`These emails are consistent with my memory of receiving electronic documents
`
`fi‘om Digifonica in June 2005.
`
`4.
`
`Along with my colleague John Rutter,
`
`I visited the offices of
`
`Digifonica i11 Vancouver, Canada in June 2005 and met with several people
`
`including Emil Bjorsell and Clay Perreault. During that visit the Digifonica team
`
`demonstrated the operation of their system. Digifonica demonstrated the ability of
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01 198
`
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal
`
`their system to place phone calls between two SIP phone devices, on the same or
`
`different nodes, and between a SIP phone device and the PSTN network.
`
`5.
`
`John Rutter and I prepared a 35-page report entitled “Technical
`
`Review of Digifoniea Vo[P System” dated July 5, 2005 (Ex. 2003).
`
`I have
`
`reviewed a copy of this report and it appears to be the report that John Rutter and I
`
`prepared in July 2005.
`
`6.
`
`John Rutter emailed the report to Digifonica on July 5, 2005.
`
`I have
`
`reviewed a copy of an email from John Rutter to Clay Perreault dated: “Tue, 5 Jul
`
`2005 17:41 :31 +0100” (Ex. 2007), which was also cc’d to me, and it appears to be
`
`the email that John Rutter sent to Digifonica with the attached report on July 5,
`
`2005.
`
`7.
`
`The following are quotes from the Smart 421 report which accurately
`
`reflected our review of the Digifonica system at that time:
`
`“The core code appears to be very well written and has been tested in
`
`live operation and destructive testing by developers over a period of
`
`time.” [p. 5]
`
`“Version 1 is the historical development path leading to the current
`
`live system, and Version 2 is a newer development path that has been
`
`implemented in recent months to include more formal measures
`
`against software deliveries.” [p. 9]
`
`
`
`
`
`IPRZOI6-01198
`
`Apple Inc. V. Voip-Pal
`
`“This also provides the opportunity for further documentation and
`
`other quality control measures to be applied, without the overhead of
`
`enforcing this additional work on the phase 1 system that is currently
`
`in operation.” [p. 15]
`
`“This approach was partly down to issues of resources and costs,
`
`getting a very functional system operational with a strong
`
`understanding of the underlying technology and network integration
`
`issues of a Vol? solution.” [p. 20]
`
`“With a live system in operation, the need for strict release controls
`
`and quality assurance is increased to avoid potential service
`
`disruption. In recent weeks, Digifonica have filled further positions in
`
`delivery management and these issues are under control for the
`
`Version 2 development, as well as for any maintenance releases
`
`required against the live Version 1 software.” [p. 21]
`
`8.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
`
`of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: C’;( ‘Q21 2°"'_7
`
`By;
`
`.
`
`
`
`