`Proposed Supplemental Information
`Pursuant to Motion filed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`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
`
`Apple v. Evolved Wireless, LLC
`IPR2016-01229
`Evolved Wireless Exhibit 2016
`Page 13
`
`