Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 1
`
` U N I T E D S T A T E S P A T E N T A N D T R A D E M A R K O F F I C E
`
` B E F O R E T H E P A T E N T T R I A L A N D A P P E A L B O A R D
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`D U O D E C A D I T S E R V I C E S )
`
`L U X E M B O U R G S . A . R . L . , )
`
`F R I E N D F I N D E R N E T W O R K S I N C . , )
`
`a n d S T R E A M R A Y I N C , ) I n t e r P a r t e s R e v i e w
`
` P e t i t i o n e r s , ) C a s e N o . 2 0 1 5 - 0 1 0 3 6
`
` v . ) P a t e n t N o . 8 , 3 6 4 , 8 3 9
`
`W A G A C Q U I S I T I O N L L C , )
`
` P a t e n t O w n e r . )
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
`
` D E P O S I T I O N O F
`
` K E T A N D A S H A R A T H M A Y E R - P A T E L , P h . D .
`
` W e d n e s d a y , A p r i l 6 , 2 0 1 6
`
` 9 : 4 1 a . m .
`
` D e p o s i t i o n o f K E T A N D A S H A R A T H
`
` M A Y E R - P A T E L , P h . D . , t a k e n b y P e t i t i o n e r D u o D e c a d
`
` I T S e r v i c e s L u x e m b o u r g S . à r . l . , p u r s u a n t t o
`
` N o t i c e , d a t e d M a r c h , 3 , 2 0 1 6 , a t t h e o f f i c e s o f
`
` L e w i s B a a c h P L L C , T h e C h r y s l e r B u i l d i n g , 4 0 5
`
` L e x i n g t o n A v e n u e , 6 2 n d F l o o r , N e w Y o r k , N e w
`
` Y o r k , b e f o r e B r a n d o n R a i n o f f , a F e d e r a l
`
` C e r t i f i e d R e a l t i m e R e p o r t e r a n d N o t a r y P u b l i c o f
`
` t h e S t a t e o f N e w Y o r k .
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PAGE 1 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 2
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS: KETAN DASHARATH MAYER-PATEL, Ph.D.
`
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`By Mr. O'Brien........................... 7
`
` * * *
`
`Page 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` Exhibit Patel 1 ........................... Page 7
`Three-page document entitled: Petitioner's Notice of
`deposition of Dr. Mayer-Patel, dated March 3, 2016
`(no Bates Nos.)
`
`P R E V I O U S L Y - M A R K E D E X H I B I T S
`
` Exhibit 2004 ............................. Page 27
`Multipage document bearing heading on first page:
`Ketan Mayer-Patel (no Bates Nos.)
`
` Exhibit 2005 ............................. Page 28
`Multipage document entitled: Declaration of Prof.
`Ketan Mayer-Patel, dated January 24, 2016 (no Bates
`Nos.)
`
` Exhibit 8 ................................ Page 49
`Multipage document entitled: Decision: Institution of
`Inter Partes Review, dated October 23, 2015 (no Bates
`Nos.)
`
`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
`
`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
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioner DuoDecad IT Services
`Luxembourg S.à r.l.
` 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20006-4078
` 202.452.7000
`BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ.
` 202.452.7032
` kevin.obrien@bakermckenzie.com
`
`VENABLE® LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioners FriendFinder Networks Inc.
`and Streamray Inc.
` Rockefeller Center
` 1270 Avenue of the Americas
` New York, New York 10020
` 212.307.5500
`BY: FRANK M. GASPARO, ESQ.
` 212.370.6273
` fgasparo@venable.com
`
`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 3
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S (continued)
`
`2 3
`
`LEWIS BAACH PLLC
`4 Attorneys for Patent Owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
`5 The Chrysler Building
`6 405 Lexington Avenue
`7 62nd Floor
`8 New York, New York 10174
`9 212.826.7001
`10 BY: RONALD ABRAMSON, ESQ.
`11 212.822.0163
`12 ronald.abramson@lewisbaach.com
`13 ARI J. JAFFESS, ESQ.
`14 212.822.0165
`15 ari.jaffes@lewisbaach.com
`16
`17
`18
`19 ALSO PRESENT:
`20 ANDREW MacARTHER, ESQ., Venable® LLP
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PAGE 2 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 6
`
`P R E V I O U S L Y - M A R K E D E X H I B I T S
`
` Exhibit 1001 ............................. Page 51
`Multipage document entitled: United States Patent
`No.: US 8,364,839 B2, dated January 29, 2013 (no
`Bates Nos.)
`
` Exhibit 1004 ............................. Page 55
`Multipage document entitled: United States Patent
`No.: 5,822,524, dated October 13, 1998 (no Bates
`Nos.)
`
` Exhibit Patel 2003 ....................... Page 55
`Document Bates stamped ChenFH077 through 119,
`multipage document entitled: Declaration Under 37
`C.F.R. Section 1.131, dated January 2, 1997
`
` * * *
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Page 8
`
`1 Thank you for being here.
`2 Have you ever been deposed before?
`3
`
` A. A. Yes.
`
` A. A.
`4
`
` Q. Q. When?
`
` Q. Q.
`5
`
` A. A. I can't remember the exact dates.
`
` A. A.
`6 I have been deposed on a number of
`7 different occasions over the past five or seven
`8 years, on a number of matters like this one.
`9
`
` Q. Q. Okay. So we'll get back to that in a
`
` Q. Q.
`10 minute.
`11 Your counsel has probably gone over
`12 the deposition process. But just so you know --
`13 MR. ABRAMSON: I'm sorry to interrupt.
`14 (Recess from 9:42 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.)
`15 BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`16
`
` Q. Q. I'll be asking you questions and
`
` Q. Q.
`17 asking you to give an audible response so that
`18 the court reporter can transcribe it.
`19 Do you understand that?
`20
`
` A. A. I do.
`
` A. A.
`21
`
` Q. Q. If you don't understand a question
`
` Q. Q.
`22 that I'm asking, please say so. I'll try to
`23 reword or find out what's the problem with the
`24 question.
`25 Is that fair enough?
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
` * * *
` P R O C E E D I N G
` Wednesday, April 6, 2016
` New York, New York
` 9:41 a.m.
` * * *
` (Exhibit Patel 1, Three-page document
` entitled: Petitioner's Notice of deposition of
` Dr. Mayer-Patel, dated March 3, 2016 (no Bates
` Nos.), marked for identification)
`KETAN DASHARATH MAYER-PATEL, Ph.D.,
` having been duly sworn was examined and
` testified as follows:
`EXAMINATION
`BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`
` Q. Q. Professor Patel, do you prefer to go
`
` Q. Q.
` by "professor" or "doctor"?
`
` A. A. "Professor" is fine.
`
` A. A.
`
` Q. Q. Thank you.
`
` Q. Q.
` My name is Kevin O'Brien and I
` represent one of the petitioners in this case,
` DuoDecad It Services.
` And my colleague, Frank Gasparo, is
` also here representing two other petitioners,
` FriendFinder and Streamray, so you know.
`
`1
`
` A. A. Sure.
`
` A. A.
`2
`
` Q. Q. But if you give an answer, then I will
`
` Q. Q.
`3 assume you understood the question.
`4
`
` A. A. Okay.
`
` A. A.
`5
`
` Q. Q. If you need a break, just let me know
`
` Q. Q.
`6 if you need a break.
`7 But if there is a question pending, I
`8 would ask that you answer the question before
`9 the break, okay?
`10
`
` A. A. Okay.
`
` A. A.
`11
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`12 You said you have been deposed before.
`13 Could you tell me how many times
`14 roughly?
`15
`
` A. A. Roughly eight to 10.
`
` A. A.
`16
`
` Q. Q. Over what period of time has that
`
` Q. Q.
`17 been?
`18
`
` A. A. Over 10 years.
`
` A. A.
`19
`
` Q. Q. Eight to 10 over the last 10 years?
`
` Q. Q.
`20
`
` A. A. Yeah -- I think so.
`
` A. A.
`21
`
` Q. Q. Can you -- to the extent you can
`
` Q. Q.
`22 recall, can you tell me what cases they were
`23 involved in?
`24 I'm sorry. Let me -- let me rephrase.
`25 Were these all as expert witnesses?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`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
`
`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 3 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 10
`
`1 Or were they nonexpert cases as well?
`2
`
` A. A. They were all expert witness matters
`
` A. A.
`3 in various forms.
`4
`
` Q. Q. Have you ever been involved in a civil
`
` Q. Q.
`5 litigation other than as an expert witness?
`6
`
` A. A. No.
`
` A. A.
`7
`
` Q. Q. Have you ever been involved in a
`
` Q. Q.
`8 criminal proceeding other than as an expert
`9 witness?
`10
`
` A. A. When I was in college, I witnessed a
`
` A. A.
`11 gang beat up a bystander in Berkeley. I was
`12 called as a testifying witness.
`13
`
` Q. Q. Is that it?
`
` Q. Q.
`14
`
` A. A. That I can recall, yes.
`
` A. A.
`15
`
` Q. Q. So putting that instance aside, all of
`
` Q. Q.
`16 your testimony under oath has been in the
`17 context of an expert witness.
`18 Is that correct?
`19
`
` A. A. That is correct.
`
` A. A.
`20
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`21 So to the extent you can recall, could
`22 you list the cases that you appeared as an
`23 expert?
`24
`
` A. A. Sure.
`
` A. A.
`25 There are a number, so I'm not going
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
` A. A. The patent was found valid and
`
` A. A.
`2 infringed and there was a judgment for, I
`3 believe, $4 million.
`4
`
` Q. Q. And the -- just to go back -- the
`
` Q. Q.
`5 Apple IPR request -- what happened with that
`6 one?
`7
`
` A. A. I have no idea.
`
` A. A.
`8
`
` Q. Q. And the GE IPR request?
`
` Q. Q.
`9
`
` A. A. Again, I have no idea.
`
` A. A.
`10
`
` Q. Q. Okay. Continue.
`
` Q. Q.
`11
`
` A. A. Then a couple years ago -- again, I am
`
` A. A.
`12 not exactly sure on the dates -- I was an expert
`13 for Netflix. This was an International Trade
`14 Court -- ITC -- matter. And they were the
`15 defendant. And involved patents being
`16 asserted -- or not asserted, but -- I'm not sure
`17 what the right language is for the ITC cases
`18 are. They are slightly different than, I think,
`19 a normal patent litigation. So -- but that, I
`20 also testified at the ITC.
`21
`
` Q. Q. Do you recall who the complainant was?
`
` Q. Q.
`22
`
` A. A. I believe it was -- I don't think it
`
` A. A.
`23 was called EchoStar at the time, but I think
`24 it's whatever EchoStar turned into.
`25
`
` Q. Q. Anything else?
`
` Q. Q.
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 to be able to do them all from memory. The more
`2 recent ones are obviously fresher in my memory.
`3 Last year, I was -- I was deposed and
`4 was the expert for Apple in an IPR matter.
`5 I believe Apple was the one that
`6 requested the IPR, so they were not the patent
`7 holder.
`8 I believe -- let's see. I think there
`9 was -- last year or the year before, a similar
`10 IPR where my client was General Electric.
`11 Let's see. I was the expert in a
`12 patent litigation matter that concluded last
`13 year -- but lasted a couple years -- which
`14 involved OpenText. And as the plaintiff was
`15 their patent -- or family of patents -- being
`16 asserted against Box.com. And that one went to
`17 trial.
`18
`
` Q. Q. Who did you represent in that?
`
` Q. Q.
`19
`
` A. A. OpenText.
`
` A. A.
`20
`
` Q. Q. That was the patent holder?
`
` Q. Q.
`21
`
` A. A. That was the patent holder, yes.
`
` A. A.
`22
`
` Q. Q. How did that -- and you testified at
`
` Q. Q.
`23 trial?
`24
`
` A. A. I did.
`
` A. A.
`25
`
` Q. Q. How did that turn out?
`
` Q. Q.
`
`1
`
` A. A. Sure.
`
` A. A.
`2 Not going to be remember all of them,
`3 but let's see what comes to mind.
`4 Well, I remember the very first time I
`5 was ever deposed, which is way back. It was a
`6 matter -- a trade secret matter. An independent
`7 software developer in North Carolina had shown
`8 his system to what he thought was a friend of
`9 his. And the friend went off and started a
`10 company, basically building the same thing, and
`11 sold the company for a lot of money.
`12 What else?
`13
`
` Q. Q. Who did you represent?
`
` Q. Q.
`14
`
` A. A. The independent software developer.
`
` A. A.
`15
`
` Q. Q. What was its name?
`
` Q. Q.
`16
`
` A. A. I know it was Rony versus Wingo, but I
`
` A. A.
`17 can't remember whether I was Rony or Wingo.
`18 That was -- the only reason it came to
`19 mind so clearly was because that was the very,
`20 very first one.
`21 There was a matter, maybe -- gosh, I
`22 want to say -- six years ago, where I was the
`23 expert witness for a patent holder that was --
`24 the patents were being asserted against -- at
`25 the time, I think they were known as WebEx? Or
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PAGE 4 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 14
`
`1 Citrix? I can't remember.
`2 They have both since been bought by
`3 various bigger companies that involved remote
`4 desktop software.
`5 There have been a lot of others. But
`6 I can't -- I mean, I'm not going to be able to
`7 remember the details.
`8
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`9 Do you have a list of them somewhere?
`10
`
` A. A. I do.
`
` A. A.
`11
`
` Q. Q. When were you retained in this
`
` Q. Q.
`12 proceeding?
`13
`
` A. A. In this proceeding? I think the
`
` A. A.
`14 retainment agreement started early last
`15 summer -- is my recollection -- or maybe August.
`16 I'm not exactly sure.
`17
`
` Q. Q. Have you been retained for both the
`
` Q. Q.
`18 district court proceeding and the Patent Office
`19 proceeding?
`20
`
` A. A. I'm not exactly sure what the language
`
` A. A.
`21 in the engagement says. I would have to review
`22 the engagement letter.
`23
`
` Q. Q. So you are not sure?
`
` Q. Q.
`24
`
` A. A. Not sitting here right now, I can't
`
` A. A.
`25 say for certain.
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
` A. A. Well, ultimately it was an individual.
`
` A. A.
`2 But the law firm, I believe, was Ward
`3 & Olivo.
`4
`
` Q. Q. Did you review -- was it -- was it
`
` Q. Q.
`5 with one patent?
`6 Or a family of patents?
`7
`
` A. A. I can't remember exactly whether they
`
` A. A.
`8 presented me with one or a family.
`9
`
` Q. Q. Was it the same Price inventor -- that
`
` Q. Q.
`10 is, the inventor of the current patent?
`11
`
` A. A. I believe so.
`
` A. A.
`12
`
` Q. Q. Was it the same technology?
`
` Q. Q.
`13
`
` A. A. My understanding is: Yes.
`
` A. A.
`14
`
` Q. Q. Do you know if it's the same patent?
`
` Q. Q.
`15
`
` A. A. It may be.
`
` A. A.
`16
`
` Q. Q. Did you look at the patent at that
`
` Q. Q.
`17 time?
`18
`
` A. A. I believe I did.
`
` A. A.
`19
`
` Q. Q. Did you have any discussions with
`
` Q. Q.
`20 whoever contacted you about the patent?
`21
`
` A. A. I think we talked not so much about
`
` A. A.
`22 the patent per se, as -- but more about the
`23 technology and the technique.
`24
`
` Q. Q. What did you say?
`
` Q. Q.
`25 What did you tell him?
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
` Q. Q. Who contacted you?
`
` Q. Q.
`2
`
` A. A. Mr. Abramson.
`
` A. A.
`3
`
` Q. Q. Before your engagement, had you ever
`
` Q. Q.
`4 heard of the patent owner WAG?
`5
`
` A. A. I had heard of the -- I believe what
`
` A. A.
`6 WAG -- the prior company that became WAG --
`7 Surfer -- Surfer Net, or something like that.
`8
`
` Q. Q. In what context had you heard of them?
`
` Q. Q.
`9
`
` A. A. So many years ago, I was approached by
`
` A. A.
`10 Surfer Net to evaluate their -- or to talk about
`11 their technologies with regard to their patent.
`12 And I had a discussion with them. And
`13 then it didn't seem to go anywhere.
`14
`
` Q. Q. Was that in the context of a
`
` Q. Q.
`15 litigation?
`16
`
` A. A. Not that I'm aware of.
`
` A. A.
`17
`
` Q. Q. Around what time was that roughly?
`
` Q. Q.
`18
`
` A. A. Yeah -- I would have to review my
`
` A. A.
`19 records to know the exact date.
`20 But I'm thinking, like, five years
`21 ago.
`22
`
` Q. Q. Who contacted you?
`
` Q. Q.
`23
`
` A. A. I can't remember the names.
`
` A. A.
`24
`
` Q. Q. Was it a law firm?
`
` Q. Q.
`25 Or an individual?
`
`1 MR. ABRAMSON: Objection, privileged.
`2 Do not answer.
`3 MR. O'BRIEN: Who is asserting the
`4 privilege?
`5 MR. ABRAMSON: WAG is asserting the
`6 privilege -- work product.
`7 MR. O'BRIEN: WAG is not the one who
`8 spoke to the witness.
`9 MR. ABRAMSON: Our predecessor.
`10 We own the privilege.
`11 MR. O'BRIEN: I completely disagree
`12 with that.
`13 MR. ABRAMSON: No, it's our
`14 predecessor.
`15 MR. O'BRIEN: You don't own a
`16 privilege.
`17 MR. ABRAMSON: Our client -- my client
`18 was consulting with this expert regarding his --
`19 regarding his opinion in anticipation of
`20 litigation.
`21 And that's subject to work product.
`22 MR. O'BRIEN: Well, what are you
`23 asserting?
`24 Work product?
`25 Or attorney client privilege?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PAGE 5 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 18
`
`1 MR. ABRAMSON: Work product, for sure.
`2 MR. O'BRIEN: It's -- well, it's not
`3 yours to assert. It's not yours to assert.
`4 It's a different law firm for a different
`5 company. Completely unfounded.
`6 MR. ABRAMSON: Give me a minute.
`7 (Recess from 9:56 a.m. to 9:57 a.m.)
`8 MR. ABRAMSON: To the extent that you
`9 are inquiring about a discussion with an
`10 attorney for my client or its predecessor
`11 involving -- involving an analysis of this
`12 patent, we are going to object to that on the
`13 basis of work product.
`14 And direct the witness not to answer.
`15 So you could ask questions.
`16 But we are not going to let him answer
`17 those questions.
`18 BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`19
`
` Q. Q. Are you going to answer my question?
`
` Q. Q.
`20
`
` A. A. No.
`
` A. A.
`21
`
` Q. Q. How many discussions did you have?
`
` Q. Q.
`22
`
` A. A. In-person?
`
` A. A.
`23
`
` Q. Q. Well, either in-person, or by
`
` Q. Q.
`24 telephone, or --
`25
`
` A. A. There was one in-person meeting.
`
` A. A.
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
` A. A. I can't recall.
`
` A. A.
`2
`
` Q. Q. What was the general nature of the
`
` Q. Q.
`3 experiments?
`4
`
` A. A. Basically, taking network packet
`
` A. A.
`5 traces to various video services and analyzing
`6 those traces.
`7
`
` Q. Q. You gave the results to the law firm?
`
` Q. Q.
`8
`
` A. A. That is correct.
`
` A. A.
`9
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`10 Who at the law firm did you speak
`11 with?
`12
`
` A. A. I don't remember.
`
` A. A.
`13
`
` Q. Q. But are you confident it was Ward &
`
` Q. Q.
`14 Olivier?
`15
`
` A. A. I'm pretty confident that it was Ward
`
` A. A.
`16 & Olivo -- or Olivier -- so Olivo is my
`17 recollection.
`18
`
` Q. Q. Ward & Olivo.
`
` Q. Q.
`19 Did you ever hear from them again?
`20
`
` A. A. Not that I recall.
`
` A. A.
`21
`
` Q. Q. About how much time did you spend on
`
` Q. Q.
`22 that?
`23
`
` A. A. I can't remember exactly.
`
` A. A.
`24 Maybe 10 or 15 hours.
`25
`
` Q. Q. Have you performed packet traces in
`
` Q. Q.
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` I don't recall whether there were any
` telephonic conversations.
`
` Q. Q. Where did the meeting take place?
`
` Q. Q.
`
` A. A. I believe in New York.
`
` A. A.
`
` Q. Q. Was this in connection with a
`
` Q. Q.
` litigation?
`
` A. A. Not that I'm aware of.
`
` A. A.
`
` Q. Q. Were you aware that Surfer Net was
`
` Q. Q.
` involved in a litigation with Sirius?
`
` A. A. Not at the time --
`
` A. A.
`
` Q. Q. Well --
`
` Q. Q.
`
` A. A. -- no.
`
` A. A.
`
` Q. Q. No?
`
` Q. Q.
` Did you send anything in writing?
`
` A. A. I conducted a few experiments that we
`
` A. A.
` discussed in the meeting; and sent them the
` results of those experiments.
`
` Q. Q. What did they involve?
`
` Q. Q.
` MR. ABRAMSON: Objection.
` I'm not going to allow that.
` (Pause)
`BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`
` Q. Q. You conducted experiments?
`
` Q. Q.
`
` A. A. I did.
`
` A. A.
`
` Q. Q. How many?
`
` Q. Q.
`
`1 this litigation?
`2
`
` A. A. No.
`
` A. A.
`3
`
` Q. Q. Now, other than the time we are
`
` Q. Q.
`4 discussing now with Surfer Net, were you aware
`5 that -- of their relationships with WAG?
`6
`
` A. A. I don't understand your question.
`
` A. A.
`7
`
` Q. Q. Well, when you were contacted with
`
` Q. Q.
`8 respect to Surfer Net, my original question was:
`9 Had you heard of WAG previously to being
`10 contacted last summer?
`11 And I believe you said you knew about
`12 them from your involvement with Surfer Net.
`13
`
` A. A. So when I was contacted by WAG, they
`
` A. A.
`14 told me that that is what Surfer Net had become.
`15
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`16 Have you ever met Mr. Price?
`17
`
` A. A. Not that I recall.
`
` A. A.
`18
`
` Q. Q. Have you ever met anyone -- any --
`
` Q. Q.
`19 anyone connected with this litigation -- the
`20 present litigation -- other than at Mr.
`21 Abramson's law firm?
`22
`
` A. A. No.
`
` A. A.
`23
`
` Q. Q. You haven't met Mr. Emerson?
`
` Q. Q.
`24
`
` A. A. Not that I recall.
`
` A. A.
`25
`
` Q. Q. Or Mr. Grywalski?
`
` Q. Q.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PAGE 6 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
` A. A. Not that I recall.
`
` A. A.
`2
`
` Q. Q. How many packet traces did you do?
`
` Q. Q.
`3 Do you remember?
`4
`
` A. A. For Surfer Net?
`
` A. A.
`5
`
` Q. Q. Yeah.
`
` Q. Q.
`6
`
` A. A. I can't remember.
`
` A. A.
`7
`
` Q. Q. Ten?
`
` Q. Q.
`8
`
` A. A. Maybe 10.
`
` A. A.
`9
`
` Q. Q. In that ballpark?
`
` Q. Q.
`10
`
` A. A. Sure.
`
` A. A.
`11
`
` Q. Q. How many hours have you spent on this
`
` Q. Q.
`12 litigation?
`13
`
` A. A. On this litigation? Approximately --
`
` A. A.
`14 and again, from memory -- maybe 20 hours.
`15 (Pause)
`16
`
` Q. Q. One last thing.
`
` Q. Q.
`17 Do you have copies of those packet
`18 traces?
`19
`
` A. A. No.
`
` A. A.
`20
`
` Q. Q. What form did you give them to the law
`
` Q. Q.
`21 firm Ward & Olivo?
`22
`
` A. A. I'm not sure I actually gave them the
`
` A. A.
`23 traces themselves.
`24 I think I gave them a -- just a report
`25 of what my impression of the traces were.
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`Page 24
`
`1 And I would direct the witness that he
`2 may answer the question without getting into the
`3 substance of any specific conversations that
`4 we've had.
`5
`
` A. A. So with respect to this case, I have
`
` A. A.
`6 been asked to discuss the technology of the
`7 patent. I have been asked to review the
`8 material in connection to this IPR. I have been
`9 asked to create a declaration with respect to
`10 this IPR; and generally been asked about my
`11 opinion about the technology.
`12 BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`13
`
` Q. Q. Have you reviewed any of the
`
` Q. Q.
`14 technology of my client, DuoDecad?
`15
`
` A. A. Not that I know of.
`
` A. A.
`16
`
` Q. Q. You would know if you had, right?
`
` Q. Q.
`17
`
` A. A. If it was pointed out to me that this
`
` A. A.
`18 was DuoDecad's technology, sure.
`19
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`20 Not to your knowledge? Okay.
`21 And FriendFinder -- have you reviewed
`22 any of their technology?
`23
`
` A. A. I have not -- again, not to my
`
` A. A.
`24 knowledge.
`25
`
` Q. Q. You haven't been asked to do any
`
` Q. Q.
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
` Q. Q. Do you still have a copy of the
`
` Q. Q.
`2 report?
`3
`
` A. A. Not that I would know of.
`
` A. A.
`4 In other words, maybe on some back-up
`5 disk somewhere; but not -- not that I could --
`6 that I know I have a copy of.
`7
`
` Q. Q. Do you generally keep copies of
`
` Q. Q.
`8 reports?
`9
`
` A. A. While the matter is going on.
`
` A. A.
`10
`
` Q. Q. So you might have a copy.
`
` Q. Q.
`11 You just don't know?
`12
`
` A. A. I don't know.
`
` A. A.
`13
`
` Q. Q. What's your billing rate?
`
` Q. Q.
`14
`
` A. A. For this matter?
`
` A. A.
`15
`
` Q. Q. Yes.
`
` Q. Q.
`16
`
` A. A. $600 an hour.
`
` A. A.
`17
`
` Q. Q. $600 an hour?
`
` Q. Q.
`18
`
` A. A. Yes.
`
` A. A.
`19
`
` Q. Q. What have you been asked to do for
`
` Q. Q.
`20 this case?
`21 MR. ABRAMSON: Before he answers, I
`22 want to consult with my colleague.
`23 (Recess from 10:04 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.)
`24 MR. ABRAMSON: So the question was:
`25 What have you been asked to do for this case?
`
`1 packet traces.
`2 Is that correct?
`3
`
` A. A. I have not conducted any packet
`
` A. A.
`4 traces.
`5 MR. ABRAMSON: Kevin, you are aware
`6 that the scope of examination here is limited to
`7 the -- scope of cross-examination is limited to
`8 the scope of direct.
`9 I mean, you can ask him questions that
`10 go to his credibility.
`11 But otherwise, you know, we are an
`12 IPR. So that is the limitation in the rules.
`13 MR. O'BRIEN: I understand.
`14 I'm simply trying to understand what
`15 has been asked of the witness that's in front of
`16 me.
`17 BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`18
`
` Q. Q. So you have prepared a declaration in
`
` Q. Q.
`19 this case, correct?
`20
`
` A. A. That is correct.
`
` A. A.
`21
`
` Q. Q. Have you prepared any other reports in
`
` Q. Q.
`22 connection with the IPR?
`23
`
` A. A. No.
`
` A. A.
`24
`
` Q. Q. Have you formed an opinion -- with
`
` Q. Q.
`25 respect to the IPR or otherwise -- of who a
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PAGE 7 of 28
`
`WEBPOWER, INC.'S EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`
`Ketan Dasharath Mayer-Patel - April 6, 2016
`
`Page 26
`
`1 person of ordinary skill in the art is?
`2
`
` A. A. I have an understanding of who a
`
` A. A.
`3 person of ordinary skill in the art, as
`4 described in Dr. Polish's declaration with
`5 respect to this IPR.
`6
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`7 Do you agree with Dr. Polish's
`8 position on a person of ordinary skill in the
`9 art?
`10
`
` A. A. Roughly, yes.
`
` A. A.
`11
`
` Q. Q. Are you a person of ordinary skill in
`
` Q. Q.
`12 the art?
`13
`
` A. A. Yes.
`
` A. A.
`14
`
` Q. Q. We'll get into your declaration in a
`
` Q. Q.
`15 few minutes.
`16 But I wanted to know: Do you have any
`17 changes that you know of that you want to make
`18 to your declaration?
`19
`
` A. A. I happened to notice yesterday that,
`
` A. A.
`20 in paragraph 4, it implies I have been an
`21 associate professor since 2000, which is
`22 incorrect.
`23 I was a professor since 2000 or --
`24 that was when I was first hired by the
`25 University of North Carolina.
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`Page 28
`
`1 something else that would have those cases?
`2
`
` A. A. I maintain a document which is a list
`
` A. A.
`3 of cases I have been involved in.
`4
`
` Q. Q. I see. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`5 Is the document called anything in
`6 particular?
`7
`
` A. A. It has a file name on my computer --
`
` A. A.
`8 maybe KMP-engagements?
`9
`
` Q. Q. Okay.
`
` Q. Q.
`10 Is this a complete list of your
`11 articles, to your knowledge?
`12
`
` A. A. I believe so.
`
` A. A.
`13
`
` Q. Q. And the CV is current, to the best of
`
` Q. Q.
`14 your knowledge?
`15
`
` A. A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
`
` A. A.
`16 (Pause)
`17 MR. O'BRIEN: Let me hand you your
`18 declaration, which is P-tab paper No. 2005.
`19 (Exhibit 2005, Multipage document
`20 entitled: Declaration of Prof. Ketan
`21 Mayer-Patel, dated January 24, 2016 (no Bates
`22 Nos.), introduced)
`23 BY MR. O'BRIEN:
`24
`
` Q. Q. Professor Patel, is that the
`
` Q. Q.
`25 declaration we referred to earlier?
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`1 And I was promoted from assistant to
`2 associate around 2005-2006.
`3 So the sentence there is misstating.
`4
`
` Q. Q. Other than that, is there any other
`
` Q. Q.
`5 changes that you would make to your declaration?
`6
`
` A. A. Not that I'm aware of.
`
` A. A.
`7 (Discussion off the record)
`8 (Exhibit 2004, Multipage document
`9 bearing heading on first page: Ketan Mayer-Patel
`10