throbber
Declaration of Thomas La Porta
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bright House Networks, LLC,
`WideOpenWest Finance, LLC,
`Knology of Florida, Inc.
`Birch Communications, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Focal IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,457,113 B2
`Filing Date: June 22, 2010
`Issue Date: June 4, 2013
`
`BRANCH CALLING AND CALLER ID BASED CALL ROUTING
`TELEPHONE FEATURES
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS F. LA PORTA IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,457,113
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`
`
`Bright House Networks - Ex. 1002, Page 1
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2064 - 1
`La Porta Declaration Excerpts
`IPR2016-01257
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas La Porta
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,457,113
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
`25.
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the
`
`law on patent validity. Attorneys for the Petitioners explained certain legal
`
`principles to me that I have relied upon in forming my opinions set forth in this
`
`report.
`
`A.
`26.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”)
`
`I understand that I must undertake my assessment of the claims of the
`
`’113 patent from the perspective of what would have been known or understood by
`
`a POSA as of the invention dates of the prior art references in 1997 and 1998. I
`
`understand the claimed priority date of the patent claims is May 4, 2000. The
`
`opinions and statements that I provide herein regarding the ’113 patent and the
`
`references that I discuss are made from the perspective of the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the time frame of the mid- to late 1990s and 2000.
`
`27. Counsel has advised me that to determine the appropriate level of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art I may consider the following factors: (a) the types of
`
`problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto;
`
`(b) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`28. The
`
`relevant
`
`technology
`
`field
`
`for
`
`the
`
`’113 patent
`
`is
`
`11
`
`
`
`Bright House Networks - Ex. 1002, Page 11
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2064 - 2
`La Porta Declaration Excerpts
`IPR2016-01257
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas La Porta
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,457,113
`telecommunications networks. Based on this, a POSA at the time of the ’113 patent
`
`filing would have been an engineer or computer scientist with at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree, or equivalent experience in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at
`
`least three years of industry experience in the fields of analog and digital
`
`communications, inclusive of exposure to telecommunications standards as applied
`
`in circuit-switched and packet-switched networks.
`
`29. Unless otherwise specified, when I mention a POSA or someone of
`
`ordinary skill, I am referring to someone with at least the above level of knowledge
`
`and understanding.
`
`30. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. Indeed, in addition to
`
`being a person of at least ordinary skill in the art, I have worked closely with—and
`
`taught—many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`31. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’113 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the mid-1990s to mid-2000 time frame.
`
`32. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, the content of the ’113 patent, my years of experience in
`
`the field, my understanding of the basic standards that would be relevant to
`12
`
`
`
`Bright House Networks - Ex. 1002, Page 12
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2064 - 3
`La Porta Declaration Excerpts
`IPR2016-01257
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas La Porta
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,457,113
`IX. CONCLUSION
`
`277. I reserve the right to offer opinions relevant to the invalidity of the
`
`'113 patent claims at issue and/or offer testimony in support of this Declaration.
`
`278. In signing this Declaration, I recognize that the Declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case.
`
`If required, I will appear for cross(cid:173)
`
`examination at the appropriate time.
`
`279. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true and, further, that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`Dated:
`
`( / 1~ Jt,
`-+-, --'-.......---
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dr. Thomas La Porta
`
`Bright House Networks - Ex. 1002, Page 184
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX2064 - 4
`La Porta Declaration Excerpts
`IPR2016-01257
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket