Page 1
`
`Case No.
`IPR2016-01256
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`---------------------------------------
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`-against-
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`---------------------------------------
`July 13, 2017
`9:48 a.m.
`
` Deposition of LEONARD FORYS, Ph.D., taken by
`Patent Owner, pursuant to Notice, held at the
`offices of Bryan Cave LLP, 1290 Avenue of the
`Americas, New York, New York, before Joseph R.
`Danyo, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
`within and for the State of New York.
`
`Job No. 126871
`Reported by: Joe Danyo
`
`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
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 1
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`Case No.
`IPR2016-01256
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`---------------------------------------
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`-against-
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`---------------------------------------
`July 13, 2017
`9:48 a.m.
`
` Deposition of LEONARD FORYS, Ph.D., taken by
`Patent Owner, pursuant to Notice, held at the
`offices of Bryan Cave LLP, 1290 Avenue of the
`Americas, New York, New York, before Joseph R.
`Danyo, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
`within and for the State of New York.
`
`Job No. 126871
`Reported by: Joe Danyo
`
`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
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 1
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
` BRYAN CAVE
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1290 Avenue of the Americas
` New York, New York 10104
` By: ALEXANDER WALDEN, ESQ.
` FRANK FABIANI, ESQ.
`
` NELSON BUMGARDNER
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 3131 West 7th Street
` Fort Worth, Texas 76107
` By: JOHN MURPHY, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` SIBER LAW
` 28 West 44th Street
` New York, New York 10036
` By: VICTOR SIBER, ESQ.
`
` ~oOo~
`
`12
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 2
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
` Forys
`L E O N A R D J. F O R Y S, Ph.D., having
`been first duly sworn by Joseph R. Danyo, a
`Notary Public, was examined and testified as
`follows:
`EXAMINATION BY MR. MURPHY:
` Q. So I would like to introduce for the
`record, on behalf of patent owner, John Murphy
`and Vic Siber are here.
` Dr. Forys, how are you today?
` A. Good.
` Q. Have you given deposition testimony
`for an IPR proceeding before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was the most recent deposition
`you gave in that regard?
` A. How many?
` Q. When was the most recent one you gave
`in that regard?
` A. Probably springtime, March or April
`of this year. I think it was April. I have
`given so many that I can't remember.
` Q. So you are aware that in an IPR
`deposition, it is improper to talk to your
`attorneys during the break regarding the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 3
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` Forys
`substance of the deposition?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. So from time to time I may ask
`that question after the breaks. I just want to
`make sure you are on notice of that.
` A. Sure.
` Q. When were you first contacted by
`Bryan Cave regarding this case?
` A. Well, a little history here. I was
`first contacted by Akerman in June of last year
`to work on the litigation part of it, but it was
`quite brief because we got suspended because
`there was an IPR going on, so I did maybe a week
`or two.
` Not much work at all. Just read the
`patent and formed some thoughts, but then about
`May I believe is when I got a call, it was a
`conference call from Bryan Cave, and I believe
`Akerman was involved in that, two people from
`Akerman, about that time frame.
` Q. Around May of 2017.
` A. Yes. That's correct.
` Q. And that is when they brought the
`IPR?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 4
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. Yes. That was for the amended
`claims, yes.
` Q. Did you write your declarations in
`this case?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Do you recall around when you started
`drafting your declarations?
` A. Early June. We had talked about it
`in May. We had a series of conference calls, the
`positions and the prior art and things like that,
`but the actual putting pen to paper started
`around that time as I recall.
` Q. And are you familiar that there is a
`former declarant in this case, Dr. Lavian?
` A. Yes, I am aware of that.
` Q. Are you aware of why you are being
`used as the expert now in this and he is not?
` A. And I don't know why. Yes.
` Q. All right. Did you attempt to do any
`prior art searches with regard to this IPR?
` A. Yes, and it is pretty clear by
`looking at some of the things that are clearly
`mine. Some of the prior art is clearly mine.
`Some of the technical papers and things like
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 5
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`that.
` Q. What do you mean clearly yours?
` A. Well, when I cited the thing by Fred
`Andrews. Fred Andrews in a 1985 paper, I believe
`it was, he was my vice president at Bellcore. So
`I had a personal relationship with the man, and I
`was very much aware of that article. So that was
`just an obvious one for me to pull up.
` Q. Okay. I want to talk to you a little
`bit about some of your opinions regarding the PBX
`art.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Are you familiar with that category?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is it your opinion that this prior
`art discloses PBX are connected to telephones on
`one side and to PSTN tandem switch on the other
`side or that PBXs route calls to users within a
`local geographic area?
` A. I think generally, yes.
` Q. And you understand if I ever say like
`the data or the invention or the year 2000, we're
`referring to the priori data of these patents
`going back in time and figuring out what the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 6
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`technology looked like at that time?
` A. Sure.
` Q. So in the year 2000, do you agree
`that PSTN tandem switches did not connect
`directly to telephones?
` A. There was a category of hybrid
`switches, so I don't know that. I think there
`might have been exceptions to that.
` Q. When I say PSTN tandem switch, what
`is your definition of that?
` A. Well, I think the courts defined that
`already. It is a switch that connects two
`entities in a communication network, something
`like that, and it is not an end-office switch, I
`guess.
` Q. Right.
` A. But a switch, I think it is an
`interconnection between two switches.
` Q. Do you agree that for the opinions
`that you formed in your declaration, do you agree
`that a PSTN tandem switch does not have class 5
`functionality?
` A. You are talking in general or as
`pertains to the patent? I don't quite understand
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 7
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`your question.
` Q. I understand you did a declaration in
`this case, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you had some opinions about PSTN
`tandem switches?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is your definition of a PSTN
`tandem switch that you use in your declaration?
` A. I used a fairly narrow definition.
`By my prior art I was connecting to, the three
`or four prior arts you are talking about in
`terms of connecting to a toll switch, and toll
`switches normally don't have any lines associated
`with that, so I thought that fulfilled the
`definition.
` Q. Are you familiar with what an access
`tandem is?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In the year 2000 do you agree that
`access tandem switches cannot connect directly to
`telephones?
` A. Generally it is true. I don't know
`it to be universally true.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 8
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` Q. In your declaration are you equating
`PSTN tandem switches to access tandem switches?
` A. Yes, they are exemplary. An access
`tandem is an example of a tandem switch.
` Q. What are other examples?
` A. A class 4 toll switch, for example,
`would be an example. STP would be another
`example. There are a number of them. In fact, I
`believe that the patent owner in one of the
`prosecution histories action defined it could be
`a whole range of connection devices.
` Q. So you are saying your formal
`definition, your formal construction that YMax is
`using for this case is that a PSTN tandem switch
`includes an STP?
` A. That is a possibility, yes. That
`would conform I believe to the definition that
`the court has given.
` Q. Can an STP receive voice
`communication?
` A. It receives signaling for voice
`communication, yes.
` Q. You are not answering my question.
`Can an STP receive voice communication?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 9
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. Not directly it controls voice
`communication, but it sets up calls, and it sets
`up communications of other parts of the call.
` Q. So, of everything that you have named
`so far of what a tandem switch could possibly
`be, toll switch, you know, an STP, could any of
`those connect directly to telephones in the year
`2000?
` A. Again, I don't know for a fact if any
`of them did. My knowledge is that the ones I
`know did not, but I can't say that with absolute
`certainty. I don't know what every toll switch
`in the United States does.
` Q. When we talk about edge switches, do
`you understand that that can also refer to a
`central office or a class 5 office?
` A. That is my understanding.
` Q. Typically in the year 2000, do you
`agree that telephones were directly connected to
`these edge switches?
` A. For the most part, yes. Yes, or say
`typical connections would be to a class 5
`end-office switch or PBX. Those were the common
`connections, but, again, it is possible that they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 10
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`may connect otherwise. I just don't know for a
`fact.
` Q. You are an expert in this field, and
`you don't know for a fact whether or not
`telephones typically connected to end-offices?
` A. I didn't say typically. Typically
`they are. I just said that. I just don't know
`for a fact if every case it is connected to an
`end-office. I think there might be an exception,
`I just don't know. Particularly with the
`divestiture and the multiplicity of
`inter-exchange carriers, I don't know what each
`one of them does.
` Q. But you are not personally aware and
`you haven't formed any opinions that a telephone
`switch -- strike that -- that a telephone can be
`directly connected to a PSTN tandem switch,
`correct?
` A. There is nothing that prohibits it
`technically. So it is possible to do that
`because there are hybrid switches around with
`the same platform as tandem or end-office quite
`commonly, so it is certainly possible for them
`to connect to it. I just don't know if they do
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 11
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`it. The capability is there.
` Q. You keep saying hybrid switch, but
`I'm not asking about hybrid switch, I am asking
`about PSTN tandem switch.
` A. Again, a lot of the PSTN tandem
`switches could have the capability. They have
`the capabilities. Whether they use it or not, I
`don't know.
` Q. But you are not aware of anything in
`the year 2000 or prior to that that a PSTN tandem
`switch ever was connected directly to a
`telephone?
` A. I'm not aware of it. Technically,
`it is feasible. I'm not aware if it does happen
`or not. I don't know every long distance
`carrier in the United States. I don't know what
`they do.
` Q. You formed an opinion that an
`immediate cut-through of the voice circuit is
`precisely what is required in the substitute
`claims. Based on that, is it your opinion that
`the PSTN tandem switches that are recited in the
`amended claims be able to receive voice
`communications?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 12
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. Show me the context here. I'm not
`familiar with what you are talking about. I
`vaguely recall but I'm not sure.
` Q. I want to go back to hybrid switches
`real quick, and we'll go back to your declaration
`in the context of this.
` A. Sure. Okay.
` Q. Do you agree that a hybrid switch has
`class 4 functionality and also a separate class 5
`functionality?
` A. It is capable of both. Yes.
` Q. Right.
` A. Capable of handling lines and pure
`trunk connections. Trunk to trunk connections.
` Q. But at any given moment, it is either
`operating as a class 5 switch or a class 4
`switch, correct?
` A. I don't know that for a fact. There
`may be examples. There is tens of thousands of
`switches in the United States, I just don't know
`what every one of them does. I know a lot, but I
`can't swear under oath that it is a fact when I
`don't know it to be a fact.
` Q. Are you aware of hybrid switches that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 13
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`can operate in either class, they don't have to
`operate exclusively either in a class 5 or a
`class 4 mode?
` A. Would you repeat that.
` Q. Sure. Are you aware of any hybrid
`switches that are forced only to operate in
`either class 4 or class 5?
` A. Yes. I would say the majority
`certainly would be of that nature, that they are
`usually either a class 4 or a class 5, but there
`could be ones that are combinations. It is
`technically feasible. I don't know if it
`actually happens or not. I don't know.
` Q. It sounds like you are personally
`aware of a situation where a hybrid switch
`operates in either class 4 or class 5, but you
`are not personally aware of a situation where
`they are both used together.
` A. That's correct. Technically it is
`certainly possible, I am just not aware of an
`example, but again, my knowledge is limited.
` Q. You submitted two declarations in
`this case, one against the '777 patent and one
`against the '113 patent. Is that correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 14
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. For the amendments you mean, yes.
` Q. Yes.
` A. Correct.
` Q. Is it a fair characterization that
`substantively they are identical, just for ease
`of the deposition?
` A. I believe that's correct. I'd have
`to look at them. That's my recollection.
` Q. I will introduce both of them into
`the record, but as we go forward, if we could
`just look over one.
` MR. WALDEN: I have no problem with
` that.
` A. Fine.
` MR. MURPHY: First, I am going to
` introduce, this is already in the record,
` Exhibit 1042. This is in the 1258 case.
` This is the declaration of Dr. Forys
` against the '777 patent, and this is the
` one I would like to use as the primary
` one.
` Then I will just keep this to the
` side, but a corollary to that that we will
` also be discussing, because it is similar
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 15
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` to what we'll be talking about, is Exhibit
` 1045 in the 1260 case against the '113
` patent.
` Q. If you can turn to paragraph 59 of
`your declaration, when you are ready for me to
`repeat the question, let me know.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So here you see in paragraph 59 you
`have an opinion that this immediate cut-through
`of the voice circuit is precisely what is
`required in the substitute claims. Do you see
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So then is it your opinion that the
`PSTN tandem switches that are recited in the
`amended claims are required to receive voice
`communications?
` MR. WALDEN: Objection. Legal
` conclusion.
` A. Let me look at the claims. The
`question is whether or not it is -- what is the
`cut-through is the issue here.
` Q. Start with claim 47 on page 14 of
`your declaration.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 16
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. Yes. Yeah. I am looking at the last
`claim item here, and it says "connecting the
`first incoming call and the second call at the
`tandem access controller after the second call is
`received and answered by the communication device
`associated with the specified recipient."
` I believe that says it's the access
`tandem controller which does the connecting,
`according to this claim limitation. It says
`nothing about what the access tandem does.
` Q. In paragraph 59, when you say "This
`immediate cut-through of the voice circuit is
`precisely what is required in the substitute
`claims," what are you referring to?
` A. I am referring to the fact that SS7
`in this example that I talked about of the tandem
`connection does that. It says that when the
`answer occurs, you connect two sides of the call.
` Q. The voice circuit, right?
` A. In this example, yes.
` Q. Well, you say the "Immediate
`cut-through of the voice circuit is precisely
`what is required in the substitute claims."
` A. Yes, I see that.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 17
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` Q. So that is what I am trying to figure
`out. Is it then your opinion that the voice
`circuit that requires voice must traverse through
`each of the notes in the claims?
` A. No, this would be an example the way
`I think about it. This would be an example that
`would fulfill the claim limitation. My purpose,
`this is again a background section here about
`SS7, and what I am saying is that the system that
`implements SS7, if you look at the description of
`how the SS7 protocol works and the citations
`here, that would precisely fulfill the claim
`language. That is what I meant by this.
` Q. The immediate cut-through of the
`voice circuit is required in the substitute
`claims, and that part is pretty clear, right?
` A. I am saying this example would
`fulfill that claim.
` Q. Well, you say it is required. Are
`you trying to change your opinion at this
`point?
` A. No. I say, in this example, this
`would be what is required. If you had a tandem
`switch, as I described here, using SS7, that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 18
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`connection is exactly what is required for that
`scenario to fulfill the claim.
` Q. Right. Cutting through to the voice
`circuit.
` A. For the situation where I am talking
`about. Again, it is a very precise scenario I am
`describing. We have voice switch A, B and C, and
`I describe a scenario using SS7 how one makes the
`connection. In that situation, the cut-through
`that is done by SS7 fulfills the requirements of
`the claim. That is what I am saying here.
` I think you are reading too much into
`what is going on here. I don't say it is true
`universally. In this example it is true.
` Q. Typically, would a PSTN tandem switch
`in the year 2000 carry voice communications?
` A. It could, yes. Again, but the
`definition as put forth by the patent owner, it
`also would include STPs, which would not directly
`contain a voice communication, but I didn't make
`that definition. That was put forth by the
`patent owner.
` Q. Where did the patent owner put forth
`that definition?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 19
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. According to my recollection, it was
`in a prosecution history of a related patent.
` Q. Do you agree that your declaration
`doesn't refer to the prosecution history,
`correct?
` A. That's correct, but I am following --
` Q. All right. That is all.
` A. I'm sorry. I am following the
`definition that the court gave. That is all.
` Q. Are you personally aware of any PSTN
`tandem switches that cannot receive voice?
` A. By the definition of the patent
`owner, yes, STP. It has been proposed to do so
`in certain patents for a patent like that has
`voice over STP. So it is technically possible.
`I don't know if it actually happens. I
`personally don't know that, but it has been
`proposed.
` Q. You are not personally aware as of
`the year 2000 or before of a PSTN tandem switch
`that was not capable of carrying voice?
` A. I'm not aware.
` Q. Typically --
` A. As I said, because STPs, I have seen
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 20
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`patent proposals that they do carry voice, so
`it's technically possible to do so in a packet
`mode.
` Q. I want to point you to paragraph 55
`of your declaration. Here you form an opinion
`under oath that the PSTN tandem switch as used in
`the substitute claims would understand this term
`to be interchangeable with the term "access
`tandem switch."
` A. Yes. That is not very good wording
`looking at it here.
` Q. Well, this is your opinion. This is
`what your declaration was formed on, so we are
`going to go forward with this definition.
` A. Let me say what I meant by it. What
`I meant by it is that the access tandem is an
`exemplary embodiment of a PSTN tandem switch.
`That is what I meant.
` Q. This is the only portion where you
`describe a PSTN tandem switch as far as how it
`should be construed, and you have a very precise
`opinion here that this term is interchangeable
`with the term "access tandem switch."
` A. No, it is used several places. I can
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 21
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`give examples. For example, where it is a toll
`switch. I give examples where it is an STP. As
`I say, if you read it in context of the document,
`this is not the only place I use this. The way I
`meant to say it was -- I am an engineer, not a
`lawyer, and I wrote this -- is that the access
`tandem is an exemplary embodiment of a PSTN
`tandem switch.
` That is what I meant to say, and it
`is clear from the examples that I give throughout
`my thing that that is the way I use it, because I
`give other examples as well. I gave a class 5
`example, and that is not a PSTN. That is not an
`access tandem switch. I give an STP example, and
`that is not an access tandem switch.
` Q. Did you form opinions as part of your
`declaration that the PSTN tandem switch as
`recited in the claims could be a class 5 switch?
` A. I don't say that. I don't make that
`statement.
` Q. Typically, in the year 2000, would a
`class 4 switch or an access tandem switch
`typically receive voice communications?
` A. Sure. It also receives data
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 22
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`communication as well.
` Q. Are you aware of any class 4 switches
`or access tandem switches in the year 2000 that
`could not receive voice communications?
` A. I'm not aware.
` Q. I am going to introduce the '777
`patent. This is Exhibit 1001 in the 1258
`proceeding. Did you review this document before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I point your attention to figure 5.
`Do you understand what this figure 5 is? What
`this flow chart is describing?
` A. Do I know what it describes?
` Q. Yes.
` A. It is labeled incoming call to
`subscriber.
` Q. In the first box, it says "Receiving
`an incoming call request from a PSTN tandem
`office."
` Do you understand that's the first
`box that is being done by the tandem access
`controller?
` A. I believe so. It is described in the
`thing. If I could refresh myself, I would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 23
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`appreciate that.
` Q. Sure.
` A. This is figure 5, I believe. First
`of all, let me just make sure how it is labeled.
`I am looking at column 4. It says "Figure 5 is a
`flow chart of a method that can be performed by
`the TAC in response to an inbound call to the
`subscriber."
` Okay. Now let me look, because I
`know it is detailed here. I am looking at column
`5 here. Column 5, line 53 to column 6, line 16,
`I believe, describes what figure 5 says.
` Q. So we are in agreement then that
`these are tasks performed by the TAC?
` A. That is what it says. In fact, it
`says "Figure 5 is a flow chart of actions taken
`by the TAC 10 in response to an inbound call."
` Yes. That's correct.
` Q. So you agree that the TAC receives
`the first incoming call from a PSTN tandem
`switch, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then there is some -- so this
`middle box of the flow chart is going to look at
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 24
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
`the control criteria, and then it is going to
`send a second call request. Right?
` A. Yes. I am looking at the box here
`after "Information required, no, determine
`outbound calling number," and then it sends the
`call request to the PSTN tandem. I guess that is
`the second call.
` Q. And then before it determines whether
`or not the TAC should connect the first call to
`the second call, it determines if the second call
`has been answered. Correct?
` A. It is written in a negative sense.
`It says "No answer? No."
` Yes. Logically it is correct. It
`took me a while to figure that out.
` Q. I want to point you to column 4,
`lines 59 through 62. The sentence reads "When
`the subscriber 12 terminates or answers the
`second call, the TAC 10 terminates the first call
`and connects it to the second call, thereby
`connecting the caller party 20 to the subscriber
`12."
` Are you familiar with this
`disclosure?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 25
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`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
`
` Forys
` A. Yes.
` Q. So do you see that first clause where
`it says "When the subscriber 12 terminates or
`answers the second call"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In the context of this sentence, what
`does it mean for the subscriber to answer the
`call?
` A. Again, the plain ordinary meaning, I
`presume that answering means that the party in
`this case would pick up the phone, for example.
`This is if you are calling a regular telephone,
`but what is confusing about this sentence is it
`also allows a termination to make the connection,
`and that doesn't make any sense to me.
` Q. Let's go one step at a time. So when
`it goes off hook or the phone gets picked up,
`does an A&M message get generated as part of the
`answering?
` A. In the context of, if it was to a
`PSTN phone, I believe that is the case here, I
`believe that is the case, yes, an A&M message, an
`answer message, SS7 answer message, is sent
`through the network to tandem, back to the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 26
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` Forys
`originating office wherever the call came from,
`that the party has answered.
` Q. In the context of this first clause,
`"When the subscriber terminates or answers the
`second call," does the word "terminate" have any
`other meaning to you other than answer?
` A. Yes. If you look at the --
` Q. I just want to know what your
`definition of what "terminate" can mean in this
`context.
` A. I don't know, because I'm saying if
`you look at the abstract, it gives an example
`what terminates means. Terminates to one of
`ordinary skill in the art means to end, and it
`says here, I am looking at the abstract, "If the
`call at an end unit is answered, answer
`supervision signaling is transmitted back to the
`processing system, which then terminates all
`other calls."
` That says it ends them, and that is a
`clear way that this terminate is used in this
`patent, so when I see it here, I am very
`confused. It certainly can't mean answered
`because here it says you end the call.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`YMAX CORPORATION v. FOCAL IP, LLC
`FOCAL IP, LLC EX 2071 - 27
`Forys Deposition Transcript
`IPR2016-01258
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` Forys
` So unless you are using two different
`meanings of terminate or some ambiguous meaning,
`I just don't know what this means. Certainly it
`distinguishes "terminates" from "answers." That
`it does do.
` Q. All right.
` A. But I'm not quite sure what
`"terminate" means.
` Q. All right. Back to the original
`question. Other than in the context of the first
`clause in this sentence, you are unable to give a
`definition of what "terminates" can mean other
`than what "answers," other than meaning "an
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
