Amazon.com, Inc., et al. vs. Personalized Media
`
`Videotaped Deposition of
`
`ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER
`
`June 02, 2014
`
`June 03, 2014
`
`August 25, 2014
`
`Media Included
`
`Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`Transcript
`
`|
`
`|
`
`Word Index
`
`
`
` S{:{:.I~J.LJPJ.S'731[J
`
`| smug-{Rum
`
`COURT REPORTING
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`
`Apple v. PMC
`|PR2016-01520
`
`Page 1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 1
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Page 1
`
`·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Page 2
`
`· · · · · · · ·___________________________________
`
`· · · · · · · ·___________________________________
`
`·2
`
`·2
`
`· · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`· · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · ·___________________________________
`
`·3· · · · · · ·___________________________________
`
`·4
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · ·AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`
`·5· · · ·AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·vs.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·vs.
`
`·8· · · · ·PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC.,
`
`·8· · · · ·PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · IPR2014-01532
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · IPR2014-01532
`
`12· · · · · · · United States Patent No. 7,801.304
`
`12· · · · · · · United States Patent No. 7,801.304
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · Tuesday, JUNE 9, 2015
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· ·Reported By:
`
`23· ·Kyung Lee-Green
`
`24· ·CSR No. 112655, CLR
`
`25· ·Job No.: 10016808
`
`18· · · · Deposition of ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER, taken on
`
`19· ·behalf of Patent Owner Personalized Media
`
`20· ·Communications, LLC at 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor,
`
`21· ·Irvine, California, commencing at 9:14 a.m., and ending
`
`22· ·at 6:47 p.m., on Tuesday, June 9, 2015, before
`
`23· ·KYUNG LEE-GREEN, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 12655
`
`24· ·for the State of California.
`
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·2· · · · FOR THE PETITIONERS:
`
`·3· · · · · · KNOBBE MARTENS
`
`·4· · · · · · BY:· COLIN HEIDEMAN, ESQ.
`
`·5· · · · · · 925 Fourth Avenue
`
`·6· · · · · · Suite 2500
`
`·7· · · · · · Seattle, Washington 98104
`
`·8· · · · · · (206)405-2016
`
`·9· · · · · · colin.heideman@knobbe.com
`
`10· · · · · · -and-
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · INDEX
`
`·2· ·WITNESS:· Anthony J. Wechselberger· · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· ·Examination by Mr. Schreiner· · · · · · · · · · · 6, 235
`
`·4· ·Examination by Mr. Heideman· · · · · · · · · · · · · 234
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
`
`·7· ·MARKED· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 2011· ·Excerpt from US 7,801,304· · · · · · · 46
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 2012· ·UK Patent Application GB 2 132 860· · ·47
`
`10· ·Exhibit 2013· ·Expert Declaration of· · · · · · · · · 47
`
`· · · · · · · · · · Anthony J. Wechselberger
`
`11
`
`11· · · · · · BY:· KENT N. SHUM, ESQ.
`
`· · ·Exhibit 2013A· Encryption:· A Cable TV Primer,· · · · 47
`
`12· · · · · · 2040 Main Street
`
`13· · · · · · 14th Floor
`
`14· · · · · · Irvine, California 92614
`
`15· · · · · · (949)760-0404
`
`16· · · · · · kent.shum@knobbe.com
`
`17
`
`18· · · · For the Patent Owner:
`
`19· · · · · · GOODWIN PROCTER
`
`20· · · · · · BY:· STEPHEN T. SCHREINER, ESQ.
`
`21· · · · · · 901 New York Avenue, NW
`
`22· · · · · · Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`23· · · · · · (202)346-4000
`
`24· · · · · · sschreiner@goodwinprocter.com
`
`25
`
`12· · · · · · · · · Bates-stamped PMC3654014 through
`
`· · · · · · · · · · PMC3654019
`
`13
`
`· · ·Exhibit 2014· ·Excerpt from the sworn declaration· · ·47
`
`14· · · · · · · · · of Anthony J. Wechselberger's
`
`15· ·Exhibit 2014A· Preliminary Patent Owner Response· · ·115
`
`· · · · · · · · · · to Petition for Inter Partes
`
`16· · · · · · · · · Review
`
`17· ·Exhibit 2014B· Wikipedia printout· · · · · · · · · · 136
`
`18· ·Exhibit 2015· ·Claims at issue· · · · · · · · · · · ·136
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 2
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·PRIOR EXHIBITS REFERENCED
`
`Page 5
`
`·2· · · · · · · · ·EXHIBIT· ·PAGE
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · ·1001· · · ·8
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · ·1004· · · ·9
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·1006· · · 45
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · ·1007· · ·135
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·1008· · ·135
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · ·1009· · ·136
`
`·9
`
`10· ·QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
`11· · · · · · · · · PAGE· ·LINE
`
`12· · · · · · · · · ·27· · ·10
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · ·INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · (None.)
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · · Q· · Pretty good stretch?
`·2· · · · A· · Yes.
`·3· · · · Q· · Okay.
`·4· · · · · · ·And where did you reside prior to that?
`·5· · · · A· · It was also Escondido.
`·6· · · · Q· · Okay.· That's a different address in
`·7· ·Escondido?
`·8· · · · A· · Yeah.
`·9· · · · Q· · And I'm going to be asking you a series of
`10· ·questions today.· I ask you that you give me full and
`11· ·complete answers.· Be responsive to my questions.· If I
`12· ·give you any questions that you don't understand, just
`13· ·let me know and I'll try to rephrase them.
`14· · · · · · ·My goal here isn't to trick you, but it's to
`15· ·give you questions that you can understand and elicit
`16· ·answers based on your expert background.· Does that make
`17· ·sense?
`18· · · · A· · Yes.
`19· · · · Q· · Are you under the influence of any sickness or
`20· ·illness that would impair your ability to testify
`21· ·truthfully and completely today?
`22· · · · A· · No.
`23· · · · Q· · Are you under the influence of any medications
`24· ·or substances that would impair your ability to testify
`25· ·truthfully and completely today?
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·IRVINE, CALIFORNIA;
`·2· · · · · · · ·TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015; 9:14 A.M.
`·3
`·4· · · · · · · · · ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER,
`·5· ·having been administered an oath to tell the truth, the
`·6· ·whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as
`·7· ·follows:
`·8
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`10· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`11· · · · Q· · Good morning.
`12· · · · A· · Good morning.
`13· · · · Q· · How are you today, Mr. Wechselberger?
`14· · · · A· · Fine.
`15· · · · Q· · Please state your full name for the record.
`16· · · · A· · Anthony J. Wechselberger.
`17· · · · Q· · And do you go by Tony; is that correct?
`18· · · · A· · Yes.
`19· · · · Q· · Okay.
`20· · · · · · ·And what is your current home address?
`21· · · · A· · 3447 Bernardo Lane -- B-e-r-n-a-r-d-o;
`22· ·Escondido, E-s-c-o-n-d-i-d-o -- California 92029.
`23· · · · Q· · Okay.· And how long have you lived at that
`24· ·residence?
`25· · · · A· · Since 1988.
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · · · A· · No.
`·2· · · · Q· · How did you prepare for today's deposition?
`·3· · · · A· · I reviewed the prior art -- I -- first, I
`·4· ·re -- I reviewed my declaration.· I reviewed the prior
`·5· ·art references that I used in that declaration. I
`·6· ·reviewed the '304 patent, the '940 patent.· I read the
`·7· ·petition on defendant's position -- petition.· I read
`·8· ·the preliminary response from PMC and about -- and --
`·9· ·and -- and, at one point, I also read the -- your re --
`10· ·PMC's request for a rehearing.
`11· · · · · · ·And then also had, I believe, three different
`12· ·dial-in telephone conferences with Amazon's attorneys.
`13· ·And then finally I was here for a day of depo prep
`14· ·yesterday.
`15· · · · Q· · And when you refer to the -- when you refer to
`16· ·the -- you said the '940 patent.· I think you might have
`17· ·meant the '490 patent?
`18· · · · A· · I'm sorry.· '490 patent, yes, the original
`19· ·November 1981 Harvey patent.
`20· · · · Q· · That would be -- just for the record, that
`21· ·would be PMC's patent 4,694,490, which is Amazon
`22· ·Exhibit 1001.· We'll enter that into the record in a
`23· ·moment.
`24· · · · · · ·And when you refer to the '304 patent, is that
`25· ·referring to the subject of this IPR, which is PMC's
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`·1· ·patent 7,801,304?
`·2· · · · · · ·(Reporter clarification.)
`·3· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`·4· · · · Q· · Oh, I'm sorry.
`·5· · · · · · ·PMC's patent 7,801,304, is that the
`·6· ·'304 patent that you reviewed?
`·7· · · · A· · Correct.
`·8· · · · Q· · And that's Amazon's Exhibit 1004, which we'll
`·9· ·enter shortly.
`10· · · · · · ·During your dial-in calls, who -- who did you
`11· ·speak with?
`12· · · · A· · Two gentlemen to my left.
`13· · · · Q· · And those gentlemen are who?
`14· · · · A· · Colin --
`15· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· Heideman.
`16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· -- Heideman.· Mr. Colin Heideman
`17· ·and Mr. Kent Shum.
`18· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`19· · · · Q· · And Mr. Heideman and Shum were -- they were --
`20· ·both of them were all on three calls you mentioned?
`21· · · · A· · Mr. Heideman was not on all three.· He may
`22· ·have made appearances on one or two partially.· But
`23· ·Mr. Shum was on all of them.
`24· · · · Q· · Okay.· What was the total length of the
`25· ·three calls that you had as part of your deposition
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· · · · A· · Yes.
`·2· · · · Q· · And how much time did you spend?
`·3· · · · A· · Yesterday?
`·4· · · · Q· · Yes, sir.
`·5· · · · A· · We started at 9:00, broke for lunch for
`·6· ·perhaps an hour, and then quit about -- I believe about
`·7· ·5:00 p.m.
`·8· · · · Q· · Okay.· So on the order of seven hours?
`·9· · · · A· · Seems right.
`10· · · · Q· · And who did you meet with during that
`11· ·deposition preparation?
`12· · · · A· · Colin and Kent to my left.
`13· · · · Q· · Mr. Heideman and Mr. Shum?
`14· · · · A· · Mr. Shum, yeah.
`15· · · · Q· · Okay.
`16· · · · · · ·Did you speak -- you're aware that there are
`17· ·several other IPR proceedings that are at issue
`18· ·involving Amazon and PMC?
`19· · · · A· · I am aware, yes.
`20· · · · Q· · And you're aware that there's other experts
`21· ·who've been engaged by Amazon to assist them in those
`22· ·IPRs; correct?
`23· · · · A· · That's my understanding, yes.
`24· · · · Q· · Okay.
`25· · · · · · ·As part of your deposition preparation, did
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· ·preparation approximately?
`·2· · · · A· · Approximately, I would say, on the average,
`·3· ·they each ran about an hour and a half.
`·4· · · · Q· · So something on the order of four and a half,
`·5· ·five hours of preparation via phone calls?
`·6· · · · A· · Yes.
`·7· · · · Q· · Okay.
`·8· · · · · · ·And when you mentioned the documents that you
`·9· ·had reviewed, you -- you mention the -- your
`10· ·declaration, the prior art references, the '304 patent,
`11· ·the '490 patent, the petition, the preliminary response,
`12· ·and PMC's request for rehearing.
`13· · · · · · ·Approximately how long did you spend reviewing
`14· ·those documents as part of your preparation for this
`15· ·deposition?
`16· · · · A· · I would guess 10, 12 hours.
`17· · · · Q· · Okay.
`18· · · · · · ·And you did that where?· At your -- at your
`19· ·home?· At your office?· At the offices here at
`20· ·Knobbe Marten?
`21· · · · A· · At my home office.
`22· · · · Q· · Okay.
`23· · · · · · ·And you indicated that you did one day of
`24· ·deposition preparation at your counsel's office
`25· ·yesterday; is that correct?
`
`Page 12
`·1· ·you have any contact with any of the other experts?
`·2· · · · A· · No.
`·3· · · · Q· · Prior to your deposition -- strike that.
`·4· · · · · · ·As part of your involvement in Amazon's
`·5· ·petition regarding the '304 patent, including the
`·6· ·preparation of your declaration, did you have contact
`·7· ·with Amazon's other experts in the other IPRs?
`·8· · · · A· · No.
`·9· · · · Q· · Okay.· So you never spoke with
`10· ·Charles Neuhauser?
`11· · · · A· · Correct.· I have not spoken to him.
`12· · · · Q· · Have you ever met him?
`13· · · · A· · I think not.
`14· · · · Q· · Michael O'Slinn -- excuse me -- Michael Slinn?
`15· · · · A· · Don't know the name.
`16· · · · Q· · So you didn't speak to him?
`17· · · · A· · That's correct.
`18· · · · Q· · Did you review the -- strike that.
`19· · · · · · ·Mr. O'Slinn -- strike that.
`20· · · · · · ·Giving this man some Irish background that
`21· ·maybe he doesn't have.
`22· · · · · · ·Are you aware that Michael -- strike that.
`23· · · · · · ·Are you aware that Amazon submitted a petition
`24· ·for IPR on another patent that involves decryption,
`25· ·which is 7,805,749 or the '749 patent?
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`·1· · · · A· · My understanding is that they've submitted
`·2· ·petitions for all of the asserted patents.· And earlier
`·3· ·in my work on this project, I had the opportunity to at
`·4· ·least be told and read what the set of asserted claims
`·5· ·were way -- a long time ago.
`·6· · · · · · ·Now, if -- if some of those claims have been
`·7· ·dropped, I don't know about it because I was -- when it
`·8· ·came back -- time to actually prepare for the petitions,
`·9· ·I was asked to focus only on the '304.· So it seemed to
`10· ·me one of those might have had something to do with
`11· ·encryption or decryption, but I don't actually recall.
`12· · · · Q· · Were you asked to look at the '749 patent?
`13· · · · A· · As I said, I was given a list of the complete
`14· ·set of asserted claims as those would have existed
`15· ·several months ago.· Now, as we all know, they all share
`16· ·the same specification.· So, you know, the name of
`17· ·the -- the issues are the claims, not necessarily the
`18· ·specific patent number itself.
`19· · · · Q· · So you -- so you looked at the claims of --
`20· ·strike that.
`21· · · · · · ·You looked at the claims for all the patents
`22· ·that were asserted in the district court litigation
`23· ·between Amazon and PMC; is that correct?
`24· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· Objection.· Mischaracterizes
`25· ·the testimony.
`
`Page 15
`
`·1· · · · A· · Well, in that case, I would definitely have
`·2· ·known.· I said I don't know how I ended up working on
`·3· ·'304.· I was just asked.
`·4· · · · Q· · Okay.· So the answer is you worked on the
`·5· ·'304 patent because you were asked to work on the
`·6· ·'304 patent; is that correct?
`·7· · · · A· · Yes.
`·8· · · · Q· · Were you asked to work on any of the other
`·9· ·patents that were at issue in the litigation?
`10· · · · A· · Not with respect to the -- any IPR activity.
`11· · · · Q· · Okay.· Have you ever -- strike that.
`12· · · · · · ·You're here as an expert in connection with
`13· ·this IPR proceeding on the '304 patent; is that correct?
`14· · · · A· · Yes.
`15· · · · Q· · Have you ever been an expert in an IPR
`16· ·proceeding?
`17· · · · A· · Yes.
`18· · · · Q· · And describe for me the circumstances of that.
`19· · · · A· · Can you explain a little better what you mean
`20· ·by "circumstances"?
`21· · · · Q· · You said you were an expert in a prior IPR
`22· ·proceeding; correct?
`23· · · · A· · Yes.
`24· · · · Q· · Okay.· What did you do in the prior IPR
`25· ·proceeding?
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`·2· · · · Q· · Please answer.
`·3· · · · A· · Well, I'm trying to remember.
`·4· · · · Q· · Yeah.
`·5· · · · A· · Yeah.· It was before the IPRs had -- had
`·6· ·gotten started so I guess it was just the district court
`·7· ·action, so -- and I was given what I -- what I believe
`·8· ·is the complete set of asserted claims.
`·9· · · · Q· · How was it decided that you would assist with
`10· ·the '304 patent as opposed to the other patents at issue
`11· ·in that suit?
`12· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· Objection.· Lacks foundation.
`13· ·Calls for speculation.
`14· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`15· · · · Q· · Let's -- let's rephrase that.
`16· · · · · · ·Actually, no.· Please answer the question.
`17· · · · · · ·How was it decided that you would assist with
`18· ·the '304 patent as opposed to the other patents at issue
`19· ·in this -- that suit?
`20· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· Same objections.
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know.
`22· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`23· · · · Q· · Did you decide yourself that you were going to
`24· ·work on the '304 patent and -- and you went to counsel
`25· ·and said, this is the one I'm going to work on?
`
`Page 16
`·1· · · · A· · I was contacted by the defendant attorneys who
`·2· ·were going to write the petition.· They had already made
`·3· ·up their mind that -- you know, that -- that this was
`·4· ·going to happen.· They were looking for somebody with a
`·5· ·technology background that was appropriate.
`·6· · · · · · ·I fit that background.· And I was asked then
`·7· ·to become familiar with the patents-in-suit.· Patent or
`·8· ·patents, I don't actually remember now.· And the prior
`·9· ·art associated with it.· And working with the law firm,
`10· ·I prepared a declaration, which has been submitted.
`11· · · · · · ·My understanding is that PTAB decision is due
`12· ·within the next month.· This was some months ago.· And
`13· ·since that flurry of activity, which probably took place
`14· ·over a period of four to six weeks, I have not been
`15· ·involved with that case.
`16· · · · Q· · Okay.· And who are the parties in that case?
`17· · · · A· · I actually don't remember.
`18· · · · Q· · Who -- who is -- are you working on behalf of
`19· ·the patent holder, on behalf of the petitioner
`20· ·challenging the patent?
`21· · · · A· · Petitioner.
`22· · · · Q· · Okay.· Who's the petitioner?
`23· · · · A· · I don't remember who the parties are.· Sorry.
`24· · · · Q· · Okay.· You don't remember who the patent
`25· ·holder is or who the petitioner is?
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`·1· · · · A· · It would be on my list of active cases if --
`·2· ·if that -- I could probably point to it there if I -- if
`·3· ·I could remember.· But it's -- being that it's been so
`·4· ·many months and I have six or eight active cases going
`·5· ·at any time, they sort of -- unless I go back and
`·6· ·specifically try and remember stuff like that, I tend to
`·7· ·forget.
`·8· · · · Q· · Okay.· Maybe during a break, if you could get
`·9· ·that information, we'll just revisit that.
`10· · · · A· · Sure.· I'm not sure that I have it or that --
`11· · · · Q· · Dur -- during a break, could you make a phone
`12· ·call or consult some papers to figure out who the
`13· ·parties are in that IPR?
`14· · · · A· · I can -- well, I can certainly provide that
`15· ·information.· I'm not sure I can do it during the break,
`16· ·but I'll see what I can do.
`17· · · · Q· · Okay.
`18· · · · · · ·What did the technology involve in that IPR
`19· ·proceeding?
`20· · · · A· · I can't remember that either.
`21· · · · Q· · Did it involve cryptography?
`22· · · · A· · I don't recall.
`23· · · · Q· · Did it involve access control?
`24· · · · A· · Typically all the work I do has something to
`25· ·do with control or management over access to content,
`
`Page 19
`·1· · · · · · ·And how many CBMR petitions did you assist
`·2· ·with?
`·3· · · · A· · There were, I believe, six.
`·4· · · · Q· · And what is the technology at issue in the
`·5· ·Smartflash patents that are being challenged by Apple?
`·6· · · · A· · Has to do with controlling access to content
`·7· ·in a consumer appliance according to paying for the
`·8· ·content and subsequently having the content downloaded
`·9· ·to the appliance.· So it's a -- generally within the
`10· ·category that people call DRM, digital rights
`11· ·management, but it's not hugely expansive.· In terms of
`12· ·scope of the technology, it's fairly focused.
`13· · · · Q· · Does this involve Apple's Fairplay DRM scheme?
`14· · · · A· · Yes.
`15· · · · Q· · Okay.
`16· · · · · · ·In your -- is it fair to say you submitted a
`17· ·series of declarations in connection with the six Apple
`18· ·CBMR petitions?
`19· · · · A· · Yes.
`20· · · · Q· · Did you give any statements or opinions
`21· ·regarding the meaning of "encryption" or "decryption"?
`22· · · · A· · No.
`23· · · · Q· · Any statements or opinions regarding the
`24· ·meaning of "scrambling" or "descrambling"?
`25· · · · A· · No.
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· ·whether that's over cable or satellite or the Internet
`·2· ·or exhibition industry or --
`·3· · · · · · ·(Reporter clarification.)
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Exhibition industry.· The movie
`·5· ·industry.
`·6· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`·7· · · · Q· · But you can't remember what this -- this
`·8· ·specific patent pertained to?
`·9· · · · A· · No.· I'm sorry.· I can't.
`10· · · · Q· · Okay.
`11· · · · · · ·Do you recall, did it have anything to do with
`12· ·broadcast television or cablecast television or
`13· ·satellite television?
`14· · · · A· · I can't remember.
`15· · · · Q· · Okay.· Have you worked on -- strike that.
`16· · · · · · ·Have you worked on any other IPRs?
`17· · · · A· · Does CBMs fall under that same category?
`18· · · · Q· · For the sake -- for the purposes of this
`19· ·question, yeah.· So "CBM" meaning covered business
`20· ·method patent review.
`21· · · · A· · Yes.· I've recently been involved in CBM
`22· ·initiatives on behalf of Apple Computer.
`23· · · · Q· · And who is the patent holder in that case?
`24· · · · A· · It's a company called Smartflash.
`25· · · · Q· · I've heard of them.
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· · · · Q· · Those were not issues in that case?
`·2· · · · A· · That's correct.
`·3· · · · Q· · Okay.· And -- okay.· So we've talked about one
`·4· ·prior IPR proceeding and then six CBMRs for Apple.
`·5· · · · · · ·Are there any other proceedings that you're
`·6· ·involved in where somebody is challenging a patent at
`·7· ·the Patent Office?
`·8· · · · A· · Not that I can recall.
`·9· · · · Q· · The prior IPR proceeding, where you can't
`10· ·remember the name of the parties or the technology, do
`11· ·you recall whether you gave any statements regarding
`12· ·encryption or decryption in that proceeding?
`13· · · · A· · For sure, I did not.
`14· · · · Q· · Would your answer be the same regarding
`15· ·scrambling or descrambling?
`16· · · · A· · Yes, sir.
`17· · · · Q· · Describe for me your prior experience as an
`18· ·expert in connection with litigations, district court
`19· ·litigations or ITC proceedings.
`20· · · · A· · I started doing this kind of work, I believe,
`21· ·in the year 2000.· I started consulting in 1999.· And
`22· ·this part of my professional life, I picked up in terms
`23· ·of percentage of what I do on behalf of the legal
`24· ·community versus as a -- as -- as a system engineer to
`25· ·where it -- today it occupies about 75 to 80 percent of
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`·1· ·my working hours.
`·2· · · · · · ·That last -- I keep a spreadsheet of cases so
`·3· ·I can show people what kind of experiences I've -- I've
`·4· ·had.· Last count, I think that was approaching 60 over
`·5· ·the past 15 years.
`·6· · · · · · ·I've been before the ITC three times.
`·7· · · · Q· · Okay.
`·8· · · · A· · I have had three bench trials.· I have had
`·9· ·two jury trials.· Two, three, six, seven, eight -- I
`10· ·think that's -- that's the testifying in courts
`11· ·appearance.· And I probably prepared and defended a
`12· ·couple dozen expert reports.
`13· · · · Q· · Your work in -- strike that.
`14· · · · · · ·These proceedings that you're referring to,
`15· ·appearing at the ITC bench trials and jury trials, those
`16· ·were all patent suits; is that correct?
`17· · · · A· · No.· The bench trials was -- I think the
`18· ·proper term is civil litigation in two of the case --
`19· ·they all had to do with misappropriation of proprietary
`20· ·information or intellectual property, or at least that
`21· ·was the alleged dispute between the parties.· And I -- I
`22· ·was asked to opine on that -- those aspects and present
`23· ·my findings in a report in front of a judge.
`24· · · · Q· · Okay.· So the bench trials were basically --
`25· ·had to do with trade secret misappropriation?
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· ·defendant only, again, in terms of invalidity.
`·2· · · · · · ·And the third ITC case turned out there were
`·3· ·patents flying back and forth between the parties, and I
`·4· ·was arguing infringement on behalf of the party I was
`·5· ·assisting against the defendant.· And I guess the other
`·6· ·part of that case, I was also asked to provide the
`·7· ·tutorial to the Court on the opening day, which was a
`·8· ·general overview of all the patents involved.
`·9· · · · · · ·And I can't remember if I was actually -- if I
`10· ·actually operated on behalf of the -- in
`11· ·non-infringement on that or not.· It's been another --
`12· · · · · · ·(Reporter clarification.)
`13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I can't remember if I also
`14· ·argued non-infringe -- invalidity on that case.
`15· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`16· · · · Q· · Okay.· So on the -- so on the ITC cases,
`17· ·you're saying twice you were acting as an expert for the
`18· ·defendant, the accused patent infringer; correct?
`19· · · · A· · Yes.
`20· · · · Q· · And then in the third ITC case, you're
`21· ·indicating that you were testifying as an expert in
`22· ·connection with a charge of patent infringement by your
`23· ·client against the other party; is that correct?
`24· · · · A· · Yes.
`25· · · · Q· · Okay.
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· · · · A· · Yeah.
`·2· · · · Q· · Okay.
`·3· · · · · · ·And what about the two jury trials that you
`·4· ·mentioned, were those patent disputes or some other sort
`·5· ·of dispute?
`·6· · · · A· · Patent disputes.
`·7· · · · Q· · And the three times you said that you were
`·8· ·involved in proceedings at the ITC, what sort of
`·9· ·disputes were those?
`10· · · · A· · Also patent disputes.
`11· · · · Q· · So in terms of patent disputes that have
`12· ·actually been tried, it sounds like you've been involved
`13· ·in five of those, three times before the ITC and
`14· ·two times before juries; is that correct?
`15· · · · A· · Ones that actually went the distance through
`16· ·trial, that's correct.
`17· · · · Q· · And in those five proceedings, were you acting
`18· ·on behalf of the patent holder or on behalf of the
`19· ·accused infringer?
`20· · · · A· · At times, both.
`21· · · · Q· · Could you explain what you mean by that?
`22· · · · A· · The two jury trials, I was acting on behalf of
`23· ·the patent -- the defendant arguing both in
`24· ·non-infringement and invalidity in both cases.· Two of
`25· ·the cases before the ITC, I was acting on behalf of the
`
`Page 24
`·1· · · · · · ·In that third case, was your client the party
`·2· ·that initiated the ITC action or was your client the
`·3· ·party that was the recipient of the original complaint
`·4· ·of patent infringement?
`·5· · · · A· · I don't remember.
`·6· · · · Q· · Do you recall whether your client was
`·7· ·described asking the complainant or the respondent?
`·8· · · · A· · I -- I do recall that there was an original
`·9· ·re -- complaint, an action -- activity started, and then
`10· ·there was a countersuit.· I just can't remember who did
`11· ·what first.
`12· · · · Q· · Okay.· And you don't recall whether you were
`13· ·working for the party that filed the original com --
`14· ·complaint versus the party that filed the countersuit?
`15· · · · A· · I cannot.
`16· · · · Q· · In the -- in the two jury trials where you
`17· ·testified on behalf of the defendant, who were the --
`18· ·who were your -- who was the defendant in those
`19· ·two cases?· Or strike that.
`20· · · · · · ·Just tell me, who were the -- who was the
`21· ·plaintiff and defendant in each of those two cases,
`22· ·please.
`23· · · · A· · The first one, the plaintiff was Hitachi, and
`24· ·the defendant that I was assisting is a Chinese company
`25· ·called TPV.· And then in the second case, the
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Page 25
`·1· ·plaintiff -- plaintiff was Smartflash and the defendant
`·2· ·was Apple.
`·3· · · · Q· · And in the ITC cases you said that there were
`·4· ·two where you were an expert for the defendant.· Who
`·5· ·were the parties in those two suits?
`·6· · · · A· · Those two suits are, in fact, related.· The
`·7· ·first -- first activity was the original complaint, and
`·8· ·I think they called it a hearing, not a trial at the ITC
`·9· ·or something like that.
`10· · · · · · ·And I was responsible for a digital television
`11· ·patent on behalf of a joint defense group.· The
`12· ·plaintiff was Funai, F-u-n-a-i.· The joint defense group
`13· ·had a number of defendants.
`14· · · · Q· · Who's your client or who did you submit an
`15· ·expert -- an expert testimony --
`16· · · · A· · The --
`17· · · · Q· · -- on behalf of?
`18· · · · A· · The law firm or the client?
`19· · · · Q· · The client.
`20· · · · A· · My client was originally Polaroid.· And they
`21· ·settled about three weeks before trial, so I transferred
`22· ·then to representing -- gee, I can't remember them
`23· ·anymore.· I believe VIZIO was one of them.· They were
`24· ·television manufacturers.
`25· · · · · · ·VIZIO, some Chinese names that we don't
`
`Page 27
`
`·1· ·was assisting Amazon.· It didn't go very far.· There
`·2· ·were --
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· I'm just going to caution the
`·4· ·witness not to reveal any -- I don't know the context of
`·5· ·that so there might be privileged information there, so
`·6· ·I think you've answered the question yes or no.
`·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you.
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· I'll leave it at that.
`·9· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`10· · · · Q· · I'm not asking you to reveal any
`11· ·communications that you had with your counsel at the
`12· ·time or Amazon's counsel at the time.· I'm -- I'm
`13· ·asking, just describe for me the nature of the expert
`14· ·support you provided to Amazon five or six years ago.
`15· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· I'm going to object to the
`16· ·extent there might be work product testing.· I don't
`17· ·know that he was a disclosed expert to testify and -- or
`18· ·anything like that so --
`19· · · · · · ·MR. SCHREINER:· Are you instructing him not to
`20· ·answer?
`21· · · · · · ·MR. HEIDEMAN:· To the extent it was attorney
`22· ·work product, I'm going to instruct him not to answer
`23· ·that question.
`24· ·BY MR. SCHREINER:
`25· · · · Q· · Who was the patent owner -- strike that.
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· ·typically recognize here in the states.· So it was still
`·2· ·joint defense group.· And there were, I think, three or
`·3· ·four patents being asserted, and I had responsibility
`·4· ·for one of them.
`·5· · · · Q· · Okay.· And you indicated that the two ITC
`·6· ·cases where you were working for a defendant were
`·7· ·related.· The second one, did that involve Funai against
`·8· ·a series of defendants?
`·9· · · · A· · Yes.· It was, in fact, the same patent, same
`10· ·parties that -- the issue resurfaced as an enforcement
`11· ·hearing, so apparently the design-arounds didn't satisfy
`12· ·Funai.· And there's some things that went on in the case
`13· ·which allowed me to re -- allowed them to reopen the
`14· ·validity side of the case, which brought me back in to
`15· ·argue invalidity in light of new IPR -- new prior art.
`16· · · · Q· · Okay.
`17· · · · · · ·In any of these cases that you've worked on in
`18· ·the ITC or in district court cases involving the bench
`19· ·trials and the jury trials, have you ever represented
`20· ·Amazon?
`21· · · · A· · No.
`22· · · · Q· · Okay.· Have you ever provided expert services
`23· ·to Amazon prior to the -- this IPR proceeding on the
`24· ·'304 patent?
`25· · · · A· · It was one case five or six years ago where I
`
`Page 28
`
`·1· · · · · · ·The -- the work that you did five or six years
`·2· ·ago, was there a patent owner involved?
`·3· · · · A· · Yes.
`·4· · · · Q· · Who is the patent owner?
`·5· · · · A· · I don't remember.
`·6· · · · Q· · Was it PMC, Personalized Media Communications?
`·7· · · · A· · It was not.
`·8· · · · Q· · Prior to your involvement -- strike that.
`·9· · · · · · ·When I talk today and I refer to "these IPRs,"
`10· ·I'm going to be -- I'm referring to the seven IPRs that
`11· ·have been initiated by Amazon.· Do you understand that?
`12· · · · A· · Yes.
`13· · · · Q· · Okay.· And you're working on one of them,
`14· ·which is the IPR on the '304 patent; correct?
`15· · · · A· · Yes.
`16· · · · Q· · Prior to your involvement in these IPRs, did
`17· ·you have familiarity with PMC?
`18· · · · A· · Yes.
`19· · · · Q· · What -- what did you -- strike that.
`20· · · · · · ·What did you understand about PMC prior to
`21· ·your involvement in these IPRs?
`22· · · · A· · Are you asking me about PMC the company or
`23· ·PMC's suite of large patents?· There's a big
`24· ·specification --
`25· · · · Q· · Let's -- let's start with the PMC the company.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2007
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-01520
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Page 29
`·1· ·What did -- what did you know about PMC prior to these
`·2· ·IPRs?
`·3· · · · A· · That they're a -- a nonpracticing entity that
`·4· ·has a relatively large and still active suite of patents
`·5· ·all originating from a foundational patent dated
`·6· ·November 1981, which surfaced through a series of -- or
`·7· ·a handful of CIPs -- and I believe it's '87-'88 time
`·8· ·frame -- and has been, since that time, active in
`·9· ·asserting their alleged intellectual property rights
`10· ·in -- in all these patents and associated claims.
`11· · · · Q· · Okay.
`12· · · · · ·