DAVID KLAUSNER
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP, INC.,
` Petitioners,
`vs. Case IPR2016-01756
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
` Patent Owners.
`_______________________________/
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DAVID KLAUSNER
` Tuesday, June 6, 2017
`
` REPORTED BY MARY P. RADOCY, RPR, CSR
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP, INC.,
` Petitioners,
`vs. Case IPR2016-01756
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
` Patent Owners.
`_______________________________/
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DAVID KLAUSNER
` Tuesday, June 6, 2017
`
` REPORTED BY MARY P. RADOCY, RPR, CSR
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 1
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
` I N D E X
`
`2
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
` Page
`Examination by Mr. Mangrum 6
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`No. Description Page
`[None marked.]
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 2
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`3
`
` A P P E A A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNERS UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG S.A.:
` ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
` By: BRETT A. MANGRUM, Esq.
` 2600 East Southlake Blvd., Suite 120-324
` Southlake, TX 76092
` 214.334.5497
` brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS FACEBOOK, INC. AND WHATSAPP, INC.:
` COOLEY LLP
` By: ANDREW MACE, Esq.
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, CA 94304
` 650.843.5808
` amace@cooley.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Mary P. Radocy, Certified Shorthand Reporter
` Miles Ledonois, Videographer
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 3
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`4
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. AND WHATSAPP, INC.,
` Petitioners,
`vs. Case IPR2016-01756
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
` Patent Owners.
`________________________________/
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to
`Notice of Taking Deposition, and on Tuesday,
`June 6, 2017, commencing at the hour of 9:10 a.m.
`thereof, at Cooley LLP, 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto,
`California, before me, MARY P. RADOCY, a Certified
`Shorthand Reporter, there personally appeared
`
` DAVID KLAUSNER,
`
` called as a witness by the Patent Owners, and who,
`being first administered an oath, was thereupon
`examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 4
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`5
`Palo Alto, California June 6, 2017
` ---oOo---
` PROCEEDINGS
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins Video No. 1, in
`the deposition of David Klausner, in the matter of
`"Facebook and WhatsApp versus Uniloc, Incorporated," the
`case number of which is IPR2016-01756. Today's date is
`the 6th of June 2017, and the time on the video monitor
`is 9:12 a.m. This deposition is being taken at 3175
`Hanover Street in the City of Palo Alto, California.
` The Court Reporter producing the official
`transcript of today's testimony is Mary Radocy, and I am
`Miles Ledonois, the Videographer.
` Will counsel please identify yourselves and
`state whom you represent? Starting with the witness,
`please.
` MR. KLAUSNER: I'm not counsel, but I'm David
`Klausner, and I'm working for the Appellants.
` MR. MACE: Andrew Mace, with Cooley, for the
`Petitioners Facebook and WhatsApp.
` MR. MANGRUM: Brett Mangrum. I represent the
`Uniloc entities and the patent owner that is among the
`Uniloc entities.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the Court Reporter
`please swear in the witness?
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 5
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`6
`
` COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your right
`hand, please?
`Whereupon,
` DAVID KLAUSNER
` called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Klausner.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Have you been deposed in connection with an IPR
`proceeding before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Was that within the last year?
` A. I think so.
` Q. Have you provided expert testimony on behalf of
`Uniloc in the past?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you have access to any Uniloc
`confidential information as part of the work you
`performed for Uniloc?
` A. I don't think I did.
` Q. And why you qualify -- you don't think?
` A. That's because it's been years ago and I did not
`examine any Uniloc financial information or Uniloc
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 6
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`7
`
`product information.
` Q. Without qualifying any type of information, have
`you had access to Uniloc confidential information at any
`time -- any -- let me rephrase.
` Have you ever had access to any Uniloc
`confidential information at any time? I remind you, you
`are testifying under oath.
` A. I don't remember. As I said, I don't think so,
`but I don't remember. I can't imagine what that would
`be.
` Q. Did you work with any Uniloc employee as part of
`the work you performed for Uniloc?
` A. I did have a meeting with, I believe it was, the
`vice president at that time.
` Q. Do you recall his name or her name?
` A. Brad, maybe Brad.
` Is there a Brad?
` Q. Your answer was Brad.
` A. To the best of my memory.
` Q. Did you receive any communications from a Uniloc
`employee as part of the work you performed for Uniloc?
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. You never received any emails from a Uniloc
`employee as part of the work you performed.
` A. I think you're right.
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 7
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`8
` Q. All communications were, with a Uniloc employee,
`were in person?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You never had a phone conversation with a Uniloc
`employee.
` A. Not to my knowledge.
` Q. I'm going to ask you similar questions with
`respect to Uniloc counsel, and when I say "counsel," I'm
`just talking about attorneys for Uniloc, whether they be
`in-house or outside counsel. I'm not going to ask you to
`try to remember whether or not they were inside or
`outside counsel.
` But just thinking of counsel for Uniloc, did you
`receive communications from any Uniloc counsel as part of
`the work you performed for Uniloc?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Were any of those communications in the form of
`email?
` A. I don't have a specific recollection, but I
`think they were.
` Q. Did any of those email communications contain
`Uniloc confidential information?
` A. Not to my knowledge.
` Q. And what steps did you take, if any, in making
`certain you have no conflict of interest in testifying on
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 8
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`9
`
`behalf of the Petitioners in this matter?
` A. Two steps: First, I don't have any Uniloc
`information of any kind; second, I searched my memory and
`I hardly remember the material or whatever it was I did
`those years ago.
` Q. So your conflicts check was based on what you
`can presently recall; that's what your testimony is
`today.
` A. No. I don't know why you would ignore my search
`for material. I don't have any material.
` Q. Well, I apologize. I didn't hear that.
` So you searched for electronic communication
`from Uniloc in performing a conflicts check.
` A. No. In the normal course of my business, I
`return or destroy all material after the cases.
` Q. And that would include email communication?
` A. Well, it's not possible to return an email if
`it's electronic. It needs to be destroyed.
` Q. For email communications, your testimony is you
`destroyed or deleted the email.
` A. Years ago, yes.
` Q. I'm going to hand you what has previously been
`marked as Exhibit 1002 to the Petition.
` Do you mind passing this?
` This is the -- well, let me ask you: Do you
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 9
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`10
`
`recognize this document that's been marked as Exhibit
`1002?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what do you recognize this document to be?
` A. As a copy of my Declaration in this matter.
` Q. And that's your name on page 1 of Exhibit 1002,
`"Declaration of David Klausner."
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to refer within this Declaration to
`the paragraph numbers so we can make certain we're
`looking at the same portion of the Declaration. Do you
`understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Let's go now to paragraph 13 of the
`Declaration. I'll tell you what page number in a second,
`unless you beat me there.
` A. I have it.
` Q. Okay. Page 7, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you see in your Declaration where it states,
`"A person of ordinary skill in the art as of December
`2003, possessed at least a Bachelor's degree in
`Electrical Engineering or Computer Science or equivalent
`degree or experience with at least two years of
`experience in computer programing and software
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 10
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`11
`
`development, including the development of software for
`communication with other computers over a network."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Your Declaration does not define what would be
`considered equivalent experience to the degrees listed,
`correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Your Declaration does not identify which degrees
`are considered equivalent to those listed, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. One reason I ask is: So you have at least two
`years of experience listed in paragraph 13. Do you see
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then -- but you also mention experience in
`the parenthetical. Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So just to understand your definition of
`POSITA, would someone need -- assume someone doesn't have
`either an electrical engineering or computer science
`degree. What would be equivalent experience to satisfy,
`in its entirety, your definition of POSITA?
` A. I opine that it would be five years of industry
`experience. In my experience, I have met people without
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 11
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`12
`a college degree that have that level of experience that
`would be equivalent.
` Q. And five years, would that satisfy -- when you
`have "with at least two years' experience," someone with
`five years of experience would satisfy your definition of
`POSITA; that's what your testimony is today.
` A. Yes. That was your question, I believe.
` Q. I want to make sure I understand.
` The five years would not require another at
`least two years, so not seven years; five years would
`satisfy POSITA?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Flip back to paragraph 1 of your Declaration.
` A. I have it.
` Q. Okay. Paragraph 1 of your Declaration states
`that you have 49 years of professional experience in the
`areas of computer networking, security and software,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, incidentally, I've noticed -- let me ask
`you this: Do you have a website that you maintain, a
`professional website?
` A. I do have a site. I believe it's been offline
`for awhile.
` Q. Offline, meaning inaccessible? Or what do you
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 12
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`13
`
`mean by "offline"?
` A. Inaccessible.
` Q. I can represent to you that I recently accessed
`the website within the last week and it stated that you
`have 47 years experience. I just want to confirm that
`your Declaration saying it's 49 years of professional
`experience, is that an accurate statement?
` A. No. The accurate statement is 50.
` Q. Fifty. So your Declaration with respect to your
`years of professional experience is inaccurate.
` A. Yes. This is a Declaration from last year.
` Q. So as -- okay. As of when you signed this,
`you're saying your experience was 49. As of today, it's
`50.
` A. Correct. I have a half a century of experience.
` Q. During those -- let's talk about from the time
`period you signed your Declaration and referenced 49
`years, during those 49 years, did you exclusively work in
`the areas identified in paragraph 1?
` A. No.
` Q. During that same timeframe, did you also work as
`an actor?
` A. I was an amateur; yes.
` Q. Did you also work as a professional clown during
`those 49 years?
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 13
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`14
`
` A. I -- I don't --
` MR. MACE: Objection. Irrelevant.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall. Let me think for
`a moment.
` No.
` MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. What percentage of your time, of your
`professional time in the past ten years, have you spent
`consulting in a legal context such as in connection with
`litigation or proceeding before the USPTO?
` A. Probably in excess of 90 percent.
` Q. I want to ask you about your testimony regarding
`the claim term "registration." Do you recall that term?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's turn to page 25.
` A. I have it.
` Q. You see a -- the second sentence in paragraph
`37. The specification -- so you testified there, the
`second sentence, "The specification does not appear to
`provide explicit guidance as to the meaning of
`'registration.'"
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I want to ask you about that statement.
` Is it your testimony that the specification
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 14
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`15
`
`discloses no form of registration whatsoever?
` A. May I have the 194 specification?
` Q. I'm going to hand you -- it's been previously
`marked. Before I even hand that to you, let me be clear
`that -- let me rephrase my question to make it easier for
`you to answer.
` Referring specifically to your Declaration, does
`your Declaration identify -- is it correct that your
`Declaration testifies that there's no form of
`registration in the specification?
` A. I'm checking.
` May I see Exhibit 1011?
` Q. 1011. I'm not sure. Do you recall what that
`is?
` A. At the bottom of my page 21, in paragraph 39, I
`write, "pointing to Paragraphs 56 and 57 of the
`Applicant's published patent application.
` Q. I don't have Exhibit 111, but I can give you
`Exhibit 101, which is the issued patent specification.
` A. You say Exhibit 101?
` Q. 1001.
` A. Well, I'm prepared to answer questions about the
`Exhibit 1011.
` Q. Is it your testimony that in paragraph 39, you
`identify a former registration in Applicant's published
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 15
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`16
`
`patent application?
` A. I'm sorry. Can I get that again?
` (Record read.)
` THE WITNESS: I don't understand the question.
` MR. MANGRUM: I think there was a word that was
`substituted. Let me rephrase.
` Q. Is it your testimony that in paragraph 39, you
`identify a form of registration within the Applicant's
`published patent application?
` A. I need to see Exhibit 1011.
` Q. I'm not asking what's in Exhibit 1011. I'm
`asking what's in paragraph 39.
` A. I'm asking for Exhibit 1011 in order to answer
`your question.
` Q. Why do you need to see what's in 1011? I'm
`asking you your opinion. I'm asking what you testify,
`what your opinion is in paragraph 39, and asking for
`clarification of this opinion. I'm asking you to tell me
`what's in paragraphs 56 and 57.
` A. I disagree. My opinion is based on 1011. If
`you don't have Exhibit 1011, we'll need to move on.
` Q. So you can't, as you sit here today, you can't
`interpret your own statement, paragraph 39, as to whether
`or not it identifies a form of registration.
` A. I'll need Exhibit 1011 to refresh my memory.
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 16
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`17
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Let's go off the record.
` (Off the record.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. The time
`is 9:35 a.m.
` MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Thank you for providing me Exhibit 1011.
` I'm going to hand the witness what's previously
`marked as Exhibit 111.
` Let me rephrase. Withdraw. Rephrase the prior
`question.
` I want to -- again, if you look at paragraph 39,
`it starts on page 25 and continues -- sorry -- Exhibit
`No. 1002, page 25, as labeled in the exhibit, and it
`continues on in Exhibit 1092, page 26. Do you see that,
`paragraph 39 spans multiple pages?
` A. Yes.
` Q. At the top of page 26, as labeled in the
`exhibit, it says, "Those paragraphs," I presume that's
`paragraphs 56 and 57, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. "Those paragraphs (which also appear in the
`issued patent) describe an embodiment in which a user
`must establish a subscriber account, for example by
`providing personal billing information to the associated
`account in order to use the service."
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 17
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`18
`
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that an accurate statement? Do you stand by
`that testimony today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do those -- based off that testimony, that
`description of what's in those paragraphs, is that a
`registration?
` MR. MACE: Object to form.
` COURT REPORTER: Off the record?
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
`time is 9:39.
` (Off the record.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record.
` MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. You offer, in your Declaration, a definition for
`registration, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Under your definition of "registration," is what
`is disclosed in paragraphs 56 and 57 -- actually let me
`rephrase.
` Under your definition of registration, is your
`description of the paragraphs 56 and 57 a registration?
` A. May I see paragraphs 56 and 57?
` Q. I'm asking here, your description here of those
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 18
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`19
`
`paragraphs, does that satisfy your definition of a
`registration?
` A. In order to answer your question, I need --
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection. Nonresponsive. Listen
`to the question. It's very important.
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't finish my
`answer.
` If you continue to ask me questions without
`providing me the backup documentation to allow me to
`refresh my memory, I won't be able to answer your
`question.
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection. Nonresponsive.
` Q. My question to you, sir, is: Whether this
`statement on the top of 22, if "a user must establish a
`subscriber account, for example by providing billing
`information to be associated with the account in order to
`use the service," is that a registration?
` A. A registration of what? I asked for
`clarification.
` Q. A registration, as you define it.
` A. A registration for a system or a registration
`for a particular server? You need to clarify what you're
`asking.
` Q. Does your definition clarify whether or not
`registration for a system or a server?
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 19
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`20
`
` A. No, mine doesn't.
` Q. Okay.
` A. But you asked the question: Is it a
`registration?
` Q. Right. I'm asking under your --
` A. I'm sorry, sir. We can't overspeak. We have to
`be decent. I won't be able to continue if you continue
`to interrupt me, so please withhold your interruptions.
` Now, it is a registration, but your question
`was: Is it a registration? And I'm asking for
`clarification about what you mean in your question.
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection. Nonresponsive. Move
`to strike.
` Q. I'm not defining registration. I'm asking you
`to apply your definition for registration, and under your
`definition for registration, does a subscriber, is that
`definition satisfied if a user must establish a
`subscriber account, for example by providing personal
`billing information to be associated with the account in
`order to use the service?
` A. That is an example of "a" registration.
` Q. I'm going to have you refer back to paragraph 38
`of your Declaration.
` A. I have it.
` Q. Okay. The first sentence of paragraph 38, it
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 20
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`21
`
`says, "The term 'registration' to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art generally refers to a process by which a
`user provides needed information to a server in order to
`gain access to a service."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to refer to that statement as your
`general definition. Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. The reason why, there's a second sentence in
`paragraph 38 as well. Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that quotes the Newton's Telecom Dictionary
`definition. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So I'm going to refer to your general
`definition and as distinguished from the Newton's Telecom
`Dictionary definition. Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Just for purposes of the question.
` A. So you're distinguishing the definition I
`provided in the first sentence from the second sentence.
` Q. Correct. And that would be another way to do
`it, first or second sentence. Maybe that's more
`specific.
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 21
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`22
`
` In that first sentence, the definition for
`registration does not explicitly state that the provided
`information must be personal information, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. That first definition does not explicitly state
`that the user must be granted access to a server,
`correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. That first definition does not explicitly
`address establishing a subscriber --
` A. Oh, on consideration, service is provided by
`servers, and so it inherently accesses a server.
` Q. Are servers the only way to provide a service?
` A. That's my understanding. The purpose of a
`server is to provide services.
` Q. I think we're talking past each other. My
`question is: Are those synonymous? Is there -- let me
`rephrase.
` Is the only way to provide a service through a
`server?
` A. In the field of computers and in the field of
`services, and that's the field we're in, servers provide
`services; other things don't provide services.
` Q. Are all computers servers?
` A. All computers are servers in that they provide
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 22
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`23
`
`services. There are certain services that your laptop
`provides and they are services. And, in fact, if you
`look in the -- if you right-click on "My Computer" and
`you choose "Manage" and you choose "Services," you'll see
`a list of all the services that are provided by your
`laptop right there.
` Q. My laptop, I could call it a server?
` A. For certain purposes. For the purposes of
`serving you or serving that computer, the services that
`show up in the list that are enumerated when you
`right-click on the "Manage" under "My Computer."
` Q. If my, the laptop we're looking at, if it's
`providing me services, it's operating as a server.
` A. For those services, yes.
` Q. Okay. Does your Declaration offer a specific
`definition for the word "server"?
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. Now, looking again to the first sentence, the
`first definition or your general definition, does it
`explicitly address establishing a subscriber account?
` A. No. I think it encompasses that, but it doesn't
`say to establish a subscriber account.
` Q. Does the -- is that your full answer? I don't
`want to talk over you.
` A. Yes. Thank you.
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 23
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`24
`
` Q. Does the intrinsic evidence exclude the -- so
`now referring to the intrinsic evidence. And let me back
`up.
` Do you know what I mean, what is meant by the
`term "intrinsic evidence"?
` A. Can you please explain it?
` Q. Sure. Let's define amongst us that intrinsic
`evidence is including the patent specification and the
`prosecution history.
` Do you know what I mean, the history of
`prosecutions before the United States Patent Office?
` A. I understand.
` Q. You understand. Do you understand anything else
`being encompassed by the term "intrinsic evidence"?
` A. To the extent that you included the claims in
`your word "specification," then no.
` Q. So does the intrinsic evidence, to your
`knowledge, exclude the possibility for a user to
`establish a subscriber account before gaining access to
`the services a provider is willing to offer?
` A. Can I hear that again?
` Q. Yeah, let me do it again.
` Does the intrinsic evidence exclude the
`possibility for a user to establish a subscriber account
`before gaining access to the services a provider is
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 24
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`25
`
`willing to offer?
` A. May I see the 194 patent?
` Q. Absolutely. I'm going to hand you what's been
`marked 1001. This is the issued version of -- I have my
`mike or I'd walk around the table --
` A. I may have been mistaken in answering yes to
`your -- well, your understanding of intrinsic evidence.
`I think it may also include applications and
`provisionals.
` Q. Yeah. So you're saying essentially everything
`that was filed within the United States Patent Office.
` A. Yes.
` Q. For our purposes of this discussion, please
`let's include all that within the scope of what we define
`as intrinsic evidence.
` A. Yes. Thank you.
` And your question was, again, about preclusion.
` Q. Would you like me to restate?
` A. Can you please?
` Q. Absolutely.
` Does the intrinsic evidence, as we've defined
`it, exclude the possibility for a user to establish a
`subscriber account before gaining access to the services
`a provider is willing to offer?
` A. I don't think so.
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 25
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`26
`
` Q. Does the intrinsic evidence exclude the
`possibility for different subscribers to have different
`access to different services of the same provider?
` A. I find that to be an incomplete hypothetical.
` Q. Sure. Let me see if I can rephrase. And again,
`this isn't --- I'm not asking you a hypothetical.
` I'm asking what the intrinsic evidence
`specifically excludes, so expressly excludes. And with
`that knowledge, I'm asking you: What does the evidence
`say with respect to what subscribers can and can't do?
`Does intrinsic evidence exclude the possibility for
`different subscribers to have access to different
`services of the same provider?
` MR. MACE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: May I hear it one more time?
` MR. MANGRUM: Sure. Let me try to provide some
`contextual background and then ask the question a
`different way.
` Q. So you have one provider, a single provider that
`has optional services, services that some -- one
`subscriber might need but another subscriber might not.
`So does the intrinsic evidence exclude that possibility
`where a provider might say, here is a menu of services,
`Subscriber A selects from that menu, Subscriber B selects
`different services. Is that possibility excluded,
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 26
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`27
`
`expressly excluded in the specifications?
` MR. MACE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: You mean expressly excluded in the
`intrinsic evidence, right?
` MR. MANGRUM: Yes. Thank you. For
`clarification.
` THE WITNESS: I don't see that.
` MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. I want to ask you about the entire or the
`broader context of the phrase, "without requiring
`registration," and your understanding of that phrase as
`you refer to it in the Declaration. Do you understand
`where I'm going now, to a broader concept of "without
`requiring registration"?
` A. I don't understand that phrase out of context,
`the phrase "without requiring registration with a
`conference call server."
` Q. Let's do that, let's talk about that entire
`clause, "without requiring registration with a conference
`call server."
` A. As it exists in the claim language.
` Q. Exactly. So I want to ask you about that
`specific claimed phrase, "without requiring registration
`with a conference call server."
` And to clarify, to make sure I understand your
`
`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
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, No. IPR2016-01756
`Uniloc's EX2004 Page 27
`
`
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`28
`clarification there, you're saying, "without requiring
`registration" has no meaning apart from its context,
`"with a conference call server."
` A. I'm not saying that.
` Q. Well, why is it necessary to include that extra
`language?
` A. Because we're talking about claims of a patent
`and extracting a portion of the claim and trying to
`define it outside of its context, I don't think, is
`appropriate.
` Q. And then language explicitly ties the phrase
`"with a conference call server" to that modification
`"without requiring registration."
` A. Well, it's the entire element.
` Q. Right.
` A. "Display for the first party an option to
`automatically initiate voice communication between the
`current participants of the IM session without requiring
`individual selection of potential members including the
`first party and the at least one other party and without
`requiring registration with a conference call server for
`establishing the voice communication by the potential
`members including the first party and the at least one
`other party. Therefore, I say that the phrase is
`actually "without requiring registration with a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
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
