the intrinsic evidence. This is merely what Chrimar asserts is infringing, and has no
`
`bearing on how one would understand the plain meaning of the claim.
`
`111.
`
`The configuration suggested by Mr. Baxter in paragraphs 91 and 92
`
`describes passing a DC current through the windings on one side of a transformer. The
`
`piece of coiled wire constitutes an electrical connection through which a DC current
`
`may travel. Contrary to his assertion, Defendants’ proposed construction would not
`
`limit the claim to direct electrical connections; as stated above, a connection may be
`
`achieved through the winding of a transformer, as he states.
`
`112. Mr. Baxter's proposed use of "coupling” is, in fact, too broad for the
`
`context of the Patents-in-Suit. As discussed above, Mr. Baxter and I agree that the use of
`
`"current” and ”current flow” in the patents refers to direct current (DC), as opposed to
`
`alternating current (AC). Baxter Decl. at ‘][‘]I 57, 59. However, Mr. Baxter's proposed
`
`construction using ”coupling” would include (according to his own cited definition),
`
`"inductive [coupling] through a transformer or choke, or capacitive [coupling] through
`
`a capacitor.” Baxter Decl. at ‘]I 89. DC cannot be inductively coupled through a
`
`transformer (mutual inductance), nor can it pass through a capacitor. Indeed, in many
`
`places in the disclosed circuits in the patents, capacitors are strategically placed
`
`specifically to block DC and contain it within the boundaries of the claimed invention.
`
`See, generally, Figs. 6, 8, 10.
`
`113.
`
`The use of the term "coupling/’ as defined by Mr. Baxter, would
`
`improperly expand the scope of the claim to paths that could convey alternating current
`
`as well as direct current.
`
`114.
`
`It should be noted that the isolation transformers in Figures 6 and 10 pass
`
`a constant net DC current through the secondary wiring of the transformer, which is
`
`sent back to the central module via two wires operating as a pair. The amount of DC
`
`current on each wire is the total, constant net DC current plus or minus the induction
`
`current supplied across the transformer. The changes in current sent across the
`
`-36-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0036
`
`

`
`magnetic coupling of the transformer themselves are AC signals, but the overall flow of
`
`current through the Ethernet connector and wiring will not change in polarity.
`
`(D)
`
`Loop Formed Over
`
`115. Claim 1 of the ’760 patent recites:
`
`1. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`
`a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment;
`
`a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment;
`
`data signaling pairs of conductors comprising first and
`second pairs used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment and the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment,
`
`the first and second pairs physically connect between the
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and the piece of
`central BaseT Ethernet equipment,
`
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment having at least
`one DC supply,
`
`the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment having at
`least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow
`from the at least one DC supply through a loop formed over
`at least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least one
`of the conductors of the second pair,
`
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment to detect at
`least two different magnitudes of the current flow through
`the loop and to control the application of at least one
`electrical condition to at least two of the conductors.
`
`116. Mr. Baxter asserts that "loop” is "a round trip path formed over [the
`
`claimed contacts].” Baxter Decl. at ‘H 78. Mr. Baxter asserts that "the only limitation in
`
`the loop as stated in the asserted claims is that the loop is formed over at least one of the
`
`conductors of the first pair and at least one of the conductors of the second pair when
`
`the first and second pairs are physically connected between the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment and the piece of central BaseT Ethemet equipment.” Baxter Decl. at
`
`‘j[ 82.
`
`-37-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`1029
`
`037
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0037
`
`

`
`117.
`
`I fail to see the distinction between a round-trip path and a complete
`
`circuit. Newton's Telecom Dictionary defines a ”circuit” as ”[A] closed path through
`
`which current can flow.” This seems indistinguishable from a round-trip path, and Mr.
`
`Baxter never shows, by example or otherwise, how a ”round trip path formed over” is
`
`somehow different from a ”complete circuit.”
`
`118. Mr. Baxter incorrectly asserts that Claim 1 of the ’760 patent ”merely
`
`requires the claimed device be configured to draw different magnitudes of current flow
`
`through a loop.” Baxter Decl. at ‘II 82. The Claim additionally requires that ”the piece of
`
`central BaseT Ethernet equipment [] detect at least two different magnitudes of the
`
`current flow through the loop
`
`.” ’760 Patent, Claim 1.
`
`(E)
`
`Powered Off
`
`119. The ”powered-of ” limitation is introduced in claims 103 and 104 of the
`
`’107 patent and claims 72 and 145 of the ’760 patent. ”Powered-off” in the claims
`
`directly modifies the ”Ethernet terminal equipment” (”end device” in claim 104 of the
`
`’107 patent.) Accordingly, the claims attempt to read on an Ethernet terminal equipment
`
`or end device that is powered-off.
`
`120. Mr. Baxter incorrectly asserts, ”None of the asserted claims says that no
`
`power is applied to the Ethernet terminal equipment or the end device.” Baxter Decl. at
`
`31 111. In contrast, this is precisely what the claims assert, e.g.:
`
`”Claim 103: The piece of Ethernet terminal equipment of any one of claims 1, 17, ...,
`wherein the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment is a piece of powered-off Ethernet
`terminal equipment.”
`
`121. The plain and ordinary meaning of ”powered-of ” is that no power is
`
`applied. This is exactly the meaning of ”powered-off Ethernet terminal equipment” and
`
`”powered-off end device” as used in the claims. There is no ambiguity.
`
`122. Any time there is DC current flowing through real-world components in a
`
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment (or any other device), there is power being drawn
`
`-38-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0038
`
`

`
`by that device, equal to the square of the current multiplied by the effective impedance
`
`(resistance) of the device. That is, P = I2 x R. Such a device is not powered-off, it is in fact
`
`consuming power (regardless of the level of power consumed).
`
`123. Mr. Baxter instead asserts that ”powered-off” means "without its
`
`operating power.” Baxter Decl. at ‘][‘]I 108, 109, 112. To the extent that his construction is
`
`directed to the claim limitations recited, he offers a distinction without a practical
`
`difference. The operation being performed by the Ethernet terminal equipment (and
`
`end device) is that of drawing different magnitudes of DC current. That operation
`
`requires power in order to be performed. A device ”without its operating power” is a
`
`device without the power necessary to perform the claimed function.
`
`124.
`
`Such a claim can never be infringed because there will be no DC current
`
`flow when the device is ”powered-off” (under either a construction of "without power
`
`applied” or ”without its operating power”). Notwithstanding the poor drafting of these
`
`claims, this is their plain meaning. Neither Mr. Baxter or myself is allowed to rewrite
`
`this unambiguous claim language.
`
`125.
`
`It appears that Mr. Baxter's reading of ”powered-off” requires an
`
`additional, unclaimed power source that its present somewhere, and which provides
`
`”operating power”, but which is turned off at the time the claim is infringed. In other
`
`words, ”powered-of ” according to Mr. Baxter does not apply to any of the claim
`
`limitations recited to be part of the Ethernet terminal equipment (or end device).
`
`126. There is no antecedent basis in the claims for such a separate source of
`
`”operating power.” Neither the Ethernet terminal equipment nor the end device are
`
`claimed to include a separate source of power beyond the drawing of current recited in
`
`the claims. For example, the Ethernet terminal equipment (or end device) as claimed
`
`does not recite one portion operable with power from one source, and another portion
`
`that is "powered-off.”
`
`-39-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0039
`
`

`
`127. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the claims to
`
`require an unwritten claim limitation that is both present and non-operational. Nothing
`
`about Ethernet terminal equipment or end devices inherently require a second source of
`
`power.
`
`128. Mr. Baxter's interpretation renders ”powered off” superfluous to the
`
`actual elements of the claim, because it has no application to any recited elements
`
`defined to be part of the "powered-off Ethernet terminal equipment (or end device).”
`
`128.
`
`The difficulty with Mr. Baxter's interpretation arises from the fact that the
`
`patent specification envisions an environment where there is a remote module that is
`
`receiving power from a central module, for the purpose of either sending information to
`
`the remote module, or receiving identifying information from the remote module. The
`
`remote module is attached to an asset being tracked, which presumably is powered
`
`from another source, e.g., an AC mains power line. In such an environment, it may be
`
`possible for the remote module to be consuming power while the asset being tracked is
`
`”powered off.” However, this is not what is claimed, and it is impermissible to read any
`
`limitations of the specified embodiment into the claim language. What is claimed is a
`
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment (or end device) that is powered-off, not an asset
`
`attached to a piece of Ethernet terminal equipment that is powered off.
`
`129. Mr. Baxter's citations to the specification fails to provide a basis for
`
`rewriting the claim language. In all of the citations listed in Baxter Decl. ‘J1 109, the
`
`device without the operating power is the asset to be tracked, which in these
`
`embodiments is shown as a separate component from the remote module,
`
`notwithstanding the fact that it is physically connected to the asset.
`
`130.
`
`The configuration taught by the patent specification serves a particular
`
`purpose; the asset, such a laptop computer, can be employed without any modifications
`
`to its internal structure, yet still be monitored by the external remote module. The
`
`remote module is the add-on device that needs to be powered and sends a unique
`
`-40-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0040
`
`

`
`identifier. Indeed, it is a purported benefit of the invention that the asset can be turned
`
`off, while the remote module provides the tracking capability. However, the operation
`
`of the purported invention (the features of the claimed remote module) are the same
`
`whether the asset is powered-on or powered-off and whether or not Ethernet
`
`communications are being sent. In all of these cases, the remote module is receiving its
`
`power from the central module.
`
`131. Claim 103 of the ’107 patent and claims 72 and 145 of the ’760 patent
`
`address the claimed Ethernet terminal equipment. Claim 104 calls for an "end device.”
`
`Both are claimed to draw DC current as supported by the specification. However, in an
`
`effort to try to draft claims that read on Power-over-Ethernet (POE) powered devices,
`
`the applicants overreached by drafting claims that are not supported by the
`
`specification and that cannot, in fact, be infringed.
`
`132. Whether the ”asset” is powered-on or powered-off is of no consequence to
`
`the claim language. The claims are unambiguous with respect to the meaning of
`
`”powered-off Ethernet terminal equipment” and ”powered off end device.”
`
`(F)
`
`Condition Applied
`
`133. As discussed above, the prosecution history of the ’107 patent confirms
`
`that several functions of the "Ethernet terminal equipment” and ”end device” need to
`
`be performed. One such function is that the different magnitudes of DC current "result
`
`from at least one condition applied to the contacts.”
`
`134. The plain meaning of "condition applied” is simply to do something to the
`
`contacts. This leaves no perceivable boundary as to what constitutes a ”condition.” One
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether it meant:
`
`-41-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
` it 1029
`0041
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0041
`
`

`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`An electrical (voltage, current, impedance) condition as contended by Mr.
`
`Baxter;
`
`A temperature condition (it is indeed possible to cause the magnitude of
`
`the current drawn to change as a function of temperature);
`
`A mechanical change applied to the connector contacts so as to change the
`
`current flow, etc.
`
`135. There is no reason to presume, as Mr. Baxter does, that the condition
`
`applied must be electrical. The fact that certain dependent claims recite voltage
`
`conditions or impedance conditions does nothing to limit the original recitation of
`
`"condition” to merely an electrical condition. As written, it would be unclear how one
`
`would determine the bounds of the claims to evaluate what you can or cannot do to the
`
`contacts to yield different magnitudes of DC current. The claims are indefinite because a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what ”condition applied”
`
`encompasses.
`
`136. As discussed above, Ohm’s law already inherently provides for achieving
`
`different magnitudes of current flow by applying different Voltages to the contacts of
`
`the connectors in the path. Alternatively, thermodynamic changes can affect the
`
`impedance of the paths—e.g., by simply waiting for the weather to change, the
`
`magnitudes of DC current will change to some degree.
`
`137.
`
`To the extent that a ”voltage condition” is applied to the contacts, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is required because it is a clear
`
`application of Ohm’s law to a recited element of the claim.
`
`138.
`
`The principle of claim differentiation demands that "condition” be read as
`
`being broader than ”electrical condition.” Claim 61 of the ’107 patent recites ”[t]he piece
`
`of Ethernet terminal equipment of claim 1 wherein the at least one path is a function of
`
`at least one electrical condition across the at least one of the contacts ...” (emphasis
`
`added). If the ”condition” recited in Claim 1 is already interpreted as an "electrical
`
`condition”, then Claim 61 provides no new limitation and is rendered invalid. Thus, the
`
`-42-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
` -. 1029
`
`042
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0042
`
`

`
`”condition” of Claim 1 must be broader than merely an ”electrical condition,” yet no
`
`guidance is given as to how broad it actually is, or what scope of conditions it covers.
`
`139.
`
`In addition, Claim 80 of the ’107 patent recites "[t]he piece of Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment of Claim 79 wherein the electrical component is responsive to an
`
`electrical condition across the contacts of the Ethernet connector.” (emphasis added)
`
`Claim 79 is directly dependent on Claim 1, which recites "at least one condition applied
`
`to at least one of the contacts.” If ”condition applied” meant "electrical condition
`
`applied,” then Claim 80 would include no new limitation over Claim 79, and would
`
`therefore be invalid. Under the principle of claim differentiation, therefore, ”condition
`
`applied” in Claim 1 must be broader than ”electrical condition applied.”
`
`140. Mr. Baxter asserts that the word ”electrical” should be added to the claim.
`
`He does not explain why the intrinsic evidence would authorize reading in this new
`
`limitation. Nor does he reconcile this with dependent claims 61 and 81, which adds the
`
`limitation of ”electrical condition.”
`
`(G)
`
`Part of a Detection Protocol
`
`141. Numerous dependent claims assert that a current or impedance is part of
`
`a detection protocol. Such a determination is completely subjective. The value measured
`
`is only significant if a person decides to ascribe a meaning to it.
`
`142. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no way of determining,
`
`nor have any control over, whether the amount of current drawn or the impedance
`
`within a device is ascribed a particular meaning by one of the billions of people on
`
`earth.
`
`143. Mr. Baxter asserts that ”detection protocol” means that the equipment is
`
`configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current (flow) or the impedance of
`
`the path allow it to detect or determine some information about equipment at the other
`
`end of the device. Baxter Decl. at H1 74.
`
`-43-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0043
`
`

`
`144.
`
`First, the detection protocol is directed to a magnitude of current or an
`
`impedance, not a piece of equipment. Moreover, his interpretation appears to be
`
`subjective concerning whether someone choses to use this magnitude for a reason (i.e.,
`
`as part of a detection protocol), or whether it is of no consequence; the inherent ability
`
`to measure a current or impedance may provide a numerical value, but whether this
`
`value is part of a detection protocol is subject to the specifications (or whims) of some
`
`other individual or organization.
`
`145.
`
`In particular, it is possible that at the time of design or manufacture of a
`
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment, a given magnitude of current or impedance may
`
`be of no particular consequence. It is not measured, or used to characterize the device.
`
`Under Plaintiffs’ interpretation, this device would not infringe since the equipment was
`
`not ”configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current (flow) or the
`
`impedance in the path allow[s] it to detect or determine some information about the
`
`equipment at the other end of the path.” Baxter Decl. at ‘][ 74. At some later date,
`
`unbeknownst to the designer or manufacturer of the device, an individual or
`
`organization may now chose to characterize that device by the current or impedance
`
`that was previously of no import. Under Plaintiffs’ interpretation, this previously non-
`
`infringing device has now magically become infringing, since it is now configured so
`
`that the magnitude of current or impedance is ascribed a meaning with regard to the
`
`piece of equipment.
`
`146.
`
`This leaves designers with a predicament; they have no guidance as to
`
`how to avoid infringement of the claims, since they have no way of knowing if someone
`
`will ever determine information about their equipment from one of the multitudes of
`
`currents and impedances present within it. A person of ordinary skill would have no
`
`way of knowing, at the time of design or manufacture of a piece of equipment, whether
`
`it would or would not infringe, particularly with respect to a detection protocol that
`
`may be conjured up at a later time by a different party.
`
`-44-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0044
`
`

`
`(H) BaseT
`
`147. Mr. Baxter claims that a person of ordinary skill ”would understand that
`
`the term ’BaseT’ as used each claim [sic] is actually BaseT Ethernet and has its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, namely ”twisted pair Ethernet per the IEEE 802.3 Standards.” I
`
`disagree with Mr. Baxter on this point.
`
`148.
`
`First, as discussed above, there is no plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`"BaseT” or ”BaseT Ethernet.” The terms do not appear in any of the specifications of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, including the ’260 patent incorporated by reference. They also do not
`
`appear in any of the IEEE 802.3 Standards. The terms appear to be made up by the
`
`Applicants without providing any clear definition. VVhile they appear in numerous
`
`claims, a person of ordinary skill would not understand the scope of the term beyond
`
`the sole system disclosed, i.e., 1OBASE-T. ‘O12 Patent, 12:13-14.
`
`149. Mr. Baxter attempts to define "BaseT” as ”twisted pair Ethernet per the
`
`IEEE 802.3 Standards (e.g., 10BaseT/ IEEE 802.3i, 1OOBaseTX/ IEEE 802.3u, and
`
`1000BaseT/ IEEE 802.3ab [sic]).” Baxter Decl. at ‘ll 98. However, even this definition is
`
`vague, as there are numerous uses of twisted pair cable in Ethernet beyond those
`
`alluded to, and it is not at all clear whether the described system could even operate on
`
`them, e.g.:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`1BASE5: Ethernet operating at 1 Mb/ s, using a single unshielded twisted pairs
`
`AUI (part of 1OBASE 5): Ethernet operating at 10 Mb / s using 4 shielded
`
`twisted pairs.
`
`100BASE-T4: Ethernet operating at 100 Mb / s using 4 unshielded twisted
`
`pairs, but in an unusual asymmetrical configuration.
`
`100BASE-T2: Ethernet operating at 100 Mb / s using 2 unshielded twisted
`
`pairs (with a more complex encoding scheme than is used in 100BASE-TX
`
`or IOOBASE-T4).
`
`4 The system disclosed in the patents-in-suit all use two twisted pairs to deliver DC current and
`
`-45-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0045
`
`

`
`0
`
`10GBASE-T: Ethernet operating at 10,000 Mb / s using 4 pairs of Category 6a
`
`or better cabling.
`
`150. Mr. Baxter minimally attempts to include 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T in
`
`his definition, yet these systems use considerably lower signal levels and more complex
`
`encoding schemes than 10BASE-T. See, generally, IEEE 802.3. While the teachings of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit (including the ’260 patent incorporated by reference) may be able to
`
`operate in the relatively high-noise-margin environment of 10BASE-T, there is nothing
`
`in the specification that indicates the system would be operational in either a
`
`100BASE-TX or 1000BASE-T environment without significant disruption of the Ethernet
`
`communications. In particular, 1000BASE-T uses a complex encoding scheme that
`
`operates at 250 Mb / s per pair, in a bi-directional manner. It is quite sensitive to
`
`disturbances on the Ethernet cable, and requires very careful installation and
`
`component selection, even without the intrusion of the system described in the patent
`
`specifications.5
`
`151.
`
`1000BASE-T was not even formally adopted by the IEEE at the time of the
`
`filing of the provisional patent application (April 10, 1998). While the specification was
`
`available in draft form, many details and features of the standard were unsettled and
`
`remained subject to change before final approval. Even if it were at all possible for the
`
`system described in the patents to operate in a 1000BASE-T environment, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would not assume this to be true while the specifications of the final
`
`standard were still in flux.
`
`152. Had the Applicants wanted to claim that the system disclosed could
`
`operate in a 100BASE-TX or 1000BASE-T environment, they could have stated so.
`
`Instead, there is support only for the recited 10BASE-T system.
`
`5 The situation is even worse for 10GBASE-T, which uses Tomlinson-Harashima
`precoded (THP) Pulse Amplitude Modulation with 16 levels (PAM-16), encoded in a
`two dimensional pattern and transmitted at 800 Megasymbols / second]
`
`-46-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0046
`
`

`
`153. As explained above, the term "BaseT” has no meaning to a person of
`
`ordinary skill, and it surely cannot include Ethernet standards that were not even
`
`adopted at the time of filing.
`
`SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`154. As of today, this declaration represents my best opinion regarding the
`
`matters set forth above. In the event such discovery, changes to claim construction,
`
`additional data, or testimony are made available, I may find it necessary to revise or
`
`supplement my opinions.
`
`Dated: 21 January 2016
`
`-47-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`it 1029
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0047
`
`

`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0048
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert
`
`21885 Bear Creek Way
`Los Gatos, CA 95033
`(408) 395-5700
`rich@richseifert.com
`
`
`Overview
`
`Mr. Seifert has over 45 years of experience in the computer industry, specializing in computer network
`architecture, systems, and product design. He was one of the original developers of the 10 Mb / s Ethernet
`technology at Digital Equipment Corporation, and is now President of Networks and Communications
`Consulting, providing services to a wide range of network, semiconductor, and computer systems
`manufacturers, investors, and users. He taught graduate-level courses at the University of California for
`over 15 years, has published three best-selling technology treatises, and has chaired and co-authored
`numerous international standards for computer communications. He has served as a technology consultant
`and testifying expert to law firms in more than thirty cases over the past fifteen years. He is an advisor to
`numerous venture capital investors, has founded high-tech companies both in the U.S. and abroad, and has
`served on the Executive Boards of a number of firms. Mr. Seifert is an attorney, admitted to practice law in
`California and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
`
`Educafion
`
`B.E. (E.E.)
`M.S.E.E.
`M.B.A.
`].D.
`
`City College of New York, 1976
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1979
`Clark University, 1984
`Santa Clara University, 2006 (summa cum laude)
`
`Computerlcommunications Industry Work Experience
`
`1987-Present:
`
`Networks and Communications Consulting (Los Gatos, CA)
`President and Founder
`
`Technical and business consulting to manufacturers, integrators, investors, and users of LAN, semiconductor,
`internetworking, and computer systems products. More than 200 clients over 20 years, with projects ranging from
`strategic planning through product design, specification, and training.
`
`1984-1987:
`
`Industrial Networking, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA)
`Chief Technology Officer
`
`First employee and founding CTO for start-up company developing factory LAN modems, controllers, and
`systems. Provided technical leadership for firm (over 100 employees), as well as design and
`implementation of new manufacturing and test processes.
`
`1976-1984:
`
`Digital Equipment Corp. (Maynard, MA)
`Principal Engineer/Engineering Supervisor/ Consulting Engineer
`
`Technical leader for group of engineers developing first commercial Ethernet products. Co-author (with Xerox
`and Intel Corp.) of industry-standard Ethernet specification. Designed and developed physical channel for
`10 Mb/ s Ethernet, including serial interface and transceiver silicon. Charter member of IEEE 802 LAN
`Standards committee, and co-author of IEEE 802.3 Local Area Network Standard.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0049
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`Teaching Experience
`
`1986-2002:
`
`University of California (Berkeley)
`Graduate level courses on computer network technology.
`
`1999:
`
`1998:
`
`1993-95:
`
`1987-2002:
`
`University of California (Santa Cruz)
`Undergraduate level course on business information systems.
`
`Oxford University (U.K.)
`Graduate level seminar on computer network technology.
`
`University of California (Santa Barbara)
`Graduate level seminars on computer network technology.
`
`Networks and Communications Consulting
`Nearly 100 public and private seminars delivered on computer network technology, plus
`videotape sales.
`
`Entrepreneurial Experience
`
`1992-2000:
`
`1997-2005:
`
`1997-1998:
`
`1997-1998:
`
`1999-2003:
`
`2000-2002:
`
`2000-2003:
`
`2000-2003:
`
`2001-2007:
`
`2001-2003:
`
`Tut Systems (Pleasanton, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Helped develop initial business plan, technology validation. Company taken public,
`subsequently acquired by Motorola.
`
`Mysticom, Inc. (Netanya, Israel; Mountain View, CA)
`Founder, Chief Architect, Board of Directors, Technical Advisory Board
`Key member of company start-up team. Helped with initial incorporation, financing,
`business plan, market validation. Company acquired by TranSwitch Corp.
`
`Juniper Networks (JNPR; San Jose, CA)
`Member of start-up team. Helped with initial product architecture, market validation.
`Company taken public.
`
`Yago Systems (Sunnyvale, CA)
`Member of start-up team. Helped with technology issues, market validation. Company
`acquired by Cabletron Systems.
`
`Nishan Systems (San ]ose, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Consulted to executive team on technology issues. Company acquired by McData Corp.
`
`IatoTech Ventures (Austin, TX)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Evaluated and advised general partners on technology investments.
`
`TeraBlaze, Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
`Founder, Chief Architect
`Key member of company start-up team. Helped with initial incorporation, financing,
`business plan, market Validation. Company acquired by Agere Systems.
`
`Storage Networks (Waltham, MA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Consulted to executive team on technology issues. Company taken public, later dissolved.
`
`Silverback Systems (San Jose, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Member of company start-up team. Helped arrange financing, consulted on technology
`issues. Company acquired by Brocade Communications.
`
`Cavium Networks (CAVM; San Jose, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Member of company start-up team. Consulted on technology issues. Company taken public.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`050
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0050
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`Publications
`
`Books:
`
`The All-New Switch Book: The Complete Guide to LAN Switching Technology, John Wiley & Sons, August 2008
`
`The Switch Book: The Complete Guide to LAN Switching Technology, Iohn Wiley & Sons, Iune 2000
`
`Gigabit Ethernet: Technology and Applications of High Speed LANs, Addison-Wesley, April 1998
`
`The Design and Planning of Enterprise-Wide AppleTalk Internetworks, Apple Computer, 1993
`
`Choosing Between Bridges and Routers, Infonetics Research Institute, 1989 (2nd ed., 1990, 3rd ed. 1991)
`
`Articles and Papers:
`The Use of Backpressure for Congestion Control in Half Duplex CSMA/CD LANs, Networks and Communications
`Consulting Technical Report 15, August 1996
`
`Issues in LAN Switching and Migration from a Shared LAN Environment, Networks and Communications
`Technical Report 14 (also published by Ka1pana,Inc.), November 1995
`
`The Efiect of Ethernet Behavior on Networks using High—Performance Workstations and Servers, Networks and
`Communications Technical Report 13 (also published by Auspex Systems), March 1995
`
`When Worlds Collide, Data Communications, January 1991
`
`Have Remote Bridge Vendors Made a Big Blunder?, Data Communications, April 1991
`
`Ethernet: Ten Years After, BYTE Magazine, Ianuary 1991
`
`Industry Standards (Author or Co-author):
`IEEE 802.3ad: Link Aggregation, 1999
`
`IEEE 802.32: Media Access Control (MAC) Parameters, Physical Layer, Medium Attachment Units, and Repeater for
`1000 Mb/s Operation, Type 1000BASE-X, 1998
`
`IEEE 802.3ac: Frame Extensions for Virtual Bridge Local Area Networks, 1998
`
`IEEE 802.3x: Specification for 802.3 Full Duplex Operation, 1997
`
`ISO/ IEC 8802-3 (IEEE 802.3): Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detect (CSMA/CD) Media Access
`Control Method and Physical Layer Specifications, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1996 (and supplements)
`
`IEEE 802.3u: Media Access Control (MAC) Parameters, Physical Layer, Medium Attachment Units, and Repeater for
`100 Mb/s Operation, Type 100BASE—T, 1995
`
`ISO/ IEC 10038 (IEEE 802.1D): Medium Access Control (MAC) Bridges, 1990, 1993 (and supplements)
`IEEE 802: Overview and Architecture, 1990
`
`IEEE 802.1E: System Load Protocol, 1990
`
`ISO 8802-4 (IEEE 802.4): T0ken—passing bus access method and physical layer specifications, 1985, 1990 (and
`supplements)
`
`Digital Equipment Corp., Intel Corp., Xerox Corp., The Ethernet: A Local Area Network,—Data Link Layer and
`Physical Layer Specifications, Version 1: September 30, 1980, Version 2: November 1982
`
`Legal Consulting Experience
`
`From 1994—present, served as technology consultant and expert witness in numerous cases (for both plaintiffs and
`defendants) involving patent infringement, breach of contract/ warranty, and tort liability. Services have
`included: clarifying and interpreting technology details for counsel, preparation of expert declarations and
`reports, providing testimony (both deposition and open court), and prior art searches. Has also served as Special
`Master (Sup. Ct., CA) in a high-profile trade secret dispute. In 2006, admitted to the bar in California, and to the
`Federal bar for the Northern District of California.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0051