DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 1
`·1· · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2
`
`·1· ·PRESENT: (Continued)
`
`·2· · · · ·DUANE MORRIS LLP,
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`1–4
`Page 3
`
`·3· ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · ·(1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000,
`
`·4
`
`·4· · · · ·Atlanta, Georgia· 30309-3929,
`
`·5· ·CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,· · · · ·) Case No.
`
`·5· · · · ·404-253-6917), by:
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) IPR2016-01020
`
`·6· · · · ·MR. COREY J. MANLEY,
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · Petitioner,· ·)· · -and-
`
`·7· · · · ·cjmanley@duanemorris.com,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) Case No.
`
`·8· · · · · · · appeared on behalf of Arris, Comcast,
`
`·9· · · · ·-vs-· · · · · · · · · ·) IPR2016-01021
`
`·9· · · · · · · Cox, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable;
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`
`10
`
`11· ·TQ DELTA, LLC,· · · · · · · ·) U.S. Patent No.
`
`11· · · · ·COOLEY LLP,
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) 9,014,243
`
`12· · · · ·(Reston Town Center,
`
`13· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner. )
`
`13· · · · ·11951 Freedom Drive, 14th Floor,
`
`14
`
`14· · · · ·Reston, Virginia· 20190-5656,
`
`15· · · · · · · The deposition of DOUGLAS A. CHRISSAN,
`
`15· · · · ·703-456-8130), by:
`
`16· ·Ph.D., taken in the above-entitled cause, before
`
`16· · · · ·MR. STEPHEN McBRIDE,
`
`17· ·SUSAN K. TODAY, a Notary Public within and for the
`
`17· · · · ·smcbride@cooley.com,
`
`18· ·County of DuPage, State of Illinois, and a
`
`18· · · · · · · appeared via telephonic communications
`
`19· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, C.S.R.
`
`19· · · · · · · on behalf of Dish Network;
`
`20· ·No. 84-2212, at Suite 3500, 500 West Madison
`
`21· ·Street, Chicago, Illinois, on May 9, 2017,
`
`22· ·commencing at 9:12 a.m.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`23
`
`24
`
`·1· ·PRESENT:
`
`Page 2
`
`·1· ·PRESENT: (Continued)
`
`Page 4
`
`·2· · · · ·HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP,
`
`·2· · · · ·McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.,
`
`·3· · · · ·(2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700,
`
`·3· · · · ·(500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor,
`
`·4· · · · ·Dallas, Texas· 75219,
`
`·4· · · · ·Chicago, Illinois· 60661,
`
`·5· · · · ·214-651-5533), by:
`
`·5· · · · ·312-775-8000), by:
`
`·6· · · · ·MR. JOHN RUSSELL EMERSON,
`
`·6· · · · ·MR. PETER J. McANDREWS,
`
`·7· · · · ·russ.emerson@haynesboone.com,
`
`·7· · · · ·pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · -and-
`
`·8· · · · ·MR. RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR,
`
`·9· · · · ·HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP,
`
`·9· · · · ·rchiplunkar@mcandrews-ip.com,
`
`10· · · · ·(2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000,
`
`10· · · · · · · appeared on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
`11· · · · ·Richardson, Texas· 75082-4101,
`
`11
`
`12· · · · ·972-739-8649), by:
`
`12· ·ALSO PRESENT:
`
`13· · · · ·MR. THEODORE M. FOSTER,
`
`13· · · · ·MR. SAYFE KIAEI.
`
`14· · · · ·theo.foster@haynesboone.com,
`
`15· · · · ·MR. GREGORY HUH,
`
`16· · · · ·gregory.huh@haynesboone.com,
`
`17· · · · · · · appeared on behalf of the Petitioner;
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·REPORTED BY:· SUSAN K. TODAY, C.S.R., R.P.R.
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·License No. 84-2212.
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 1 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 5
`·1· · · · MR. EMERSON:· Good morning, Dr. Chrissan.
`·2· · · · · · · How do you pronounce your name?
`·3· · · · DR. DOUGLAS CHRISSAN:· Chrissan, like the
`·4· ·ship.
`·5· · · · MR. EMERSON:· Chrissan.· Okay.· Great.
`·6· · · · · · · Good morning, Dr. Chrissan.· Do you
`·7· ·understand that you're here as TQ Delta's
`·8· ·testifying expert in four different IPRs?
`·9· · · · DR. DOUGLAS CHRISSAN:· I do.
`10· · · · MR. EMERSON:· And for the record those IPRs
`11· ·are IPR2016-01006, -01007, -01008, and -01009,
`12· ·correct?
`13· · · · ·DR. DOUGLAS CHRISSAN:· Yes.
`14· · · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly
`15· · · · · · · · · ·sworn.)
`16· · · · · · · ·DOUGLAS A. CHRISSAN, Ph.D.,
`17· ·called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`18· ·sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`19· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`20· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`21· · · · Q.· · Great.· So you don't want to change your
`22· ·answers now that you've been sworn to tell the
`23· ·truth?· I'm kidding.· Since I asked you the first
`24· ·question before you were sworn in.
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`5–8
`Page 7
`·1· · · · Q.· · Okay.· All right.· So that was number
`·2· ·one.· When was number two?
`·3· · · · A.· · Number two was March 20th -- March 22nd
`·4· ·of this year.
`·5· · · · Q.· · Was that also related to these
`·6· ·proceedings?
`·7· · · · A.· · No.· That was related to the
`·8· ·intellectual ventures DSL case in the Western
`·9· ·District of Texas.
`10· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And then when was the next one?
`11· · · · A.· · The third one was April 13th of this
`12· ·year for the same case.
`13· · · · Q.· · And then this will be the fourth one?
`14· · · · A.· · This will be the fourth one.
`15· · · · Q.· · Okay.· In your prior deposition in the
`16· ·related litigation for this family of patents what
`17· ·were you opining on?
`18· · · · · · · You were engaged as an expert in that
`19· ·case, right?
`20· · · · A.· · Oh, yes.
`21· · · · Q.· · Was it claim construction or invalidity?
`22· · · · A.· · I was opining with respect to
`23· ·declarations that I had submitted for claim
`24· ·construction.
`
`Page 6
`
`·1· · · · · · · All right.· You understand I represent
`·2· ·Cisco in those four IPRs, right?
`·3· · · · A.· · Yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· · All right.· And would you just state
`·5· ·your full name for the record?
`·6· · · · A.· · My name is Douglas A. Chrissan.
`·7· · · · Q.· · How many times have you been deposed
`·8· ·before, Dr. Chrissan?
`·9· · · · A.· · This will be my fourth.
`10· · · · Q.· · Okay.· When was the first time you were
`11· ·deposed?
`12· · · · A.· · September of 2016.
`13· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And in what proceeding were you
`14· ·deposed in September of 2016?
`15· · · · A.· · I was in this building.· It was for the
`16· ·district litigation for these -- essentially these
`17· ·same patents.
`18· · · · Q.· · The Delaware case, the district court
`19· ·case?
`20· · · · A.· · I know it was a district court case. I
`21· ·believe it was Delaware.· I know it was for some of
`22· ·these same family of patents, and it was -- I
`23· ·believe the attorneys may have been representing
`24· ·Comcast.
`
`Page 8
`·1· · · · Q.· · So you understand that you're under oath
`·2· ·today, right?
`·3· · · · A.· · Yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· · And it's the same oath you would take in
`·5· ·a court of law?
`·6· · · · A.· · Understood.
`·7· · · · Q.· · And so you're sworn to tell the truth,
`·8· ·right?
`·9· · · · A.· · That's correct.
`10· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Is there any reason why you can't
`11· ·give me complete and truthful answers today?
`12· · · · A.· · No, there's no reason why I can't give
`13· ·complete and truthful answers today.
`14· · · · Q.· · You're not on any medication or anything
`15· ·like that?
`16· · · · A.· · No.
`17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So you see that we have a court
`18· ·reporter here, right?
`19· · · · A.· · Yes.
`20· · · · Q.· · And she takes down everything we say.
`21· ·You understand that?
`22· · · · A.· · I do.
`23· · · · Q.· · And we will make her job easier if we
`24· ·will not talk over each other.· All right?
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 2 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 9
`
`·1· · · · A.· · I understand.
`·2· · · · Q.· · Sometimes I fall short on that so I'll
`·3· ·do my best to help her.
`·4· · · · · · · The other thing is that we need audible
`·5· ·answers, words.
`·6· · · · A.· · Understood.
`·7· · · · Q.· · Not head nods or shakes or uh-huh or
`·8· ·uhn-uhn.· Okay?
`·9· · · · A.· · Understood.
`10· · · · Q.· · I'll ask you to tell me if you don't
`11· ·understand my question.· Okay?
`12· · · · A.· · I will.
`13· · · · Q.· · We'll try to take a break at least every
`14· ·hour or so.· Okay?
`15· · · · A.· · Okay.
`16· · · · Q.· · Anytime you want to take a break, let me
`17· ·know.· I'm not going to keep you here against your
`18· ·will.· All I ask is that if there's a question
`19· ·pending, let's finish the answer and then we can
`20· ·take a break.
`21· · · · · · · So you are engaged by TQ Delta in these
`22· ·IPRs, correct?
`23· · · · A.· · That's correct.
`24· · · · Q.· · Do you remember when you were engaged by
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`9–12
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·consultant.
`·2· · · · Q.· · What does that mean?
`·3· · · · A.· · The self-employed part means that I am
`·4· ·100-percent self-employed.· I don't get a W-2 from
`·5· ·anyone; I'm not fully employed by any company.
`·6· · · · · · · The technical consultant means I work
`·7· ·for entities by the hour consulting as needed.
`·8· · · · Q.· · What kind of consulting do you typically
`·9· ·do?
`10· · · · A.· · That is contained in the CV that I
`11· ·believe would have been an attachment to my
`12· ·declaration.
`13· · · · · · · I do IP litigation consulting as an
`14· ·expert witness.· I do IP litigation consulting
`15· ·doing work that's non-expert witness work.· I also
`16· ·do technical work for engineering companies.· All
`17· ·of those things are listed in my CV.
`18· · · · Q.· · Approximately what proportion of your
`19· ·consulting work is related to litigation?
`20· · · · A.· · That would have to be taken on a
`21· ·period-by-period basis because it varies.
`22· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Is there a typical range in which
`23· ·it varies?
`24· · · · A.· · I think you would have to ask a more
`
`Page 10
`
`·1· ·TQ Delta?
`·2· · · · A.· · Approximately one year ago.
`·3· · · · Q.· · All right.· And who approached you on
`·4· ·behalf of TQ Delta?
`·5· · · · A.· · An attorney in this office named Anna
`·6· ·Targowska.
`·7· · · · Q.· · Before Anna Targowska approached you
`·8· ·about this matter had you ever heard of TQ Delta?
`·9· · · · A.· · I had not.
`10· · · · Q.· · Were you familiar at all with the three
`11· ·patents at issue in these IPRs?
`12· · · · A.· · I was not.
`13· · · · Q.· · Do you have any financial interest in
`14· ·these proceedings?
`15· · · · A.· · As stated in my declaration, I'm paid by
`16· ·the hour and that does not depend on any outcome.
`17· · · · Q.· · You don't own any stock in TQ Delta or
`18· ·have ownership interest in TQ Delta?
`19· · · · A.· · That's correct; I have no ownership
`20· ·interest in TQ Delta and no -- how should I put
`21· ·it? -- compensation depending on the outcome of
`22· ·this litigation or this IPR.
`23· · · · Q.· · Okay.· What do you do for a living?
`24· · · · A.· · I am a self-employed technical
`
`Page 12
`·1· ·specific question.· What do you mean by typical
`·2· ·range?· It varies.
`·3· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So is it ever 100-percent
`·4· ·litigation-related?
`·5· · · · A.· · There are times when it's 100-percent
`·6· ·litigation-related.
`·7· · · · · · · Let me go back to your original
`·8· ·question.· Could you restate your original
`·9· ·question?
`10· · · · Q.· · I'm just trying to get a feel for the
`11· ·proportion of your time that's devoted to
`12· ·litigation-type stuff and the proportion that's
`13· ·related to non-litigation type stuff.· That's all.
`14· · · · A.· · Again, it varies.· I don't spend
`15· ·100-percent of my time on litigation consulting. I
`16· ·don't spend 100-percent of my time on pure
`17· ·technical development work.
`18· · · · Q.· · When did you start doing litigation
`19· ·consulting?
`20· · · · A.· · In 2013.
`21· · · · Q.· · Okay.· But you hadn't been deposed until
`22· ·last September?
`23· · · · A.· · That's correct.
`24· · · · Q.· · Other than these IPRs have you been
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 3 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 13
`
`·1· ·involved in any other IPRs?
`·2· · · · A.· · I have been involved in at least one
`·3· ·other IPR.· Also with TQ Delta.
`·4· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And you haven't been deposed for
`·5· ·that one yet, have you?
`·6· · · · A.· · That's correct, I have not been deposed
`·7· ·for that one yet.
`·8· · · · Q.· · What did you do to prepare for your
`·9· ·deposition today?
`10· · · · A.· · I reviewed the patents at issue, my
`11· ·declaration, Dr. Kiaei's declaration and deposition
`12· ·transcript, and Cisco's petition, and any other
`13· ·documents listed in the report.
`14· · · · Q.· · Did you read the prior art?
`15· · · · A.· · I did read the prior art, the asserted
`16· ·prior art, yes.
`17· · · · Q.· · And you submitted one declaration in
`18· ·support of all four IPRs, right?
`19· · · · A.· · Yes, that's correct.
`20· · · · Q.· · Did you look at the Board's decisions in
`21· ·these IPRs?
`22· · · · A.· · I did look at the document instituting
`23· ·the IPR from the Board, yes.
`24· · · · Q.· · For each IPR?· All four of them?
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`13–16
`Page 15
`
`·1· ·your question, the answer is no.
`·2· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You used to work at Texas
`·3· ·Instruments, correct?
`·4· · · · A.· · I did.
`·5· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Before you worked at Texas
`·6· ·Instruments had you ever designed or developed any
`·7· ·DSL systems?
`·8· · · · A.· · Before I worked at Texas Instruments I
`·9· ·was involved in communication systems.· Those
`10· ·communication systems were other than DSL.
`11· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So then the answer to my question
`12· ·would be no?
`13· · · · A.· · How do you define DSL?
`14· · · · Q.· · How do you define DSL?
`15· · · · A.· · I define DSL as digital subscriber line.
`16· ·That's any system that would communicate over
`17· ·twisted copper.
`18· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You said that "before I worked at
`19· ·Texas Instruments I was involved in communication
`20· ·systems.· Those communication systems were other
`21· ·than DSL."· Okay.· Do you recall that?
`22· · · · A.· · I do.
`23· · · · Q.· · All right.· So then would it be fair to
`24· ·say that before you worked at Texas Instruments you
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· · · · A.· · I know I opened at least two.
`·2· · · · Q.· · Okay.
`·3· · · · A.· · I may not have opened all four.· And
`·4· ·read.· Opened and read at least two.
`·5· · · · Q.· · Sure.· Did you meet with anyone to
`·6· ·prepare for your depo?
`·7· · · · A.· · I met with counsel here yesterday to
`·8· ·prepare for this depo.
`·9· · · · Q.· · Peter and Raj?
`10· · · · A.· · Primarily Raj and an attorney named
`11· ·Chris.
`12· · · · Q.· · Okay.
`13· · · · A.· · I did meet with Pete briefly near the
`14· ·end of the day.
`15· · · · Q.· · Did you do any -- perform any
`16· ·calculations or anything like that in preparation
`17· ·for your deposition?
`18· · · · A.· · Could you please explain what you mean
`19· ·by performing calculations in preparation?
`20· · · · Q.· · Did you run through and do any -- you
`21· ·know, run through any hypotheticals where you would
`22· ·calculate anything at all in preparation for your
`23· ·deposition today?
`24· · · · A.· · To the best of my ability to understand
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· ·did not work on DSL systems?
`·2· · · · A.· · I want to think and clarify that I took
`·3· ·a broad enough approach to DSL when I answered your
`·4· ·question that you just gave back to me.
`·5· · · · · · · Yes, I would have to say that before
`·6· ·Texas Instruments my communication experience was
`·7· ·with wireless systems.· So that's true.· That's not
`·8· ·DSL.
`·9· · · · Q.· · Okay.· What was your job title at TI?
`10· · · · A.· · That's contained in my CV.· I joined TI
`11· ·with a job title I believe it was system architect
`12· ·or system architect engineer.· I would want to look
`13· ·at the CV again to get the wording exactly.
`14· · · · · · · And into my role at TI I was promoted to
`15· ·a position entitled engineering program manager.
`16· · · · Q.· · When you were at TI did you manage
`17· ·intellectual property?
`18· · · · A.· · I did not manage intellectual property
`19· ·at TI.
`20· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Were you in a position where you
`21· ·managed engineers?
`22· · · · A.· · I was in a position where I managed
`23· ·engineers.· I managed a product development team.
`24· ·And the way TI was established and the way projects
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 4 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 17
`·1· ·were managed, I managed the engineers that were on
`·2· ·that product development team.
`·3· · · · Q.· · Did you personally design hardware for
`·4· ·production?
`·5· · · · A.· · I architected the system.· I was in the
`·6· ·group that architected the DSL system.· As it's
`·7· ·stated in my CV, I spent a good deal of time
`·8· ·working directly in the architecture of a DSL modem
`·9· ·chipset.· In addition, I managed and was very
`10· ·closely involved in the design of a DSL
`11· ·semi-conductor.
`12· · · · Q.· · Did you personally develop any software
`13· ·for production?
`14· · · · A.· · I did not type code if that's what you
`15· ·mean.
`16· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Do you think that you -- well,
`17· ·would you say that you were involved in software
`18· ·development for production?
`19· · · · A.· · Yes.· I was involved in software
`20· ·development in terms of setting requirements. I
`21· ·personally wrote lengthy requirements documents. I
`22· ·personally interacted with the software team. I
`23· ·personally managed a production -- the first
`24· ·production release that went with the device, the
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`17–20
`Page 19
`·1· ·products from different vendors would interoperate
`·2· ·with each other.· That, of course, is the purpose
`·3· ·of a standard.
`·4· · · · Q.· · So would you agree with me then that
`·5· ·engineers rely on the requirements articulated in
`·6· ·that standard?
`·7· · · · A.· · Could you give me a little bit more
`·8· ·detail about what you mean by, quote, unquote,
`·9· ·relied on?
`10· · · · Q.· · No.· I don't know if I can.· It seems
`11· ·pretty simple.
`12· · · · · · · If one is designing a chipset that is
`13· ·designed to be used in a DSL system, would it be
`14· ·important for one to rely on the relevant standard?
`15· · · · A.· · Okay.· So you're saying take into
`16· ·account the requirements.· And -- well, the
`17· ·requirements and design specified by the standard
`18· ·in designing the product.
`19· · · · · · · Yes.· The answer to that is yes.· They
`20· ·rely on a number of other things as well; but to
`21· ·the extent that functionality and requirements are
`22· ·specified in the standard, engineers would rely on
`23· ·that as aspects and functionality in the standard.
`24· · · · Q.· · And because engineers rely on those
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· ·first software production release and the first
`·2· ·hardware production release that went with the DSL
`·3· ·chipset modem system.
`·4· · · · Q.· · What was that called?
`·5· · · · A.· · That was called UR8.· The code name
`·6· ·within TI was called UR8.
`·7· · · · Q.· · Did the UR8 implement the T1.413
`·8· ·standard?
`·9· · · · A.· · It implemented ADSL2 and ADSL1. I
`10· ·believe it was also backward-compatible with the
`11· ·T1.413 1998 standard as that standard was
`12· ·implemented at the time of release of the product.
`13· · · · Q.· · Let me back up.· You're familiar with
`14· ·the T1.413 standard, correct?
`15· · · · A.· · I am.
`16· · · · Q.· · What is that standard?
`17· · · · A.· · The T1.413 standard is a standard for
`18· ·describing digital subscriber line modems. A
`19· ·version was published in 1995.· It's typically
`20· ·known as Issue 1.· Another version was published in
`21· ·1998.· It's typically known as Issue 2.
`22· · · · · · · Those were standards used by those in
`23· ·the industry to produce functional standard --
`24· ·functional DSL modem chipsets and systems such that
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·aspects and functionality in the standard, it's
`·2· ·important for the standard to be precise in its
`·3· ·language, would you agree?
`·4· · · · A.· · Within the DSL art things have to be
`·5· ·considered within the time frame that they
`·6· ·happened.· It was known when the 1995 standard was
`·7· ·published that it was not precise enough to
`·8· ·guarantee interoperability among vendors.
`·9· · · · · · · Without going into a long discussion
`10· ·about the industry at that time, I can say that
`11· ·most vendors at the time of Issue 1 had proprietary
`12· ·systems.· DSL was in its infancy.· It was young.
`13· ·DSL was young at the time.· It had not been widely
`14· ·deployed.· Vendors had generally proprietary
`15· ·systems.
`16· · · · · · · I believe that some vendors at the time
`17· ·were happy keeping things fairly proprietary and
`18· ·not having a precise standard.· Other vendors
`19· ·pushed harder for a more precise standard.
`20· · · · · · · The Issue 1 standard was not precise
`21· ·enough to guarantee interoperability among all
`22· ·vendors.· That was known.
`23· · · · · · · TI has a white paper that's still
`24· ·available on its website describing certain aspects
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 5 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 21
`
`·1· ·of how companies at that time pushed for or
`·2· ·resisted efforts to standardize.
`·3· · · · · · · The 1998 standard was much closer to a
`·4· ·standard that could be precisely followed with much
`·5· ·higher interoperability rates but even it was not
`·6· ·perfect.
`·7· · · · · · · After that that effort was folded into
`·8· ·the G.992 -- sorry -- G.992.1 ADSL1 standard that
`·9· ·was first published in 1999 by the ITU.· And that
`10· ·was very close to a standard that was good enough
`11· ·to have interoperability throughout the industry.
`12· · · · MR. EMERSON:· I'm going to object to that as
`13· ·non-responsive.
`14· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`15· · · · A.· · What was your original question?
`16· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`17· · · · Q.· · I can't quite see that far back in the
`18· ·transcript right now.· But I'll try to rephrase it
`19· ·for you.
`20· · · · · · · My question wasn't whether any
`21· ·particular standard was actually precise enough to
`22· ·guarantee interoperability.· My question is a
`23· ·little broader than that.· And I guess I'll back up
`24· ·a little bit.· Let me ask this:
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`21–24
`Page 23
`·1· ·wishes to have a system that is interoperable with
`·2· ·other vendors without, you know, further working
`·3· ·with that vendor.
`·4· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So is there something special
`·5· ·about the T1.413 standard that would render it less
`·6· ·important for the language to be precise?
`·7· · · · MR. McANDREWS:· Objection; vague as to the
`·8· ·issue of the T1.413 standard.
`·9· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`10· · · · A.· · I think that's a different question, but
`11· ·could you please repeat your question?
`12· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`13· · · · Q.· · Is there something special about the
`14· ·T1.413 standard that would make it less important
`15· ·under that standard for the language to be precise?
`16· · · · A.· · In order for what purpose?
`17· · · · Q.· · In order for an engineer to understand
`18· ·it and comply with it.
`19· · · · A.· · I believe I've already answered your
`20· ·questions.· So two things that I want to iterate
`21· ·and emphasize.
`22· · · · · · · One, you asked a very specific question
`23· ·and I answered it very specifically.· You said is
`24· ·it important -- is it important for a standard to
`
`Page 22
`
`·1· · · · · · · Is it generally important for the
`·2· ·language in a standard to be precise enough for
`·3· ·those who would use the standard to understand it
`·4· ·and to comply with it?
`·5· · · · A.· · I would say yes, it's generally
`·6· ·important enough.· It's generally important for a
`·7· ·standard to be precise enough that one can
`·8· ·implement it if one wishes to have a system that
`·9· ·can interoperate with other vendors following the
`10· ·same standard.
`11· · · · Q.· · Would that answer apply to the T1.413
`12· ·standard?
`13· · · · A.· · I believe --
`14· · · · MR. McANDREWS:· Objection; vague, compound.
`15· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`16· · · · A.· · Yeah.· I believe I gave a discussion
`17· ·that you may have considered too long that
`18· ·describes in detail the evolution of the industry
`19· ·around the time of the T1.413 standard.
`20· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`21· · · · Q.· · You testified that it's generally
`22· ·important for a standard to be precise enough that
`23· ·one can implement it.· Do you recall that?
`24· · · · A.· · Please finish my answer.· I said if one
`
`Page 24
`·1· ·be precise enough -- I'm sorry.· Could you -- I
`·2· ·don't want to put words in your mouth.· Could you
`·3· ·repeat that question where you said is it
`·4· ·important -- that starts is it important for a
`·5· ·standard to be precise enough in general?· What was
`·6· ·the rest of your question?· You have the record. I
`·7· ·don't.
`·8· · · · Q.· · Is it important for a standard to be
`·9· ·precise?
`10· · · · A.· · That's a very general question.· Please
`11· ·ask your original question that was more specific.
`12· · · · Q.· · Well, I'm moving on.· So is it important
`13· ·for a standard to be precise?
`14· · · · A.· · I give you the same answer.· Your
`15· ·question is too general.
`16· · · · Q.· · Is it important for a standard to be
`17· ·understandable to the engineers who would use it?
`18· · · · A.· · We already asked that question.· I said
`19· ·yes, it's important for a standard to be
`20· ·understandable to the engineers who use it for the
`21· ·goal of creating a system that can interoperate
`22· ·with other vendors.
`23· · · · Q.· · And is it important to create a system
`24· ·that can interoperate with other vendors?
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 6 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 25
`
`·1· · · · A.· · That's generally a desirable goal.
`·2· ·However, I mentioned that early in DSL I believe
`·3· ·that there were some vendors that that was not
`·4· ·necessarily their goal.
`·5· · · · · · · I think -- I will offer a little bit
`·6· ·extra.
`·7· · · · MR. McANDREWS:· Wait for a question, Doug.
`·8· · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.
`·9· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`10· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Because it's important to create
`11· ·a system that can interoperate with other vendors
`12· ·would you agree that it's important then for the
`13· ·applicable standard to be as clear and precise as
`14· ·possible?
`15· · · · A.· · It's important for the applicable
`16· ·standard to be clear and precise enough that an
`17· ·engineer using it can create an interoperable
`18· ·system.· That's the purpose of a standard.
`19· · · · · · · I believe I've already answered that
`20· ·question in the same way.
`21· · · · Q.· · Did you attend any ANSI meetings for the
`22· ·T1.413 standard?
`23· · · · A.· · I did not attend ANSI meetings for the
`24· ·T1.413.
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`25–28
`Page 27
`·1· · · · Q.· · You're not personally familiar with how
`·2· ·the words in the standard were chosen, are you?
`·3· · · · A.· · I don't understand the question.
`·4· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You were not personally involved
`·5· ·with writing the standard, were you?
`·6· · · · A.· · The T1.413 standard?
`·7· · · · Q.· · That's correct.
`·8· · · · A.· · That's correct.
`·9· · · · Q.· · And you didn't participate in choosing
`10· ·any of the words in that standard, did you?
`11· · · · A.· · That's correct.
`12· · · · Q.· · Do you have -- because you didn't
`13· ·participate in choosing any of the words in that
`14· ·standard you don't have any basis to contradict any
`15· ·of the words in that standard, do you?
`16· · · · A.· · Of course I have a basis to contradict
`17· ·any of the words in that standard if I don't
`18· ·believe that they are correct.
`19· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So you believe that some of the
`20· ·words in the standard are incorrect?
`21· · · · A.· · I did not say that.
`22· · · · Q.· · Do you believe any of the words in the
`23· ·standard are incorrect?
`24· · · · A.· · I would have to look at the standard in
`
`Page 26
`·1· · · · Q.· · Do you know how many people reviewed it
`·2· ·before it was adopted?
`·3· · · · A.· · I do not know how many people reviewed
`·4· ·it before it was adopted.· I know that it -- I
`·5· ·believe that at least one of the ANSI standards
`·6· ·contains a list of people that fills much of a
`·7· ·page, but I can't say how many people reviewed it.
`·8· · · · Q.· · Do you know how many times it was
`·9· ·revised before it was adopted?
`10· · · · A.· · I know as I described that there was an
`11· ·Issue 1 that was published in 1995 and an Issue 2
`12· ·that was published in 1998 for ADSL.· Are you
`13· ·talking interim revisions between those?
`14· · · · Q.· · Let's talk about before Issue 1 in 1995.
`15· ·How many times was the draft standard revised
`16· ·before it was adopted?
`17· · · · MR. McANDREWS:· Objection; foundation.
`18· · · · MR. EMERSON:· I'll revise my question.
`19· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`20· · · · Q.· · Do you have any idea how many times
`21· ·Issue 1 was revised before it was adopted?
`22· · · · A.· · I have seen at least one revision that I
`23· ·know of.· I assume there are more.· I do not know
`24· ·the exact number.
`
`Page 28
`
`·1· ·order to answer your question.
`·2· · · · Q.· · So sitting here today are you aware of
`·3· ·any words in the standard that you believe to be
`·4· ·incorrect?· And by the standard I mean T1.413 Issue
`·5· ·1 standard.
`·6· · · · A.· · Sitting here today I do know of content
`·7· ·in the T1.413 Issue 1 that I believe to be
`·8· ·incorrect.
`·9· · · · Q.· · And what's that?
`10· · · · A.· · It's related to the gain scaling.· If
`11· ·you show me the document, I can point out
`12· ·specifically what I'm talking about.
`13· · · · Q.· · Is that relevant at all to the issues in
`14· ·these IPRs?
`15· · · · MR. McANDREWS:· Can you clarify these IPRs
`16· ·because there are some other ones that follow.
`17· · · · MR. EMERSON:· The ones that we're here to talk
`18· ·about today.· IPR2016-01006, 7, 8 and 9.
`19· ·BY THE WITNESS:
`20· · · · A.· · Given your line of questioning and the
`21· ·way that you are questioning me, it sounds to me
`22· ·like any discrepancy in the T1.413 standard might
`23· ·apply to these IPRs.
`24· · · · MR. EMERSON:· I'm going to object to that as
`
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`800.211.DEPO (3376)
`EsquireSolutions.com
`EsquireSolutions.comYVer1f
`
`CSCO-1014
`Cisco Systems v. TQ Delta, IPR2016-01760
`Page 7 of 38
`
`

`

`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`DOUGLAS CHRISSAN· Non-Confidential
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`CISCO SYSTEMS vs TQ DELTA, LLC
`Page 29
`
`·1· ·non-responsive.
`·2· ·BY MR. EMERSON:
`·3· · · · Q.· · My question is under your understanding
`·4· ·is this issue with gain scaling that you described
`·5· ·a moment ago relevant at all to the IPRs that we
`·6· ·are here to talk about today to the best of your
`·7· ·understanding?
`·8· · · · A.· · I am answering truthfully.· I believe
`·9· ·that based on your questioning they could be
`10· ·relevant.· I believe that based on your questioning
`11· ·any discrepancy or mistake, if there are any, or
`12· ·any words in the T1.413 standard that I might think
`13· ·are incorrect or could be better worded could be
`14· ·relevant to this deposition and this effort.
`15· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Would you describe for me how the
`16· ·issues related to gain scaling which you mentioned
`17· ·a few minutes ago are related to these IPRs?
`18· · · · A.· · I said they may be given your line of
`19· ·questioning.· I would have to see how your line of
`20· ·questioning goes before I can answer that question
`21· ·conclusively.
`22· · · · Q.· · I'm asking --
`23· · · · A.· · It sounds to me like -- I am perceiving
`24· ·from your line of questioning that anything that I
`
`May 09, 2017
`May 09, 2017
`29–32
`Page 31
`·1· ·to the standards body and wrote the contributions
`·2· ·accordingly.· To that extent I was involved in the
`·3· ·at least VDSL2 standard and later evolutions of the
`·4· ·ADSL2 standard.
`·5· · · · Q.· · Was that V, as a Victor, DSL?
`·6· · · · A.· · Yes, VDSL2.
`·7· · · · Q.· · And the A, as in alpha, DSL2 standard?
`·8· · · · A.· · Correct.
`·9· · · · Q.· · Otherwise any other involvement in
`10· ·setting standards or writing standards?
`11· · · · A.· · When I worked at 8x8 I did much the same
`12· ·thing that I described with respect to the H.264
`13· ·video compression algorithm.