DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
` APPLE INC
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC USA, INC and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
` ______________________________
` Case IPR2017-00221
` Patent 7,535,890
` __and__
` Case IPR2017-00222
` Patent 8,243,723
` ___________________________
` DEPOSITION OF
` DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
` Wednesday, September 13, 2017
` 9:18 a.m.
`
`COURT REPORTER: Donna M. Lewis, RPR, CSR (HI)
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 1
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
` APPLE INC
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC USA, INC and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
` ______________________________
` Case IPR2017-00221
` Patent 7,535,890
` __and__
` Case IPR2017-00222
` Patent 8,243,723
` ___________________________
` DEPOSITION OF
` DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
` Wednesday, September 13, 2017
` 9:18 a.m.
`
`COURT REPORTER: Donna M. Lewis, RPR, CSR (HI)
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 1
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`2
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
` APPLE INC
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC USA, INC and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
` ______________________________
` Case IPR2017-00221
` Patent 7,535,890
` __and__
` Case IPR2017-00222
` Patent 8,243,723
`
` Deposition of DR. LEONARD J. FORYS, held
`at Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, 1100 New
`York Avenue, N.W, Suite 600, Washington, D C,
`pursuant to Notice, before Donna Marie Lewis,
`Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public
`of and for the District of Columbia.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 2
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER APPLE INC:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: JASON D. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, D C 20005
` Telephone: (202) 772-8645
` Facsimile: (202) 371-2540
` Email: jasone@skgf.com
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: STEVE PAPPAS, ESQUIRE
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, D C 20005
` Telephone: (202) 772-8719
` Facsimile: (202) 371-2540
` Email: spappas@skgf.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 3
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER UNILOC USE, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.:
`
`4
`
` ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
` BY: BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
` 2600 East Southlake Blvd.
` Suite 120-324
` Southlake, Texas 76092
` Telephone: (214) 334-5497
` Email: brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` LISA FULLER SCHWIER, PhD, COOLEY LLP,
` NHAT PHAM, LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 4
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`5
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS:
` Dr. Leonard J. Forys
`EXAMINATION: PAGE
` By Mr. Mangrum 6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`FORYS
`EXHIBITS: DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`No. 1002 Portion of M. Rojas Declaration 15
`
`EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY MARKED:
`No. 1001 US Patent '890 8
`No. 1003 '221 Petition 10
`No. 1007 US Patent No. 7123695 49
`No. 1005 '723 Patent 62
`No. 1003 US Patent No. 8243723 72
`No. 1001 US Patent App 8995433 74
`No. 1003 Exhibit 1003 to IPR 201700225 77
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 5
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`6
`
` P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This begins volume 1,
`tape 1 in the videotaped deposition of Dr. Leonard
`J. Forys, taking in the matter of Apple Inc., v.
`Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg, S. A.,
`case number IPR2017-00221, Today's date is
`September 13, 2017. The time is 9:19. This
`deposition is being held at 1100 New York Avenue,
`NW, Washington D C. Our court reporter is Donna
`Lewis. My name is Nhat Pham on behalf of Complete
`Legal.
` Would counsel please identified
`themselves and say who you represent.
` MR. MANGRUM: Brett Mangrum representing
`the patent owner or the Uniloc entities.
` MR. EISENBERG: Jason Eisenberg
`representing Apple. I have with me Lisa --
` MS. SCHWIER: Lisa Schwier for Facebook,
`WhatsApp, and Snap.
` MR. EISENBERG: And Steve Pappas
`representing Apple.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will our court
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 6
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`7
`
`reporter please swear in the witness.
`Whereupon,
` L E O N A R D J. F O R Y S
`after having been first duly sworn by the Notary
`Public was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER
` MR. MANGRUM: Good morning, Dr. Forys.
` THE WITNESS: Good morning.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q I appreciate you making yourself
`available today. Just for the record could you
`please state your full name and address?
` A Yes. Leonard John Forys, F-O-R-Y-S; 823
`Holmdel, let me spell that, H-O-L-M-D-E-L, New
`Jersey -- Holmdel Road, excuse me, in Holmdel, New
`Jersey. It's the same spelling.
` Q You've been deposed before?
` A Yes.
` Q You understand you're testifying under
`oath?
` A Yes, I do.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 7
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`8
`
` Q And it was as if we were in a courtroom
`today. That's a similar analogous setting,
`correct?
` A That's my understanding.
` Q You recognize as well that you will be
`offering testimony not only for IPR2017-221 but
`also the matters '222 and '225?
` A Yes. I don't remember the numbers but I
`presumed that.
` Q Well, multiple matters?
` A Yeah.
` Q You understand that.
` A I know them by the patent numbers.
` Q Right. Okay. And given that that is
`how you referenced those I will do the same.
` A I appreciate that.
` Q So for the first matter, the '221 matter
`it concerns the U S Patent number -- let me pull
`it out, that will be helpful. I'm going to hand
`you what has been previously marked as Apple's
`Exhibit 1001 in the matter IPR2017-221. It is the
`U S Patent number 7535890?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 8
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`9
`
` A Thank you.
` Q Do you recognize this document?
` A Yes.
` Q Now, for purposes of our discussion I am
`going to be referring to this as the '890 Patent,
`just as an abbreviation. You understand that we
`are referring to -- when I say '890 Patent, we are
`referring to the U S Patent number 7535890?
` A Yes. That will be fine.
` Q What priority date did you assume for
`purposes of preparing your declaration addressing
`the '890 Patent?
` A I think I have it in my report. I
`believe it was the filing date but I can double
`check that.
` Q In fairness, let me -- did you bring
`your report today?
` A No.
` Q You didn't bring any documents?
` A No.
` Q Okay. Let me hand you --
` A I was assuming that you would be giving
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 9
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`10
`
`me --
` (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1003 previously
`marked was introduced.)
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q Sure. Sure. And I am happy to do that.
`Let me hand you what has previously been marked
`Exhibit 1003 to the '221 petition. This is your
`declaration in that matter. And to help you save
`time --
` A Yeah.
` Q I'll -- go ahead and turn to paragraph
`29 I think?
` A Yes.
` Q Is that --
` A That is what I thought it was, I just
`wanted to make sure here, was what I said in
`paragraph 29 that I have identified herein the
`December 18, 2003 time frame as the earliest
`possible effective filing date of the patent,
`essentially is what I said.
` Q Is the -- are you equating the priority
`date with the earliest effective filing date?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 10
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`11
`
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And what is your understanding of
`the meaning of priority date? Do you have an
`understanding of that?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And what is that understanding?
` A I may have discussed it in terms of my
`understanding of the patent language. I usually
`put that in, let me see if I have that here.
`Well, the first thing about the filing date is
`that it would reflect upon the definition of one
`of ordinary skill in the art. And that would be
`the date of the priority date of the patent. So
`my definition refers to that date. And I state
`that here.
` Q Sorry. I didn't mean to talk over. So
`are you talking about the priority date or the
`filing date?
` A On this case it is priority date. Okay.
`And I'm saying the priority date, because that
`references the prior art that you are going to
`talk about and the terms as well. And what I said
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 11
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`12
`
`in here is that I defined the meaning of the
`person of ordinary skill in the art in terms of
`the priority date. In this case they are the same
`so it doesn't matter.
` Q The priority date and the filing date
`are the same?
` A Exactly.
` Q Did you review the prosecution history
`of the '890 Patent in preparing your declaration?
` A I believe I did. I think I have a
`section on it some place along here.
` Q Okay.
` A I always do it as a matter of course.
` Q And I do believe somewhere in here you
`have a list of things that you reviewed?
` A Exactly.
` Q Okay. Let's see if we can find that.
` A If you look on page two?
` Q Two. Okay.
` A It indicates Exhibit 1002.
` Q Right.
` A The file history for U S Patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 12
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`13
`
`number 7535890. So, yes I did look at it.
` Q I have a piece of Exhibit 1002 the
`addition challenging '890 Patent. And I hand
`you -- it's previously been marked as
`Exhibit 1002. This is a document from the
`prosecution history?
` A Yes.
` MR. EISENBERG: Do we want to mark it
`for deposition?
` MR. MANGRUM: Yeah, let's do that since
`I think a lot of these exhibits were marked on the
`first page only. So I'm going to grab a sticker
`here. And let's mark.
` Counsel, you are fine with using the
`same exhibit number here?
` MR. EISENBERG: Yes.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay.
` MR. EISENBERG: Unless like here we have
`portions of it, it would be easy to mark it.
` MR. MANGRUM: Maybe that's better.
`Let's do that.
` MR. EISENBERG: If we do the whole
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 13
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`14
`
`exhibit that is fine to use the one here in the
`proceeding.
` MR. MANGRUM: Yeah, let's use a
`different numbering here.
` MR. EISENBERG: You can just call it
`Exhibit 1 if you want.
` MR. MANGRUM: Just to keep with the P
`tab the way they typically auto number things,
`let's call this exhibit --
` MR. EISENBERG: The only reason I say
`that is I think they will not let you resubmit,
`even if it is just a portion of an exhibit if that
`portion is already in another exhibit. They only
`want to see one copy of whatever document it is.
` MR. MANGRUM: That is actually what I --
`if that is the case, I'm just going to mark it as
`2001. It will just be a portion of it thereof.
`As long as we agree.
` MR. EISENBERG: 1002.
` MR. MANGRUM: Sorry, a little dyslexia.
`Do you mind if I just cross that out and do
`another one?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 14
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`15
` (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1002 was marked
`for identification.)
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q Dr. Forys, if you wouldn't mind handing
`that back to me?
` A Sure.
` Q Thank you. Here you go.
` MR. MANGRUM: Counsel, did I give you a
`copy?
` MR. EISENBERG: Yes, you did.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q Do you recognize this document as --
`sorry. Let me ask you this. Do you recognize
`this document as being part of the prosecution
`history of the '890 Patent?
` A Not specifically, but I believe it was
`probably there. I don't recall --
` Q -- let's do this.
` A -- specific documents.
` Q I apologize, didn't mean to talk over
`you. Let's do this. Do you see at the top of
`Exhibit 1002, and here we are on page 89 of that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 15
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`16
`
`exhibit, do you see on the top there is an
`applicant, Michael J. Rojas? Do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q And then underneath that there is a
`serial number?
` A Correct.
` Q Could you match that serial number up to
`what we've identified as Exhibit 1001?
` A Let me take a look. Yes. It appears to
`be the same.
` Q You understand --
` A One says application number. One says
`serial number. But they are the same number so
`I'm assuming they are the same thing. I don't
`know that. I'm not a lawyer.
` Q Okay. I'm willing to stipulate for the
`record that this is part of a filing. This is a
`declaration that was filed in connection with the
`'890 Patent, U S application serial number
`10740030.
` A Okay.
` Q So here this declaration is signed -- go
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 16
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`17
`
`ahead and flip with me to what is page 92?
` A Yes.
` Q You see this is signed by Michael or
`appears to be signed by Michael Rojas?
` A Yes.
` Q And Michael Rojas is the named inventor
`on the face of the '890 Patent?
` A Yes.
` Q I'm just trying to help get some context
`of the document. So about halfway down on page 89
`of Exhibit 1002 do you see there is a paragraph
`number 3?
` A Yes.
` Q And to read that introductory statement;
`I, Michael Rojas, hereby declare that in paragraph
`3, I completed the invention disclosed and claimed
`in the United States Patent application number
`10740030 prior to August 15, 2003. Do you see
`that?
` A Yes.
` Q Does that statement have any
`significance to you as to the priority date of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 17
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`18
`
`'890 Patent?
` A It may. I think there -- I don't know
`if this has been ruled on. I don't know if this
`has been examined from a legal perspective. I'm
`not a lawyer so I can't tell you that
`definitively. There doesn't seem to appear to be
`any notes or factual information. This is simply
`a declaration so I don't know what the legal
`standing of this would be.
` Q But having read this statement your
`testimony today is that in preparing your
`declaration you assumed a priority date not of
`August 15, 2003, but instead of December 18, 2003?
` A Yes, but I don't think it would -- it
`would not make a difference to me because all of
`the prior art that we used, and the field had not
`changed distinctively in the few months so I don't
`this it would matter whichever one I used. And I
`think I'd even say approximately. Let me just go
`to my definition of ordinary skill in the art.
` As I said, December -- I'm kind of
`loose. If you look at my paragraph 31; I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 18
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`19
`personally am familiar with the technology of the
`'890 Patent in the December 2003 time frame. So
`I'm not looking at a specific date. I'm looking
`at a general time period.
` And again, look at paragraph 33 from my
`definition. The understood -- so it's something
`as -- as the alleged filing date. Okay, something
`as of. It is not precise. You can't give it one
`day or the other. It doesn't make that much of a
`difference in my opinion. Again, I'm not a
`lawyer. And so as I said I was told, I was of the
`understanding that the priority date was the
`filing date.
` But again, in my opinion looking the way
`I wrote this, I'd give myself some slack. It
`really doesn't matter.
` Q Let me ask you this, thinking back --
`let's say just the latter half of the year 2003
`towards the end of the year. So let's say -- to
`be more specific let's just say July 2003 through
`the remainder of the year. Casting your mind back
`to that time frame to the extent that you can
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 19
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`20
`was -- were there advancements being made in this
`technological space?
` MR. EISENBERG: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: At this point, this is --
`I'm looking at this patent. It is a voice over IP
`messaging. Voice over IP at that point had been
`pretty much stabilized, requirements were written,
`products were developed. I was using it. It was
`no longer a brand new technology. It was a
`technology that had reached a level of maturity.
`And given that that is true also voice messaging
`had been around just in generally for many years.
`I don't see that there was much -- in fact, if you
`look at my prior art it precedes this by several
`years. In my opinion things were not changing
`that fast. The field had matured at that point.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q Let's use some terms there, I want to
`make sure I understand your definition for those
`terms?
` A Sure.
` Q Let's -- in fact let's take a step back
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 20
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`21
`
`in talking about communication around that same
`time frame. I want to be precise. Let's say --
`let's use the date that you used as the priority
`date, the 2003. So when we talk about just for
`purposes of preparing your declaration I
`understand you used December 2003 time frame. So
`when I ask you questions about relevant time
`period go ahead and answer your questions from the
`time period you would assume is the priority date.
`So as of that date what differences were there, if
`any, between email communication and instant
`messaging?
` A The dates? What dates are you talking
`about? Repeat your question. I lost track. It
`was a long question.
` Q Let's -- yeah. So I want to have you
`focus on a specific time?
` A Okay.
` Q And let's focus on the December 18, 2003
`time frame?
` A Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 21
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`22
` Q And obviously I'm not asking about that
`date, so the later end of the year 2003 if that is
`helpful?
` A Uh huh.
` Q Okay. So considering that time frame,
`what differences were there if any between the
`email and instant messaging? Did those terms
`connote -- let me ask it this way.
` What differences can you give me between
`email and instant messaging as of that time frame?
` A Well, they are very related
`technologies. In fact one is often used to
`implement the other. For example I believe one of
`the prior arts that I've cited has email
`attachments being used that are voice. So they
`overlap a lot. Okay.
` Q I --
` A So one could be used to implement the
`others, in other words.
` Q I understand by your question that
`maybe -- sorry. I understand by your answer that
`maybe my question was not fully understood. I'm
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 22
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`23
`
`asking about -- I'm asking you to compare,
`contrast email to instant text messaging? So IM?
` A Without voice.
` Q We are talking -- so text based
`communication.
` A Got you.
` Q In one context email communication. In
`another context --
` A -- Sure.
` Q Instant messaging?
` A Well, again the standards were already
`in place for instant messaging for a long time at
`that point. So nothing changed, give or take a
`couple of months. Same thing true with emails.
`So the differences essentially are that instant
`messaging or text messaging had this connotation
`of instantaneously. Okay. Whereas email has this
`thing that it is first sent to a server, it's
`stored and at some time later it can be sent.
`There is not the realtime aspect of it that I
`think text messaging would have. They also are
`sent using completely different mechanisms. Text
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 23
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`24
`
`messaging uses the signaling channels which are
`packet switched channels whether it is GSM or CMA.
`They both use signaling system 7MAP protocols,
`mobile access protocols. And so that is typically
`the vehicle that would be used to send text
`messages signaling signals are very short and very
`fast. Okay. Whereas, email tends to use more
`general packet switching technology more storing
`forward, less instantaneous if you want. The
`technology was meant so it was not critical,
`timing was not that critical. So it's much slower
`technology.
` Q The mechanisms that you mentioned
`earlier, the signaling, that's different for
`email.
` A Yeah. Well, because the transport
`mechanisms are different. In text messaging it is
`well known essentially from the '80s that you
`would use the signaling channels to send text
`messages because they are short. They are 160
`bytes or something like that. Whereas emails can
`be much longer, they can contain attachments and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 24
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`25
`
`so forth. It was decided very early on, in the
`'80s -- and I give citations here, that says that
`text messaging uses the signaling capabilities of
`mobile telephony, whether it was GSM or CMA, in
`this case it is using GSM -- so it uses the
`signaling which is a packet switched network.
`Okay. Inherently that is what it is. All right.
`Email on the other hand does not use signaling
`channels because now you are talking messages
`which are usually far larger. And time is -- the
`objective was not to have it instantaneous or in
`near realtime. It was, you know, hours would be
`okay. I mean that was the objective of email.
` Q I want to ask you the same --
` A Technology was a little different. And
`again, the quality of services effects this a
`little bit different, speed.
` Q And that is -- I certainly didn't want
`to cut off an answer. That is your answer?
` A Yeah, generally.
` Q Okay. Great. And I will generally -- I
`apologize if I ever cut you off. If I do
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 25
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`26
`
`accidently, go ahead and kind of give me a look
`and I will be quiet. And please continue so that
`we can have the full answer on the record.
` A I have the same problem. Thank you.
` Q Sometimes this -- these become somewhat
`conversational. I will do my best to make sure I
`don't ever cut you off.
` A Thank you.
` Q All right. And let me ask you now the
`same question but now in the context of voice. So
`you gave an answer in the context of text based
`communication. I want to do it now in the context
`of audio based communication. So to be specific
`on the record what differences at that same time
`frame were there if any between like voice mail
`and instant voice messaging?
` A I'm not quite sure, instant voice
`messaging as defined by what? What do you mean by
`that? I mean there is a definition that is in the
`'890 Patent, it's a technique for implementing
`essentially voice or IP messages. But then that
`term may have other meanings in other prior art.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 26
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`27
`
`I'm not sure what meaning you want for this.
` Q I appreciate you bringing that up. Let
`me ask you first from the context of just in the
`art in general, does the phrase -- let me ask it
`going back to text based communication. Do you
`agree that the phrase instant messaging or IM has
`a particular connotation in the art, a meaning?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. Now, is it your understanding
`that the phrase voice instant messaging or instant
`voice messaging has a particular connotation or
`meaning in the art?
` A Generally, there seems to be a wider
`range of meaning on that, but generally I
`understand what it means.
` Q Okay. Referring specifically to the art
`as of that time frame what was the general meaning
`of voice instant messaging?
` A Okay. Again, just looking at how the
`art of that time and the patent here characterizes
`it, it essentially is doing the same kind of thing
`that text messaging is doing but inserting voice
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 27
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`28
`
`instead of text, generally.
` Q And that would also be distinguishable
`from like an email based context?
` MR. EISENBERG: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: Generally.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q So is it correct that voice mail and
`instant voice message evoke two different types of
`technologies?
` A No. It is not true. In fact, if you
`read my background section -- and I wish I'd made
`this more clearer -- and maybe I can amplify on
`this. I discuss the fact that voice mail can be a
`source of instant messaging. A thing called --
`there is a call back, there is a calling feature.
`If you don't mind let me refer myself to my -- to
`my declaration here. I'm looking at page 35 of my
`report. And I discussed this topic. Looking at
`paragraph 89, it says another feature of voice
`mail systems is the "out call" feature. And I
`give a reference. I worked on an Octel Aspen
`voice mail server in the late 1980's which had
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 28
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`29
`such a feature. Basically a subscriber could call
`into the voice mail system and initiate a
`"notification" message that would cause a call to
`be made to a designated phone at a specified time
`noting them of awaiting messages. A pertinent
`feature is the extension -- let me open this up so
`I can read it, of the notification feature to
`allow the subscriber to input a voice notification
`in their own voice via their phone and a system
`would deliver this message to a list of the
`recipients at a prescribed time including the
`current time.
` And then I give a citation from a
`reference that documents this. And the citation
`is as follows, "discloses a method of utilizing a
`public switch telemutation network which includes
`a voice messaging system (VMS) to provide a
`reliable and flexible notification service that
`delivered to designated persons a message which
`may be prestored or created at the time of
`initiating notification."
` And I go on. But the idea is that voice
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 29
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`30
`
`mail had these capabilities.
` Q This is an example of voice mail
`utilizing a public switch telecommunications
`network?
` A That is correct. This particular thing.
`Yes, it is.
` Q Is that a packet switched network?
` A At that time, no. But again, this was a
`contrast between -- the question was is there --
`what the differences are and so forth. Say voice
`mail had these capabilities. I think what the
`art, the more recent prior art did was to add
`things like packets and voice over IP and things
`like that. The concept was known for many years
`in the '80s. I personally worked on these
`systems. Like I said --
` Q I -- sorry.
` A I mentioned I worked on the Octel system
`in the 1980s. Voice over IP was not very
`prevalent back then.
` Q Earlier when you talked about
`different -- I think you used the word transport
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 30
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`31
`
`mechanisms?
` A I might have said that, yes.
` Q I'm pretty sure you used the word
`mechanisms, I don't know if you modified it with
`something. You discussed different mechanisms
`between -- that are used to communicate email as
`opposed to IM -- or I guess I was going to say IM
`messages but that would be redundant, so email as
`opposed to IM?
` A Yes.
` Q Correct?
` A Yes. I did say that.
` Q Were there -- is there an analog of --
`of difference mechanisms in voice technology? Was
`there a way to do something analogous in a voice
`mail context and then something different in an
`instant voice context?
` MR. EISENBERG: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: I believe I actually
`addressed that. I believe in my introduction to
`Abburi I said what Abburi did -- I believe. Let
`me just check this. Let me make sure I'm getting
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00222
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2002, page 31
`
`
`
`DR. LEONARD J. FORYS
`
`32
`
`the right reference here. Vuori. Excuse me.
`V-U-O-R-I. That -- that Vuori and the other
`references what their -- part of their innovation
`was to change the transport mechanisms. That
`concept I'll just call was knowing, what's known,
`now we are simply changing how you send it. And
`that is what made it different -- okay, to my mind
`was one of the major changes that occurred. But
`the concept itself is very old.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q Let me ask you. If you could compare
`and contrast the differences between a circuit
`switched network and a packet switched network,
`definitively what is the difference between those
`types of networks?
` A At a high level. Okay. Let me give you
`an explanation at a high level. At a high level a
`circuit switched network is a person sets up a
`path in adv
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
