Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, LLC, ) ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` )
` Petitioner, ) WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, II
` )
`Vs. )
` ) NOVEMBER 28, 2017
`UNILOC USA, INC., AND )
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`Case IPR2017-00221 )
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890 )
`
`APPLE, LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
`Vs. )
` )
`UNILOC USA, INC., AND )
`LUXEMBOURG S.A., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`Case IPR2017-00222 )
`U.S. Patent 8,243,723 )
`
`APPLE, LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
`Vs. )
` )
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND )
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`Case IPR2017-00225 )
`U.S. Patent 8,995,433 )
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Apple Ex. 1029
`Apple v. Uniloc
`IPR2017-00222
`
`0001
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, LLC, ) ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` )
` Petitioner, ) WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, II
` )
`Vs. )
` ) NOVEMBER 28, 2017
`UNILOC USA, INC., AND )
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`Case IPR2017-00221 )
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890 )
`
`APPLE, LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
`Vs. )
` )
`UNILOC USA, INC., AND )
`LUXEMBOURG S.A., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`Case IPR2017-00222 )
`U.S. Patent 8,243,723 )
`
`APPLE, LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
`Vs. )
` )
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND )
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
`Case IPR2017-00225 )
`U.S. Patent 8,995,433 )
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Apple Ex. 1029
`Apple v. Uniloc
`IPR2017-00222
`
`0001
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Page 2
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF
`
` WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, II
`
` NOVEMBER 28, 2017
`
` VOLUME 1 OF 1
`
` -----------------------------------
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, II, produced
`
`as a witness at the instance of the Petitioner, and duly
`
`sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause
`
`on November 28, 2017, from 9:14 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.,
`
`before Wendy Schreiber, CSR No. 9383, in and for the
`
`State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the
`
`Renaissance Dallas at Plano Legacy West, 6007 Legacy
`
`West, Plano, Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record
`
`or attached hereto.
`
`Job No. 2750451
`
` VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS
`
` MID-ATLANTIC REGION
`
`22
`
` 1250 Eye Street NW - Suite 350
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0002
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`1 3
`1 4
`1 5
`1 6
`1 7
`1 8
`1 9
`2 0
`2 1
`2 2
`2 3
`2 4
`2 5
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`F O R T H E P E T I T I O N E R :
` J A S O N D . E I S E N B E R G , E S Q .
` T R E N T W . M E R R E L L , E S Q .
` S T E R N E K E S S L E R G O L D S T E I N F O X
` 1 1 0 0 N e w Y o r k A v e n u e , N W
` W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . 2 0 0 0 5
` P h o n e : ( 2 0 2 ) 3 7 1 - 2 6 0 0
` F a x : ( 2 0 2 ) 3 7 1 - 2 5 4 0
` J a s o n e @ s k g f . c o m
` T m e r r e l l @ s k g f . c o m
`
`F O R T H E P A T E N T H O L D E R :
`
` B R E T T M A N G R U M , E S Q .
` E T H E R I D G E L A W G R O U P
` 2 6 0 0 E . S o u t h l a k e B o u l e v a r d
` S u i t e 1 2 0 - 3 2 4
` S o u t h l a k e , T e x a s 7 6 0 9 2 - 6 6 3 4
` P h o n e : ( 8 1 7 ) 4 7 0 - 7 2 4 9
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0003
`
`
`
` INDEX
`
`Page 4
`
`WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, II PAGE
`
` Appearances 3
`
` Examination by Mr. Eisenberg
`
` Examination by Mr. Mangrum
`
` EXHIBITS
`
`NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Apple 1 U.S. Patent No. 8,984,639 B1 18
`
` PREVIOUSLY-MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`NO. PAGE
`
`Apple Exhibit 1001 9
`
`Apple Exhibit 2001 9
`
`Uniloc Exhibit 2001 32
`
`Apple Exhibit 1001 32
`
`Apple Exhibit 1007 59
`
`Apple Exhibit Paper 7 13
`
`Apple Exhibit 1005 15
`
`Apple Exhibit 1018 26
`
`Apple Exhibit 1025 28
`
`Apple Exhibit 1001 51
`
`Uniloc Exhibit 2001 51
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`0004
`
`
`
` I N D E X ( C O N T I N U E D )
`
` R E Q U E S T E D D O C U M E N T S / I N F O R M A T I O N
`
` N O N E
`
`Page 5
`
` C E R T I F I E D Q U E S T I O N S
`
` N O N E
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`0005
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
` THE REPORTER: Please raise your right
`
`hand.
`
` Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the
`
`whole truth and nothing but the truth?
`
` THE WITNESS: I do.
`
` WILLIAM C. EASTTOM, II,
`
`having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` MR. EISENBERG: Jason Eisenberg here for
`
`petitioner, Apple, LLC. With me here today is Trent
`
`Merrell from the law firm of Sterne Kessler.
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Brett Mangrum for the patent
`
`owner with the law firm Etheridge Law Group.
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Good morning.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Will you please state your full name for the
`
`record.
`
` A. William Charles Easttom, II.
`
` Q. Thank you, sir. You understand that you are
`
`testifying in three cases here which are IPR 2017-00221
`
`for U.S. Patent 7,535,890, IPR 2017-00222 for U.S.
`
`Patent 8,243,723, and IPR 2017-00225 for U.S. Patent
`
`8,995,433?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`0006
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. Is there any reason you cannot testify today?
`
`Page 7
`
` A. None at all.
`
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How many times?
`
` A. Over 25. I'm not sure of the exact number.
`
` Q. So you understand I'll ask you questions and
`
`require verbal answers?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And I'll do my best not to cut you off and try
`
`not to cut me off.
`
` A. Of course.
`
` Q. Have you ever been an expert in the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office other than the three cases we're
`
`talking about here today?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And have you ever been an expert in the
`
`District Court?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And at the International Trade Commission?
`
` A. I believe so.
`
` Q. Has any tribunal negatively addressed any of
`
`your expert reports or expert declarations?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure. The word
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0007
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`"negative" is sort of broad. I'm not sure what you mean
`
`specifically.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Have any of them criticized
`
`your expert report, criticized your opinions?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't have a recollection
`
`of any criticisms or any time that I've been excluded as
`
`an expert, if that's what you mean.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Thank you. Did you review
`
`the declarations that we'll be speaking about today
`
`before this deposition?
`
` A. Yes, I did.
`
` Q. Did you find anything in the declarations that
`
`were in error whether it be typographical or
`
`substantive?
`
` A. There's certainly the possibility of a
`
`typographical or spelling error -- I'm actually infamous
`
`for those -- but nothing substantive.
`
` Q. During the course of review did anything jump
`
`out at you that you wanted to fix today in terms of
`
`typographical errors?
`
` A. No. We may uncover one throughout the day but,
`
`as I said, I tend to make some typos.
`
` Q. Okay. And in your review of them do you still
`
`stand behind each one of the opinions and statements
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0008
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that you've made in the three declarations we'll talk
`
`Page 9
`
`about today?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` (Apple Exhibit 1001 previously marked.)
`
` (Apple Exhibit 2001 previously marked.)
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) I'm going to hand you what
`
`is Exhibit 1001 in the IPR ending in 222 and it's U.S.
`
`Patent 8,243,723.
`
` And I'm going to hand you Exhibit 2001 in
`
`the same proceeding which is entitled "Declaration of
`
`William C. Easttom, II."
`
` Starting with your declaration at
`
`paragraph -- we'll start at paragraph 13. I'll give you
`
`a chance to read it over quickly if you want.
`
` A. I have reviewed it.
`
` Q. Here you say that you generally disagree with
`
`Dr. Forys' definition of "ordinary skill" and you don't
`
`believe that it requires it to be in the fields of VoIP
`
`and mobile telephony, which is at the bottom of page 7,
`
`top of page 8. I want to know why you believe that the
`
`patent claims aren't required to be in those fields.
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, the first issue, that's
`
`not actually what it says and I'll read exactly what it
`
`says.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0009
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 10
`
` "While my opinion appears to largely
`
`overlap with that offered by Dr. Forys..." So claiming
`
`that I generally disagree with him is the antithesis of
`
`what I actually wrote. "...I disagree with Dr. Forys'
`
`definition to the extent 'ordinary skill' is interpreted
`
`to require more than 4 years of academic or industry
`
`experience exclusively in the fields of VoIP..."
`
` Now, to answer your direct question, in
`
`general anyone with a few years' experience of
`
`networking would have also worked with voice-over IP and
`
`telephony. That's just a part of it. So what I'm
`
`stating here is you don't have to exclusively have
`
`worked in voice-over IP and telephony for a period of at
`
`least four years. You have to have had some experience,
`
`of course, just not quite that extensive and that
`
`exclusive to be one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
` Q. At paragraph 10 you state in the last sentence,
`
`"The '723 patent issued on August 13, 2012." Sorry,
`
`second-to-last sentence and last. "For purposes of this
`
`declaration, I have assumed the priority date for the
`
`'723 patent is Dec. 18, 2003."
`
` Just focusing on that last sentence, are
`
`you agreed today that your declaration focuses on the
`
`priority date of December 18th of 2003? Is that
`
`correct?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0010
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 11
`
` A. I don't know if I'd use the term "focuses." It
`
`was just a date that is reasonably inferred from filing
`
`the prosecution history. If it were to be determined by
`
`the patent board that the date was a few months later or
`
`a few months sooner, that would not alter my opinions.
`
` Q. Thank you. And in paragraph 7 on page 5 you
`
`state that "I have been informed that if a single
`
`limitation of a claim is absent from the cited prior
`
`art, the claim cannot be considered obvious."
`
` What is your meaning behind the word
`
`"absent" in that statement?
`
` A. That's a word that has common meaning. It's
`
`not there. It's absent.
`
` Q. That means it's not implied, not suggested,
`
`just absent?
`
` A. Now we're getting into incredibly-vague areas.
`
`What one person considers implied or suggests another
`
`may not see. I would have to opine that if it's very
`
`clearly -- not just faintly suggested that if you read
`
`it differently -- but if the plain reading of the prior
`
`art clearly leads one to something, then I might
`
`consider it obvious. But I've all too often seen people
`
`claim something was implied when it's just not there.
`
` Q. Okay. I'm going to give you a quick
`
`hypothetical. You're going to go to the store and you
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0011
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 12
`
`want to purchase milk and you write down "milk" on a
`
`piece of paper. Would you consider that a grocery list?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form, foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) And why not?
`
` A. Well, for me at least a list has multiple items
`
`and in the context of the patent it also has multiple
`
`items, but just in your hypothetical, limiting it to
`
`that, I'm pretty good at remembering just one thing. My
`
`wife generally only has to give me a list if it's
`
`multiple things.
`
` Q. You wouldn't call it a grocery word or
`
`something like that and not a grocery list?
`
` A. I don't think I would have a term for a single
`
`word written down.
`
` Q. So turn to paragraph 24. You state in I guess
`
`the second sentence, "In my opinion, that quotation
`
`invokes commonly-used shorthand to describe alternative
`
`embodiments."
`
` Why do you believe that in the statement in
`
`paragraph 24?
`
` A. Well, interestingly, the actual answer to your
`
`question is in the very next paragraph, paragraph 25,
`
`where I state, "I further note that Claim 1 recites 'one
`
`or more recipients,' which conveys to a person of
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0012
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 13
`
`ordinary skill in the art that Claim 1 uses the phrase
`
`'one or more' when the intent is to invoke both the
`
`singular and the plural. The absence of the qualifying
`
`phrase 'one or more' before the 'nodes' term confirms
`
`the 'list' must include the connectivity status of more
`
`than one node."
`
` Put slightly differently, the inventor had
`
`multiple choices of words he could have used. When he
`
`meant one or more than one, he said "one or more." In
`
`other situations he did not say that and it's clear that
`
`he was aware he could have. So it's clear he did not
`
`mean one or more than one. In those other instances
`
`where he used plurality such as nodes, he clearly meant
`
`a plurality.
`
` (Apple Exhibit Paper 7 previously marked.)
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) I'm handing you what is
`
`paper 7 in the 222 proceeding which is the Institution's
`
`decision. I'd like you to turn to page 17 and 18, the
`
`bottom of 17 and the top of 18, starting with the word
`
`"first" on the left side in the margin. It's towards
`
`the bottom four lines.
`
` A. Well, if it's okay with you, I'd like to start
`
`with the beginning of that paragraph and review it.
`
` Q. Sure. Take your time.
`
` A. I have read it.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0013
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 14
`
` Q. Fourth from the bottom line starts with the
`
`word "first" and it says, "First, neither party has
`
`proposed a construction for the term 'list,' and Patent
`
`Owners's argument appears to take an overly narrow view
`
`of the term to mean that the 'list of recorded
`
`connectivity status' must include the connectivity
`
`status of more than one node. Patent Owner cites no
`
`factual support in the record for its argument that the
`
`scope of the term excludes a singular value.
`
` Did you review this Institution's decision
`
`and Board statements when you made your opinions in your
`
`declaration for this case?
`
` A. Yes, I have read it.
`
` Q. And did you disagree with the Board's decision
`
`and this Institution's decision that the view of the
`
`list not including one or more was overly narrow?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form and
`
`foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't see that that's what
`
`they're saying. They're saying as of this writing when
`
`they wrote this decision, they had not heard a rationale
`
`for why it would mean more than one articulated. One of
`
`the purposes of depositions like this is so that you can
`
`ask me questions and we can get those rationales
`
`explained, which I did a few moments ago, and I'm happy
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0014
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 15
`
`to repeat if you'd like.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Let me ask you this. In
`
`your declaration do you take account of the fact that
`
`the Board may stick with their view of what a list is;
`
`that it's one or more? Do you take into account whether
`
`the art teaches the Board's current view if it becomes
`
`their permanent view?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: It's a bit of a convoluted
`
`question. The only way I know to answer it is what I
`
`take into account in my declaration is all contained
`
`within my declaration. My opinions are fully contained
`
`within the four corners of that declaration. What the
`
`Board may choose is certainly out of my control. Now,
`
`if you're asking that if the Board did claim that a list
`
`could be one, would that alter my opinion, no, because
`
`there are other reasons articulated in my declaration
`
`why the list in Vuori's doesn't match the list in the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
` (Apple Exhibit 1005 was previously marked.)
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Let's turn to Vuori's. I'm
`
`handing you Exhibit 1005 which is U.S. Patent
`
`Publication 2002/0146097 to Vuori, spelled V-U-O-R-I.
`
`I'd like to turn between Vuori and your declaration
`
`we'll go to your declaration at paragraph 29. I'll let
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0015
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 16
`
`you take the time to review it.
`
` A. I have reviewed it.
`
` Q. Towards the middle there's a sentence that
`
`starts, "The SVM watcher 256 is not a user-facing
`
`'client'..." Can you find that sentence?
`
` A. Yes, I have it in front of me.
`
` Q. And it finishes, "...and thus does render
`
`obvious the claimed 'transmitting' step."
`
` What is your definition of a user-facing
`
`client?
`
` A. Well, within the context of the patent in
`
`question here, we have a client application which is a
`
`program written for specific purposes, in this case
`
`instant voice messaging. That program resides on a
`
`client device. It could be a telephone, could be some
`
`other sort of device. That would be my definition in
`
`the context of this patent.
`
` Q. And you base your opinion then on the patent
`
`and not on any external evidence outside the patent?
`
` A. Well, within the context of the patent the
`
`definition I just gave is the most appropriate one.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you provide anything in your
`
`declaration that corroborates that understanding of how
`
`the patent --
`
` A. I'd have to peruse through the declaration but
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0016
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
`I believe there are citations to that client application
`
`issue in the patent itself, not to mention, of course,
`
`the patent clearly says it and is incorporated by
`
`reference in the declaration.
`
` Q. Okay. So turning to Figure 7 of the Vuori
`
`reference we'll call it --
`
` A. I have it both in my declaration and right
`
`here.
`
` Q. In Figure 7 there's an arrow -- there's two
`
`arrows that face into SVM watcher 256, correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. And specifically one is labeled 252, the other
`
`one is unlabeled, correct?
`
` A. That is also correct.
`
` Q. So you're basing your opinion on not being a
`
`user-facing client on the direction of the arrows?
`
` A. That is one part of my basis and I should point
`
`out that in network diagrams arrows are not arbitrary or
`
`minor things, they're incredibly significant. They show
`
`the flow of data and no one -- forget ordinary skill in
`
`the art -- even a novice who is taking his first
`
`networking class would not understand that these arrows
`
`have significance for the directionality of the flow of
`
`data.
`
` Q. Do we know that Vuori was as careful with his
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0017
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 18
`
`arrows as someone who was doing a network diagram would
`
`be in engineering?
`
` A. That question is a little odd. Essentially
`
`you're asking me could I assume for the sake of my
`
`declaration testimony that Vuori did not know how to do
`
`a network diagram and made a very careless patent
`
`application. I think that's a bad assumption. And we
`
`couple that with the statement I first started with that
`
`the directionality of arrows is only one of the reasons
`
`that brings me to that conclusion. The other evidences
`
`within Vuori more fully support that he actually
`
`understood the arrows and meant what he wrote.
`
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) I'm handing you what will
`
`be labeled as Deposition Exhibit 1. Deposition Exhibit
`
`1 is U.S. Patent 8,984,639. I believe the inventor is
`
`yourself; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes, and I am familiar with this patent.
`
` Q. Okay. Great. Do you know of any errors in
`
`this patent? Did anything come up during the course of
`
`prosecution or after the patent issued that required you
`
`to fix anything in this patent?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall any such
`
`issues. If there were, it's been long enough and minor
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0018
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 19
`
`enough that they just don't come to mind.
`
` MR MANGRUM: Counselor, just for the
`
`record, I'm going to object to all questions -- and I'm
`
`happy to repeat the objections if you would prefer
`
`them -- I'm going to object to all questions based off
`
`this document. It's clearly not cited or a part of any
`
`of the direct testimony.
`
` MR. EISENBERG: Okay. We can do a running
`
`objection for this particular document.
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Thank you. So just for the
`
`record then I'll object on the basis of relevance at a
`
`minimum and if there's any other one-word objections,
`
`I'll offer those.
`
` MR. EISENBERG: Okay.
`
` Q. Turning to Figure 2, you show user computer 104
`
`that has not one but two arrows going to hash value
`
`server 106, correct?
`
` A. That is exactly correct.
`
` Q. And turning to Column 4, I'm going to
`
`concentrate on lines 19 through 26 but I'm happy to have
`
`you familiarize yourself with that section of Column 4.
`
` A. I'm prepared.
`
` Q. Okay. In this section you state, "In FIG. 2,
`
`when any executable was launched on the user computer
`
`104, a query would be issued to the hash value server
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0019
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 20
`
`106, which sends that server the hash value of the
`
`current executable. The hash value server 106 would
`
`then compare that recently created hash value to a
`
`pre-stored hash value. If the hash values matched, then
`
`the hash value server 106 would respond by authorizing
`
`the requesting user computer 104 to execute the
`
`application."
`
` How would it respond by authorizing the
`
`requesting user computer 104 to execute the application?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, the issue that you're
`
`getting at is that Figure 2 shows arrows in one
`
`direction. That's all it's meant to show. Fortunately
`
`it's not the only figure in the patent. For example, if
`
`you go right to Figure 3, verification response
`
`transferred back to computer shows the arrow in the
`
`other direction. Figure 2 -- since I wrote it, I'm
`
`pretty familiar with it -- was only meant to show one
`
`part of that communication process, directionality, one
`
`direction. Figure 2 which was meant to show both
`
`directions has, in fact, arrows pointing in both
`
`directions as is common in network diagrams.
`
` Q. The second time I think you said Figure 2.
`
` A. Figure 3, you're correct.
`
` Q. Now, that description of the responding nodes
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0020
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 21
`
`in the Figure 2 description, it doesn't refer to Figure
`
`3; is that correct, at that section of Column 4?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: That's incorrect. There's an
`
`entire paragraph there. The first sentence says we're
`
`talking about Figure 2. Then the rest of the paragraph
`
`goes on to discuss the rest of the process. Nothing in
`
`that paragraph says that the entire paragraph is
`
`referring exclusively to Figure 2, merely that Figure 2
`
`is showing that initial executable launch and the query.
`
` MR. EISENBERG: Thank you.
`
` Q. I'm going to refer back to Vuori again and
`
`we'll look at Figure 8 which is a detailed view of the
`
`SVM watcher 256 and its additional elements. And I'd
`
`like to turn to paragraph 44 of Vuori if we could.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. Tell me when you're ready.
`
` A. I am ready.
`
` Q. In this paragraph 44 the second sentence says,
`
`"An SVM fetcher 258 simply requests the current value of
`
`some SVM presentity's..." -- P-R-E-S-E-N-I-T-Y'S --
`
`"...presence information from the present service 248."
`
` A. Yes, I read that.
`
` Q. Would a request mean that there has to be
`
`communication from 258 or 256 to 248?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0021
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 22
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form, scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, actually there's a
`
`slightly-different issue here. If you look back at
`
`Figure 8, the 258 that is discussed -- that you were
`
`just discussing in paragraph 44, which is an SVM
`
`fetcher, you can see that it's part of the SVM watcher.
`
`Now, if we take that all the way back to Figure 7, we
`
`can see the SVM watcher is what in turn talks -- is
`
`communicated from the SVM watcher UA. So what we have
`
`here is a fetcher that within the watcher is grabbing
`
`information. It is fetching. He says that. However,
`
`it's doing that within the SVM watcher which is about
`
`two places removed from the user. So, no, that does not
`
`show communication going back to the user.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Does it show communication
`
`going to the service that asks for information?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Not to ask but if you look at
`
`Figure 7 again, it shows 248, the SVM presence service
`
`is sending data to the SVM watcher and that's exactly
`
`what paragraph 44 is saying, I agree, but the SVM
`
`watcher, the fetcher is part of it, it's not a separate
`
`thing. So then we have to look at what communicates
`
`with that watcher. Well, what communicates with it are
`
`two things, the SVM presence service which sends
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0022
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 23
`
`information to it so the fetcher can get it and the SVM
`
`watcher UA sends data to it. None of these diagrams
`
`show the SVM watcher sending data to anyone. And I'm
`
`looking at Figure 7, 8 and 9 to get a complete picture.
`
` Q. Correct. The diagrams, I agree, do not have
`
`the arrows but the statement in paragraph 44 is that the
`
`fetcher can request notifications -- I'm sorry, the
`
`first sentence says that it requests the current value
`
`of some SVM presentity's presence information. So it
`
`requests it which means it has to ask for it and that
`
`would mean that it sends out a communication to
`
`something; is that correct?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, we're conflating what
`
`these arrows mean. The arrows mean the flow of data.
`
`If I request information from you, I'm not flowing data
`
`towards you, I'm asking you for information and the
`
`information should flow back to me. All that paragraph
`
`44 is saying is that rather than that information going
`
`from 248, the presence server, to the fetcher 258 at
`
`random intervals or at discrete intervals or something
`
`of that nature, that at some point the fetcher can say
`
`I'd like you to send me that information. It doesn't
`
`change the diagrams in any way.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Okay. I'd like to turn to
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0023
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 24
`
`paragraph 46 and I'll wait until you're ready.
`
` A. I've read it.
`
` Q. Okay. We're going to concentrate on the bottom
`
`part of that right after you'll see about nine lines up
`
`there's a "UA 282." Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. Right next to it the sentence starts with "it."
`
`It says, "It should be mentioned, as is mentioned in RFC
`
`2778, that the different kinds of user agents are split
`
`apart in the model even though most implementations will
`
`combine at least some of them." Then it says, "A user
`
`agent is purely coupling between a principal and some
`
`core entity of the system..." and it gives examples of
`
`elements 274, 272, 254 and 256.
`
` So here it states that a Vuori user agent
`
`is a coupling between a principal and any entity of the
`
`system, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So a Vuori user agent may be coupled to the SVA
`
`watcher 256 according to this statement, correct?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, it specifically says a
`
`coupling between a principal and some core entity such
`
`as the inbox, the sender, the presentity, the watcher.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) So the principal and the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`0024
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 25
`
`watcher need to be able to send and receive data or
`
`information with each other according to this statement,
`
`correct?
`
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection: form, foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't see that in there
`
`anywhere.
`
` Q. (BY MR. EISENBERG) Why would it couple a
`
`principal to the watcher if it wasn't allowing for a
`
`communication channel?
`
` A. Well, there's two different things. You've
`
`changed the terms. You said "send and receive" before
`
`and now you've said "communication." A one-way
`
`communication is communication and it is coupled.
`
`Nothing in here says anything about a two-way
`
`communication, it just says a coupling, and I'll agree
`
`with you insofar as that does mean at least one-way
`
`communication, sure. But nothing in here even suggests
`
`and it do
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
