` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., ) Cases
` ) IPR2017-00626 and
` PETITIONER, ) IPR2017-00627
` ) U.S. Patent
`vs. ) 6,363,345 B1
` )
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS INC., )
` )
` PATENT OWNER. )
`------------------------------
`
` - - -
` Wednesday, January 17, 2018
` - - -
`
` Deposition of SCOTT CLINTON DOUGLAS, PH.D.,
`taken at the offices of PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
`600 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., beginning at
`9:35 a.m., before Nancy J. Martin, a Registered Merit
`Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
` SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
` BY: STEVEN S. BAIK, ESQ.
` 1001 Page Mill Road
` Building 1
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` (650) 565-7016
` abaik@sidley.com
` Representing the Petitioner
` -AND-
` SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
` BY: THOMAS A. BROUGHAN III, ESQ.
` 1501 K Street N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 736-8314
` tbroughan@sidley.com
` Representing the Petitioner
`
` PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
` BY: BRADLEY LENNIE, ESQ.
` SEAN GLOTH, ESQ.
` 600 14th Street N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 220-1200
` lennieb@pepperlaw.com
` gloths@pepperlaw.com
` Representing the Patent Owner
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 2
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`3
`
` I N D E X
`SCOTT CLINTON DOUGLAS, PH.D.
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`MR. BAIK 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED
`Exhibit 1 Operation of Current and Future 42
` Minimum Values, 1 page
`Exhibit 2 Operation of current and Future 65
` Minimum Values, with annotations,
` 1 page
`Exhibit 3 "An Efficient Algorithm to 67
` Estimate the Instantaneous SNR
` of Speech Signals, 1093 - 1096,
` 4 pages
`Exhibit 4 Flowchart of the SNR Estimation 68
` Algorithm, 1 page
`Exhibit 5 Declaration of Scott C. Douglas, 80
` Ph.D. in Support of Patent Owner's
` Response, 104 pages
`Exhibit 6 Declaration of Scott C. Douglas, 81
` Ph.D., in Support of Patent
` Owner's Response, 100 pages
`Exhibit 7 Monoconically Increasing Power 81
` chart, 1 page
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 3
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`4
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (CONTINUED)
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED
`Exhibit 8 Exhibit A - Declaration of 118
` Scott C. Douglas, Ph.D., in
` Support of Complainant Andrea
` Electronic Corporation's Initial
` Claim Construction Brief,
` 95 pages
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 4
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`5
`
` WASHINGTON, D.C., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2018;
` 9:35 A.M.
` - - -
`
` SCOTT CLINTON DOUGLAS, PH.D.,
` having been first duly sworn,
` was examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Douglas.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Could you state your name for the record,
`please.
` A. Scott Clinton Douglas.
` Q. And can you state your address, please.
` A. 3040 Rosedale Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75205.
` Q. And where are you currently employed?
` A. I'm employed at Southern Methodist University
`in Dallas.
` Q. And what's your position there?
` A. I'm a professor there.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 5
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`6
`
` Q. Do you have an official title or anything
`like that?
` A. Professor of electrical engineering.
` Q. Okay. How long have you been there?
` A. I've been there for 19 years.
` Q. Do you understand why you're here today?
` A. I do.
` Q. And why is that?
` A. It's to provide testimony in regards to my
`report that I submitted in the IPR matter.
` Q. Okay. And by "report," you mean your
`declaration?
` A. Yes, my declaration.
` Q. And you understand there are two IPRs at
`issue here?
` A. Yes, there are two IPRs.
` Q. Just for the record, it's IPR2017-00627 and
`'626; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And they're both in relation to a particular
`patent; right?
` A. Yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 6
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`7
`
` Q. And that is Patent No. 6,363,345?
` A. Yes. The '345 patent.
` Q. Okay. And you're familiar with the '345
`patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you're familiar with the embodiments
`disclosed in the '345 patent?
` A. The preferred embodiment, yes.
` Q. And you're prepared to testify about it
`today?
` A. I'm prepared to provide information that I've
`given in conjunction with my report.
` Q. Okay. Would that include your knowledge of
`the '345 patent?
` A. I'm here to provide clarifying information
`with regards to the opinions that I've given.
` Q. So you don't have full knowledge about the
`'345 patent?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by --
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. I just want to make sure that you're prepared
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 7
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`8
`
`to testify about the '345 patent today.
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I've offered opinions in
`regards to the material presented with respect to the
`IPR proceedings. So I have knowledge of the '345
`patent and have provided information for those
`proceedings.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Okay. Have you been retained by Andrea with
`regard to the two IPRs we're talking about today?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. Okay. What's your billing rate?
` A. $575 per hour.
` Q. And are you being paid for your testimony
`today?
` A. I am.
` Q. Okay. Other than the '626 and the '627 IPRs,
`have you been retained by Andrea with regard to any
`other IPRs?
` A. "With regard to any other IPRs." I've been
`retained by Andrea to provide information on other
`cases. I'm not sure if it's IPRs or not.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 8
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`9
`
` Q. Okay. As far as you recall, no other IPRs?
` A. I don't recall providing information or
`testimony for specific IPRs, no.
` Q. Okay. Why don't we go through your history
`with Andrea. When were you first retained by Andrea
`with regard to any matters?
` A. I was retained by Andrea for a case in front
`of the International Trade Commission -- I believe the
`case number is '949 -- and that was in, I want to say,
`early 2015. And I've also been retained with regard
`to the most recent ITC case.
` Q. And I'll refer to the most recent one as the
`'1026 ITC" investigation. Okay?
` A. I would say yeah.
` Q. Is that okay with you?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. And you're right. The earlier one was the
`'949 investigation, and when I talk about that, I'll
`refer to the '949 investigation." Okay?
` A. Okay.
` Q. Were you involved in the IPR that occurred
`around the time of the '949 investigation?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 9
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`10
`
` MR. LENNIE: I'm going to object to form.
`Outside the scope of the testimony that he provided
`with respect to the two IPRs at issue today.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm here to provide
`information with regard to the IPR cases, the '626 and
`the '627. With regard to the '949 case, my
`interaction was mainly focused on providing testimony
`with respect to the ITC proceedings.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Okay. So my question was were you involved
`in the IPRs that were filed around the time of the
`'949 investigation?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Can you be more specific about
`your question? When you say, "involved," what is
`it that you --
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. You were retained by Andrea with regard to
`those IPRs?
` MR. LENNIE: I'll just caution the witness
`not to reveal discussions with the attorneys,
`privileged discussions. But, otherwise, you can
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 10
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`11
`
`answer the answer.
` THE WITNESS: I mean I provided information
`with respect to the ITC case, and I gave testimony
`there. I don't recall information specific to the IPR
`case with respect to that.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Were you retained for the IPR?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I mean I recall that I was
`retained to provide advice and analysis with regard
`to, you know, expert witness matters with respect to
`the ITC case. I don't recall information regarding
`specific things about the IPR case.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Okay. Did you submit a declaration in either
`of the prior IPRs?
` A. Again, I don't recall submitting a
`declaration for the IPRs.
` Q. Okay. Let's talk about the '949
`investigation for a bit here. The '949 investigation
`also involved the '345 patent?
` A. It did.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 11
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`12
`
` Q. And did you send a declaration to the ITC
`regarding the '345 patent?
` A. Regarding as related to the '345 patent, yes.
` Q. And with regard to the '1026 investigation,
`you were retained for that matter as well?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that investigation also involved the '345
`patent?
` A. Yes, it did.
` Q. And did you submit declarations to the ITC
`relating to the '345 patent, that investigation?
` A. Yes.
` Q. With regard to the '949 investigation, about
`how much time did you bill for that matter?
` A. I don't remember. I don't have an accounting
`that I can tell you sitting here today.
` Q. Was it more than 100 hours?
` A. It was probably more than 100 hours, yes.
` Q. Was it more than 500 hours?
` A. No. It wasn't more than 500 hours. That's a
`lot of time. That's a quarter man year.
` Q. So about 200 hours?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 12
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`13
`
` A. I don't recall exactly.
` Q. Somewhere north of 100?
` A. Yeah. And by the way, this is going off of,
`also, the issue I have within the university time that
`I'm allowed to do consulting.
` Q. What's the limit for time you can do
`consulting?
` A. I think it's one day a week. Eight hours.
`But that doesn't include breaks and other times with
`respect to summertime and so on.
` Q. With regard to the '1026 investigation, about
`how much time did you put in on that matter?
` A. Again, I don't recall exactly because of the
`way, basically, that the matter was handled in terms
`of the time put in.
` Q. Was it more than 100 hours?
` A. I believe it was more than 100 hours, yes.
` Q. Can you recall anything more specific than
`more than 100 hours?
` A. No, I can't. Not sitting here today.
` Q. Okay. With regard to the '626 IPR, how much
`time have you put in?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 13
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`14
`
` A. Again, it's not obvious from that
`perspective. I'd have to look back at material, but I
`don't know exactly, sitting here today, what that time
`is.
` Q. Okay. Pardon me if I went over this before,
`but have you been retained by Andrea with regard to
`the '628 IPR which involved the '607 patent?
` A. Generally I provided information with regard
`to that particular patent.
` Q. So the answer is "yes"?
` A. Well, I have provided information with
`respect to that patent in the ITC case.
` Q. I'm asking about the '628 IPR. Have you been
`retained for that matter?
` A. I don't recall being specifically retained
`for that matter.
` Q. How about the '732 IPR, which involved the
`'637 patent?
` A. Again, I provided information and expert
`witness testimony on that particular patent. I don't
`recall that particular IPR.
` Q. Okay. So going back to the '626 and '627
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 14
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`15
`
`patent, which are both related to the '345 patent,
`about how much time have you put in on those two IPRs?
` A. Again, it's difficult to figure out the exact
`time because, you know, because the IPR case and the
`ITC case is handled simultaneously. So it's not
`obvious to me what the exact breakout of time with
`respect to that.
` Q. Okay. If you had to group the '1026
`investigation and the two IPRs together in terms of
`time, about how much time did you put in?
` A. Well, it was more than 100 hours. I know
`this.
` Q. More than 200 hours given the number of
`matters?
` A. It might have been something like that.
` Q. Other than the IPR we've talked about and the
`two ITC investigations, have you ever been retained by
`Andrea for any other matters? I just need a yes or --
` A. No. No.
` Q. Okay. How many times have you acted as an
`expert witness in either a litigation or an IPR
`matter?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 15
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`16
`
` A. What do you mean by "times"? Are you talking
`about company, engagements?
` Q. Engagements. Individual cases and/or IPRs.
`Just the number right now.
` A. So sitting here today doing the accounting,
`it seems to me it's four, but I'm not sure exactly if
`I'm dividing, for example, in this case the matter of
`the IPR and the ITC separately.
` Q. Have you been retained as an expert by any
`other company other than Andrea?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I don't need to know the name, but how many
`other companies?
` A. Two other companies.
` Q. And those -- were those -- for those two
`other companies were you retained with regard to
`patent matters?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did they involve litigation?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Did you provide any kind of written
`testimony or oral testimony in those two matters?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 16
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`17
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did they involve claim construction in those
`two matters?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean -- well, at least
`in the context of the matters that I'm thinking of, I
`don't want to necessarily reveal sensitive information
`with respect to that.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Yeah. I'm not asking about any content. I'm
`just asking did those two matters involve claim
`construction.
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I mean I was asked to consider
`claims as regard to the patents at issue. I don't
`recall the exact issue with respect to claim
`construction.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. With regard to considering claims, you would
`have to understand what the claims mean?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. Can you be more specific
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 17
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`18
`
`in your question?
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. You answered that "I was asked to consider
`claims as regard to the patents at issue." That was
`your testimony; right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In order to consider the claim, you'd have to
`have an understanding or be able to construe the
`claim?
` A. To understand the terminology of the claim,
`sure.
` Q. So you're familiar with claim construction?
` A. I'm familiar with the concept of claim
`construction, yeah.
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Okay. Is there a difference being familiar
`with the concept of claim construction versus being
`familiar with claim construction?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: So I'm not a lawyer, and so I
`receive advice from counsel with regard to, you know,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 18
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`19
`
`issues -- legal issues. In providing information I
`examine technical issues and provide expert knowledge
`with respect to those matters.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Are you capable of construing claims?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not a lawyer. As I
`understand it, claim construction is a process whereby
`people do come to an agreement as to what particular
`terms mean. I provide expert knowledge and
`information with respect to those terms. I'm involved
`in the process. I'm not the one who decides what
`those things are for the entire group.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Who decides what they are?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not a lawyer. I
`understand that to be a process.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. When you take a position in either a
`declaration or a report, are those your opinions or
`are those conclusions that they were handed to you
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 19
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`20
`
`that you support in terms of claim construction?
` A. Can you be specific with respect to what
`matter we're talking about.
` Q. Just in your general practice.
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think it depends on where the
`case is, as I understand it. If issues -- if the
`issue is with regard to claim construction, then
`there's information to be provided with respect to
`that. If there's decisions that have been rendered,
`then there's not information to be provided in respect
`that.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. In this instance where the decisions haven't
`been rendered already and you take a position on
`behalf of your client, are those your opinions as to
`how the claim should be construed, or are those
`positions given to you by the attorneys?
` A. The information I provide represents my
`opinion. So, you know, I come to the opinion with
`respect to a matter having considered all aspects of
`the issue.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 20
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`21
`
` Q. Are you capable of providing opinions about
`how a claim should be construed?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Are you speaking with respect
`to some particular matter?
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. In your ability as an expert on patent
`matters.
` MR. LENNIE: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I provide information
`with respect to a particular matter. That's why
`I'm -- essentially, a contractor brought in. That
`information is based on my knowledge and my
`understanding of the issues at hand.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Can you answer my question, please.
` A. Sorry. Can you repeat your question.
` Q. Are you capable of forming opinions as to how
`claims should be construed?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: If I'm asked to provide that
`information under a particular case, then given time
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 21
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`22
`
`and enough, essentially, matter to be able to examine
`all the issues, I can provide that information and
`provide an understanding of that for others to
`consider.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. So you're familiar with claim construction
`then?
` A. I'm familiar with the process, and I
`understand it's a process that is done in the context
`of a case. Okay?
` Q. And what's your part in that process?
` A. To provide expert opinion with regard to the
`matters at hand.
` Q. Including how the claim should be construed?
` A. Again, to provide an understanding with
`regard to the matters in the case. Yes, it's
`reasonable to provide information regarding the
`construction of the claims.
` Q. So are you familiar with the claim
`construction process?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: I believe I've answered the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 22
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`23
`
`question.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. And what's your answer?
` A. As I said, I've provided information with
`regards to technical matters to assist in the process
`of construing claims amongst -- or with regard to the
`matter at hand.
` Q. I just want to make sure for the record so
`the board can understand your answer. My question is
`are you familiar with the claim construction?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Asked and answered.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. And you're going to stand by the answer that
`you just gave?
` A. I'm familiar with the general process of
`claim construction.
` Q. You can't -- okay. Thank you.
` Those two other matters for the two other
`companies, did they involve IPRs?
` A. Again, I'm not familiar with all the matters
`in those cases. I don't recall aspects related to
`this type of case, no.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 23
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`24
`
` Q. So other than the '626 and the '627 IPRs,
`have you been involved in any other IPRs?
` A. I don't recall being so, no.
` Q. How many litigation matters have you been
`retained for with regard to patent matters?
` A. I think I've indicated that already. It's
`basically the same number, four.
` Q. Okay. Do you have an understanding as to the
`difference between how claims are construed in a
`litigation matter versus an IPR?
` A. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I understand that
`those can be different.
` Q. Okay. Do you know how they're different?
` MR. LENNIE: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. I have made some
`statements with regard to this in my report. I don't
`recall the exact word, and I don't want to say
`something out of hand to get those things somehow
`misstated.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Yeah. I'm not trying to do any kind of "got
`you" on this. I just want to get your understanding
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 24
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`25
`
`of what your understanding is. Okay. So let's step
`back a little bit.
` With regard to -- do you have an
`understanding that claims are construed more broadly
`in an IPR versus a litigation matter?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I understand that
`they're different. I'm not sure what you mean by
`"more broadly."
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Do you have in your mind an understanding of
`how claims are construed in a litigation matter?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I believe I understand
`the overall process. I've provided technical
`expertise to be able to provide input to that process.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Do you have an understanding as to how claims
`are construed in an IPR matter?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I have made some
`statements in my report with respect to this. I don't
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 25
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`26
`
`want to misstate something with respect to that.
`Yeah.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Do you have an understanding, sitting here
`today, that there is a difference between how claims
`are construed in a litigation matter versus an IPR
`matter?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not a lawyer. I
`understand that there are differences. My role in
`this process, I've provided information with respect
`to technical information in this overall IPR matter.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. To the best you can today, can you tell me
`what those differences are?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I have made some
`statements with respect to that in my report. I don't
`want to state something specifically here without
`looking at that particular report. I understand that
`there are differences.
`BY MR. BAIK:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 26
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`27
`
` Q. Can you answer my question and tell me what
`those differences are?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not a lawyer. I
`don't want to simply state something to be able --
`well, I don't know exactly the -- sorry. I know that
`there are differences, and I know that the differences
`allow a different interpretation between cases. The
`specific process for doing that involves, you know,
`discussions amongst various parties, including myself.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Sitting here today, do you have an
`understanding as to which process for the IPR versus
`the litigation matter -- let me start over.
` Sitting here today do you have an
`understanding between the differences between how
`claims are construed in an IPR matter versus
`litigation matter in terms of how broadly claims are
`construed.
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form. Are you
`talking about this case? Are you talking about any
`case? Are you talking about expired patents? I
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 27
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`28
`
`mean --
` MR. BAIK: Hey, if you give me any kind of
`reasonable answer, Counsel, I think it would go a lot
`faster. So...
` THE WITNESS: I understand that the
`difference -- that there are differences, and I
`understand as well that in the IPR cases, that there
`are considerations made with respect to the
`understanding of terms to be able to express their
`meaning, you know, with regard to the matter at hand.
`The overall process though involves, you know, steps,
`which include information that comes from expert
`testimony.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. Can you provide me any testimony as to your
`understanding of the differences of how claims are
`construed in an IPR versus an ITC case?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form. Asked and
`answered.
` MR. BAIK: He's not answered, Counsel.
` THE WITNESS: I have my information in my
`report which indicates -- again, I'm not a lawyer, but
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 28
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`29
`
`the information indicates the differences, if you
`will, or the understanding to be taken with regard to
`claims within an IPR matter.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. You testified that you do understand there
`are differences; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. To the best of your ability, can you tell me
`what those differences are right now?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer, but I
`understand that the terms should be considered, again,
`in a matter related to the information being
`considered within the case to provide some
`understanding as to what the terms mean. One should
`consider various, different aspects of the term as
`it's used within the art.
`BY MR. BAIK:
` Q. How did your answer just now tell me any
`difference between how claims are construed in an IPR
`versus a litigation matter?
` MR. LENNIE: Objection. Form.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR No. 2017-00626
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 29
`
`
`
`Transcript of Scott Clinton Douglas. Ph.D.
`Conducted on January 17, 2018
`
`30
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer.