UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` 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. 2017-00627
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`
` 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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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. 2017-00627
`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.
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
