`Filed: February 27, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`—————————————————
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`—————————————————
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`—————————————————
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`I.
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Caltech’s request for sanctions is entirely without basis. Every one of
`
`Petitioner’s deposition questions that underlie Caltech’s request was unequivocally
`
`targeted at the direct testimony of Caltech’s witnesses. The premise of Caltech’s
`
`motion – that deposition questions went “outside the scope” of the direct
`
`testimony, and were motivated by the district court litigation – is false. The
`
`deposition questions posed by Petitioner’s counsel consistently identified clear
`
`flaws and inconsistencies within the declarations offered by Caltech’s witnesses,
`
`and, when Caltech’s counsel did not interfere with the questions, often yielded
`
`admissions that undermined the direct testimony. However, rather than allow its
`
`witnesses to face fair and direct cross-examination, Caltech’s counsel repeatedly
`
`coached its witnesses that questions were “outside the scope” and instructed them
`
`that they “should not feel obligated to answer.” That conduct by Caltech’s counsel
`
`was plainly improper and obstructionist.
`
`Beyond its utter lack of merit, Caltech’s motion should be denied because it
`
`can show no harm and is untimely, and the proposed sanctions would be grossly
`
`disproportionate, particularly in light of Caltech’s own deposition violations.
`
`As discussed below, the factors for assessing a motion for sanctions are “(i)
`
`whether a party has performed conduct that warrants sanctions; (ii) whether the
`
`moving party has suffered harm from that conduct; and (iii) whether the sanctions
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`requested are proportionate to the harm suffered by the moving party.” Square,
`
`Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., CBM 2014-00159, Paper 48 at 2 (citation omitted).
`
`Caltech’s motion fails on all three factors.
`
`II. Argument
`
`A.
`
`Sanctions Are Unwarranted Because Petitioner’s Questions Were
`Properly Directed To The Witnesses’ Direct Testimony.
`
`The right to cross-examine witnesses regarding their direct testimony is
`
`
`
`fundamental to IPR proceedings. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(D)(ii). Further, “[t]he
`
`Board generally allows some leeway as to questions seemingly out of the scope of
`
`the direct testimony,” Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00043, Paper
`
`31 at 2 (PTAB July 8, 2013), and “anything that is reasonably related to the
`
`declarant’s direct testimony would not be considered outside the scope of the
`
`direct.” Aker Biomarine AS v. Neptune Techs. & Bioressources Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00003, Paper 62 at 3 (PTAB June 6, 2014). As detailed in Exhibit 1074,
`
`Petitioner’s questions were entirely directed to topics addressed and opinions given
`
`in Dr. Divsalar’s and Dr. Mitzenmacher’s declarations. In fact, Caltech did not
`
`even object to many of the questions cited in its charts.1 There is no basis for
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Ex. 2038 at 30:8-30:14; 32:12-33:8; 44:24-45:10; 46:8-46:15; 47:16-
`
`48:3; 48:18-48:21; 49:10-49:23; 77:16-78:4; 131:12-132:2; 133:24-135:5; 148:9-
`
`149:16; 204:24-205:6; 205:23-206:7; 228:21-229:16; 232:11-233:22; 260:12-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Caltech to retroactively apply objections to these questions now. Indeed, its lack
`
`of contemporaneous objection highlights just how meritless the present motion is.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Questions During Dr. Divsalar’s Deposition Directly
`Address Topics And Opinions In His Declaration.
`Without exception, each question posed by Petitioner’s counsel during Dr.
`
`Divsalar’s deposition related to topics from his declaration. For example, in his
`
`declaration, Dr. Divsalar discussed having submitted a paper “in connection with
`
`the Allerton conference in 1998.” Ex. 2031 at ¶ 19. Petitioner thus properly asked
`
`questions about what “in connection with the Allerton conference” means.
`
`Similarly, Dr. Divsalar’s declaration addressed message passing decoders (see,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2031 at ¶ 32), systematic codes (see, e.g., Ex. 2031 at ¶ 29), and other
`
`topics, yet Caltech alleges that questions directed to these same topics are out of
`
`scope. See Exhibit 1074.
`
`Likewise, although Dr. Divsalar opined about what a POSA would or would
`
`not have done (see, e.g., Ex. 2031 at ¶¶ 9-11, 28-30, 33-36), Caltech’s motion
`
`suggests that Petitioner was not permitted to pose questions about the foundation
`
`and validity of such opinions – a position wholly at odds with the purpose of cross-
`
`
`261:22; 264:14-265:13; 267:8-270:3; 277:14-278:2; 278:9-278:19; 280:3-280:14;
`
`283:14-283:21; 284:24; 404:16-405:7; 405:16-406:3; Ex. 2039 at 29:1-18; 58:22-
`
`59:7; 82:13-83:4; 228:1-22; 229:10-230:7.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`examination. For example, as Caltech admits, Dr. Divsalar’s direct testimony
`
`asserts that he “did not consider Tanner graph representation useful or applicable
`
`to concatenated convolutional codes.” Ex. 2031 at ¶ 26; Mot at 5. Therefore, it
`
`was entirely appropriate for Petitioner to ask questions about Dr. Divsalar’s
`
`knowledge of Tanner graphs, including whether concatenated convolutional codes
`
`and RA codes can be represented as a Tanner graph. See Exhibit 1074.
`
`Further, Dr. Divsalar testified on direct that a POSA would have been
`
`“deterred” from making the RA code irregular because doing so “would drastically
`
`reduce the coding rate.” Ex. 2031 at ¶ 36. To challenge this testimony, Petitioner
`
`rightly asked whether a regular RA code can be modified to an IRA code without
`
`changing the code rate. Dr. Divsalar not only conceded that it could, but that there
`
`were a multitude of ways to do so, thus undermining his declaration. Ex. 2039 at
`
`102:2-105:13. Exhibits 1057 and 1058, which are Tanner graphs of RA codes,
`
`demonstrate the errors in Dr. Divsalar’s testimony; these exhibits show how the
`
`coding rate stays the same despite a change from regular to irregular repetition.
`
`Dr. Divsalar also opined about “contemporaneous technical literature” on
`
`direct. Ex. 2031 at ¶ 10. It was therefore entirely proper for Petitioner to ask him
`
`about that “contemporaneous literature,” including what references Dr. Divsalar
`
`did or did not consider when forming his opinions, and whether that literature was
`
`inconsistent with the opinions he expressed. See, e.g., Ex. 2031 at ¶¶ 9-11.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`In short, as described above and in the attached chart, Petitioner’s questions
`
`appropriately addressed specific topics and opinions from Dr. Divsalar’s direct
`
`testimony.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Questions During Dr. Mitzenmacher’s Deposition
`Directly Address Topics And Opinions In His Declaration.
`Similarly, each question posed by Petitioner during Dr. Mitzenmacher’s
`
`deposition pertained directly to topics and opinions in his declaration.
`
`For example, Caltech’s first charted example alleges that questions related to
`
`deriving a systematic generator matrix were out of scope. They plainly were not.
`
`This cross-examination challenged Dr. Mitzenmacher’s direct testimony on the
`
`Luby reference. In particular, Dr. Mitzenmacher opined that Luby’s teaching on
`
`irregularity would not lead a POSA to repeat information bits irregularly because
`
`Luby refers to codeword bits rather than information bits. IPR2017-002192 Ex.
`
`2004 at ¶ 77. However, in a systematic code, codewords include information bits.
`
`Id. at ¶ 29. Thus, if a POSA would have understood how to derive systematic
`
`versions of Luby’s codes, then a POSA would have understood that Luby’s
`
`teachings apply to information bits.
`
`
`2 Dr. Mitzenmacher’s deposition was taken simultaneously for IPR2017-00210, -
`
`219, -297, -700, -701, and -728. Petitioner addresses these related cases herein
`
`because Caltech combines its arguments for all six cases in its motion.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Accordingly, Petitioner was entitled to examine Dr. Mitzenmacher on
`
`whether a POSA would have been able to derive an equivalent systematic
`
`generator matrix from Luby’s parity-check matrix. Dr. Mitzenmacher conceded
`
`this point under cross-examination (see Ex. 2038 at 41:2-42:9), which destroys the
`
`foundation for his direct testimony on Luby. Caltech’s objections to Petitioner’s
`
`foundational questions – which established that a POSA would have understood
`
`from Luby that irregularity could be applied to information bits – are meritless.
`
`Caltech also argues that Dr. Mitzenmacher was “ambushed” by newly
`
`created Tanner graphs and figures. Mot. at 8. However, as expressly contemplated
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(3), exhibits “used during the deposition…must, if not
`
`previously served, be served at the deposition” (emphasis added). Thus,
`
`Petitioner’s service of exhibits at the deposition was an entirely proper vehicle for
`
`cross-examination that elicited testimony undermining Dr. Mitzenmacher’s
`
`declaration.
`
`Caltech argues that questions related to the 802.11 WiFi Standard were
`
`related to a district court litigation rather than the present IPRs. Mot. at 9. That is
`
`false. Dr. Mitzenmacher offers opinions regarding WiFi standards. IPR2017-
`
`00210 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 120 (“Divsalar is already too slow for many practical
`
`applications, such as 802.11”). Petitioner was therefore entitled to examine Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s familiarity with the standard and its implementation.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Caltech also cites questions “about proposed modifications to Divsalar” and
`
`alleges that these were unrelated to direct. Not so. Dr. Mitzenmacher testified on
`
`direct that modifications to Divsalar would have been difficult. IPR2017-00219
`
`Ex. 2004 at ¶ 104 (“The Petition and Dr. Davis frequently state that incorporating
`
`an irregular repeater into Divsalar’s RA code would have been ‘a simple matter.’ I
`
`disagree.”) (internal citations omitted). Thus, Petitioner was entitled to examine
`
`his opinions about incorporating an irregular repeater into Divsalar’s RA code.
`
`In short, each line of questions Petitioner put to Dr. Mitzenmacher
`
`challenged specific opinions that he expressed in direct testimony. This cross-
`
`examination was thus proper.
`
`D. Caltech’s Proposed Sanctions Are Wholly Unwarranted And
`Grossly Disproportionate In Light Of Its Failure To Show Any
`Harm, Its Untimely Request, And Its Own Violations.
`Caltech’s proposed sanctions, which include striking testimony from the record,
`
`are extreme, and a transparent attempt to rescue its experts from cross-examination
`
`that undermined their opinions. See Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp.,
`
`CBM2014-00008, Paper 48 at 4 (sanctions not warranted where “Patent Owner has
`
`not explained sufficiently why particular improper questions would warrant the
`
`extreme remedy of striking 114 pages of the deposition transcript”). These
`
`extreme remedies are particularly unwarranted where Caltech has failed to
`
`properly allege harm, its request comes over six weeks after Dr. Mitzenmacher’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`deposition, and Caltech has itself violated the rules.
`
`1.
`Caltech Suffered No Harm.
`Caltech has not suffered, and fails to allege, any cognizable harm. Caltech
`
`merely disputes the scope of “extensive questioning” and, at most, contends that
`
`some undefined harm to “future parties” should be deterred. Mot. at 8-10. Such
`
`vague assertions are not enough. For example, in Square, Inc., although the Board
`
`agreed that a patent owner’s line of inquiry was “a waste of time,” it denied
`
`petitioner’s motions for sanctions for patent owner’s deposition questions and the
`
`alleged harassment of petitioner’s expert because it was “unable to discern harm to
`
`Petitioner sufficient to warrant sanctions.” CBM2014-00159, Paper 48 at 3.
`
`Caltech has shown nothing in the record that is in any way comparable to the
`
`conduct the Board considered in Square, Inc. and found innocuous.3
`
`
`3 Additionally, sanctions should also be denied because of Caltech’s delay. Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s deposition occurred on December 20, 2017, but Caltech waited
`
`over six weeks, until February 2, 2018, to contact the Board. If Caltech thought
`
`sanctions were warranted, it should have contacted the Board immediately after Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s deposition. Instead, Caltech waited until all depositions of its
`
`witnesses were completed, and five days before the first of Petitioners’ Replies
`
`were due, before raising this issue. See BioDelivery Scis. Intl., Inc. v. Monosol Rx,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`2.
`Caltech’s Coaching And Repeated Improper Instructions
`That Witnesses “Should Not Feel Obligated To Answer”
`Are The Real Violations Of The Deposition Rules.
`Throughout the two depositions, Caltech engaged in lengthy speaking
`
`objections designed to coach its witnesses. Dr. Divsalar was instructed thirteen
`
`times that he “should not feel obligated to answer.”4 In several instances, this
`
`resulted in the witness immediately parroting counsel’s objection rather than
`
`answering a question. See, e.g., Ex. 2039 at 126:14-127:17 (“[A]ny questions
`
`about this are outside the scope of his declaration…[WITNESS:] Okay. I haven’t
`
`discussed this in my declaration so it is out of scope of my declaration”). Caltech
`
`argues that Dr. Divsalar was reminding counsel that subject matter was not in his
`
`declaration, but it is clear from the transcript that Dr. Divsalar was himself coached
`
`by Caltech’s counsel to make such (incorrect) statements. Mot. at 4. Caltech also
`
`repeatedly interrupted the depositions with speaking objections when, apparently, a
`
`question’s relevance was not clear to counsel. See, e.g., Ex. 2038 at 191:6-7
`
`(“How does this have anything to do with his direct testimony?”); 164:8-10
`
`
`LLC, IPR2015-00165, Paper 20 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2015) (declining to authorize
`
`sanctions motion because request was made nearly seven weeks after deposition).
`
`4 Ex. 2039 at 139:8-11; 141:1-4; 156:6-7; 178:17-18; 183:2-5; 191:7-12; 196:9-11;
`
`200:20-22; 209:3-5; 241:18-20; 260:23-25; 261:16-18; 265:9-14.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`(“[W]hy are we looking at non-prior art …?”).
`
`Of course, counsel’s instructions not to answer were improper.5 And neither
`
`Caltech nor the witness is entitled to understand the goal of each cross-examination
`
`question before answering. Similarly, Petitioner is not required to reveal the intent
`
`behind each line of questions before posing them. The proper response is to “make
`
`a formal objection on the record and make any motions to exclude after the
`
`deposition.” Corning Inc., IPR2013-00043, Paper 31 at 2. Accordingly, it would
`
`be disproportionate to permit sanctions given Caltech’s own rule violations.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For at least the reasons discussed above, Caltech’s sanction motion should
`
`be denied in its entirety.
`
`Date: February 27, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Richard Goldenberg/
`Richard Goldenberg (Reg. No. 38,895)
`
`
`5 “[U]nnecessary objections, ‘speaking’ objections, and coaching of witnesses in
`
`proceeding before the Board are strictly prohibited.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 at 48772
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (“Counsel must not make objections or statements that suggest an
`
`answer to a witness …. Counsel may instruct a witness not to answer only when
`
`necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the Board, or
`
`to present a motion to terminate or limit the testimony.”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey, “Comparison of
`constructions of irregular Gallager codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
`Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-54, 1999
`
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low Density Parity Check
`Codes with Semi-random Parity Check Matrix.” Electron. Letters,
`Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-39, 1999
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of Professor James Davis, Ph.D. (“Davis Declaration”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Gallager, R., Low-Density Parity-Check Codes, Monograph, M.I.T.
`Press, 1963
`
`Berrou et al., “Near Shannon Limit Error-Correcting Coding and
`Decoding: Turbo-Codes," ICC ’93, Technical Program, Conference
`Record 1064, Geneva 1993
`
`Benedetto, S. et al., Serial Concatenation of Block and
`Convolutional Codes, 32.10 Electronics Letters 887-8, 1996
`
`1008
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes,” STOC ’97, 1997
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved
`Designs Using Irregular Graphs,” STOC ’98, pp. 249-58, published
`in 1998
`
`Replacement copy of Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular
`Turbocodes,” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and
`Computing, Monticello, Illinois, published on or before March 20,
`2000
`
`1011
`
`Final Written Decision, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 42 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016)
`
`1012
`
`Certificate of Correction, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (Sept. 2, 2008)
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description
`Claim Construction Order, California Institute of Technology v.
`Hughes Communications Inc., No. 13-cv-7245 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Decision on Institution, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015)
`
`1015
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Brendan Frey (Case No. 2:13-cv-07245)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`MacKay, D. J. C, and Neal, R. M. “Near Shannon Limit
`Performance of Low Density Parity Check Codes,” Electronics
`Letters, vol. 32, pp. 1645-46, 1996
`
`Replacement copy of D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece,
`“Coding theorems for "turbo-like" codes,” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf.
`on Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, pp. 201-9,
`September 1998
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,271,520 (1981)
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh Concerning the “Proceedings,
`36th Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and
`Computing” Reference
`
`Chris Heegard and Stephen B. Wicker, Turbo Coding, pp. 12-14,
`1999
`
`George C. Clark, Jr. and J. Bibb Cain, Error-Correction Coding for
`Digital Communications, pp. 6, 229, 1938
`
`Pfister, H. and Siegel, P., “The Serial Concatenation of Rate-1 Codes
`Through Uniform Random Interleavers,” 37th Allerton Conf. on
`Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, published on
`or before September 24, 1999
`
`1023
`
`Replacement copy of Declaration of Paul H. Siegel (“Siegel
`Declaration”)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`Description
`Kschischang, F.R., and Frey, B.J., “Iterative decoding of compound
`codes by probability propagation in graphical models,” IEEE
`Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.
`219-230, 1998
`
`Declaration Of Richard Goldenberg In Support Of Unopposed
`Motions To Submit Replacement Exhibits Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(c)
`
`Declaration Of Jonathan Barbee In Support Of Unopposed Motions
`To Submit Replacement Exhibits Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`Declaration of James M. Dowd in Support of Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`OCLC Record of Proceedings of the 36th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 36th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published by June 3, 1999
`
`Declaration of Library Expert Theodore A. Fons
`
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury (an employee in the Original
`Cataloging Unit of the Cornell University Library)
`
`Affidavit from Dr. Bruce Hajek (a six-time co-chair of the Allerton
`Conference, including the 36th Allerton Conference and the 37th
`Allerton Conference)
`
`Affidavit from Dr. Tamer Basar (a six-time co-chair of the Allerton
`Conference, including the 36th Allerton Conference)
`
`Affidavit from Dr. Ramavarapu Sreenivas (a two-time co-chair of
`the Allerton Conference, including the 37th Allerton Conference)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1036
`
`Description
`A Screen Capture of an Archived Version of the Website for the 37th
`Annual Allerton Conference, dated September 9, 1999
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`A Purchase Order for the 37th Allerton Conference Proceedings,
`dated December 8, 1999
`
`A Bill of Lading for the 37th Annual Allerton Conference
`Proceedings, with a ship date of February 21, 2000
`
`An Excerpt from the Deposition of Dr. Steven Wicker (Case No.
`2:13-cv-07245)
`
`An Excerpt from the Deposition of Dr. Rüdiger Urbanke (Case No.
`2:13-cv-07245)
`
`1041
`
`Jafar A. Alzubi, Omar A. Alzubi, and Thomas M. Chen, Forward
`Error Correction Based on Algebraic-Geometric Theory (2014)
`1042 MARC Record of Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 37th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published in 1999
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`BEACON Record of Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 37th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published in 1999
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Fig. 2 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,116,710
`
`Block Diagram of Accumulator
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Luby98 Code 14
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Ping
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by MacKay Profile 93y
`
`Confidential IRA.cpp with metadata
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1051
`
`Description
`Confidential IRA.h with metadata
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential GetInter.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin (Case No.
`16-cv-3714)
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar (q=5)
`
`Tanner Graph for IRA Code
`
`Systematic Version of Divsalar Figure 3
`
`Divsalar Figure 3 and Frey Figure 1
`
`D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, J. Thorpe, C. Jones, “Constructing LDPC
`Codes from Simple Loop-Free Encoding Modules” IEEE (2005)
`
` Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin [unredacted]
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin [redacted]
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Brendan Frey
`
`California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM, 2015 WL 11089495 (C.D. Cal. May
`5, 2015)
`
`Simulation of Regular and Irregular Divsalar Codes
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1069
`
`Protective Order
`
`Description
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`Redline against Board’s Default Protective Order
`
`Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described in Ping
`
`Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described in Ping
`
`Declaration of James A. Davis, Ph.D.
`
`Relevance of Deposition Questions Summary
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 27, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
`
`following:
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Sanctions
`
` Exhibit 1074
`
` List of Exhibits
`
`was served via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`Michael H. Smith (Reg. No. 71,190]
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`