Paper No. 47
`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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`—————————————————
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`—————————————————
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`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 IPR2017-00728
`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 1274,
`
`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 IPR2017-00728
`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 1274.
`
`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 IPR2017-00728
`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 1274.
`
`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 1257 and 1258,2 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
`
`
`2 Exhibits 1057 and 1058 (discussed in the Divsalar Deposition Ex. 2039)
`
`correspond to Exhibits 1257 and 1258. See Ex. 2039 at 72:13-17; 94:13-16.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`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.
`
`In short, 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. IPR2017-002193 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
`
`
`3 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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`versions of Luby’s codes, then a POSA would have understood that Luby’s
`
`teachings apply to information bits.
`
`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 a 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Mitzenmacher’s familiarity with the standard and its implementation.
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`has failed to properly allege harm, its request comes over six weeks after Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s 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.4
`
`
`4 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`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.”5 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
`
`
`were due, before raising this issue. See BioDelivery Scis. Intl., Inc. v. Monosol Rx,
`
`LLC, IPR2015-00165, Paper 20 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2015) (declining to authorize
`
`sanctions motion because request was made nearly seven weeks after deposition).
`
`5 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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`(“How does this have anything to do with his direct testimony?”).
`
`Of course, counsel’s instructions not to answer were improper.6 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
`
`Caltech’s sanction motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`Date: February 27, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Richard Goldenberg/
`Richard Goldenberg (Reg. No. 38,895)
`
`
`6 “[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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`Exhibit
`1201
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`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
`
`1204
`
`Declaration of Professor James Davis, Ph.D. (“Davis Declaration”)
`
`1205
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`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
`
`1208
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes,” STOC ’97, 1997
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`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
`
`Final Written Decision, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 42 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016)
`
`Certificate of Correction, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (Sept. 2, 2008)
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`
`1213
`
`1214
`
`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)
`
`1215
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Brendan Frey (Case No. 2:13-cv-07245)
`
`1216
`
`1217
`
`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
`
`1218
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,271,520 (1981)
`
`1219
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`1222
`
`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
`
`1223
`
`Replacement copy of Declaration of Paul H. Siegel (“Siegel
`Declaration”)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`
`1224
`
`1225
`
`1226
`
`1227
`
`1228
`
`1229
`
`1230
`
`1231
`
`1232
`
`1233
`
`1234
`
`1235
`
`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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1236
`
`Description
`A Screen Capture of an Archived Version of the Website for the 37th
`Annual Allerton Conference, dated September 9, 1999
`
`1237
`
`1238
`
`1239
`
`1240
`
`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)
`
`1241
`
`Jafar A. Alzubi, Omar A. Alzubi, and Thomas M. Chen, Forward
`Error Correction Based on Algebraic-Geometric Theory (2014)
`1242 MARC Record of Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 37th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published in 1999
`
`1243
`
`1244
`
`1245
`
`1246
`
`1247
`
`1248
`
`1249
`
`1250
`
`1251
`
`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 a code described by Fig. 2 of ’710 Patent
`
`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 MacKay Profile 93y
`
`Confidential IRA.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential IRA.h with metadata
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1252
`
`Description
`Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata
`
`1253
`
`1254
`
`1255
`
`1256
`
`1257
`
`1258
`
`1259
`
`1260
`
`1261
`
`1262
`
`1263
`
`1263
`
`1264
`
`1265
`
`1266
`
`1267
`
`1268
`
`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 y Divsalar (q=5)
`
`Tanner Graph for IRA Code
`
`Systematic Version of Divsalar Figure 3
`
`Divsalar Figure 3 and Fry Figure 1
`
`D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, J. Thorpe, and C. Jones, “Constructing
`LDPC Codes from Simple Loop-Free Encoding Modules,” IEEE
`International Conference on Communications, Seoul, South Korea,
`pp. 658-662, August, 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 IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1269
`
`Protective Order
`
`Description
`
`1270
`
`1271
`
`1272
`
`1273
`
`1274
`
`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 IPR2017-00728
`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 1274
`
` 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
`
`
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
