Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ______________________________________
`
` DELL INC.; EMC CORPORATION, HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO.; and HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC;
` Petitioner
` v.
` REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
` Patent Owner
` _________________________
` Case: IPR2017-00176
` U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
` and
` Case: IPR2017-00179
` U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
` __________________________
`
` November 2, 2017
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER
`
` REPORTED BY:
` PATRICIA L. HUBBARD, CSR #3400
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 1 of 332
`
`
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ______________________________________
`
` DELL INC.; EMC CORPORATION, HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO.; and HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC;
` Petitioner
` v.
` REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
` Patent Owner
` _________________________
` Case: IPR2017-00176
` U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
` and
` Case: IPR2017-00179
` U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
` __________________________
`
` November 2, 2017
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER
`
` REPORTED BY:
` PATRICIA L. HUBBARD, CSR #3400
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 1 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`2
`
` DEPOSITION OF KENNETH A. ZEGER,
` taken on behalf of the Petitioner,
` at 12390 El Camino Real,
` San Diego, California, commencing
` at 9:37 A.M. on November 2, 2017,
` before PATRICIA L. HUBBARD,
` CSR #3400, a Certified Shorthand
` Reporter in and for the State of
` California, pursuant to Notice.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 2 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`For the Petitioner: DELL, INC. and EMC CORPORATION
` WINSTON & STRAWN
` BY: ANDREW R. SOMMER, ESQ.
` 1700 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
` 202.282.5896
` asommer@winston.com
`
`For the Petitioner: TERRADATA
` BAKER BOTTS LLP
` BY: JAMIE R. LYNN, ESQ.
` 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
` Washington, D.C. 20004
` 202.639.7786
` jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com
`
`For the Patent Holder:
` NOROOZI PC
` BY: KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, ESQ.
` 1299 Ocean Avenue
` Suite 450
` Santa Monica, California 90401
` 310.975.7074
` kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 3 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`4
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: (Continued)
`Also Present:
` J. Christopher Carraway
` Tom Brown (present via telephone)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 4 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`5
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS PAGE
`KENNETH A. ZEGER
` (By Mr. Sommer) 6, 269
` (By Mr. Noroozi) 236
`
` E X H I B I T S
`PETITIONERS' DESCRIPTION REFERENCED
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 11
` (Referenced but not attached)
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 18
` (Referenced but not attached)
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 19
` (Referenced but not attached)
`Exhibit 1005 Article authored by Hsu, et al. 20
` (Referenced but not attached)
`Exhibit 1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 22
` (Referenced but not attached)
`Exhibit 2004 Declaration of Dr. Zeger 7
` in IPR 2017-00176
` (Referenced but not attached)
`Exhibit 2004 Declaration of Dr. Zeger 9
` in IPR 2017-00179
` (Referenced but not attached)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 5 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`6
`
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
` NOVEMBER 2, 2017
` * * *
`
` KENNETH A. ZEGER,
` called as a witness, having been
` sworn, was examined and testified
` as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Good to see you again, Dr. Zeger.
` Can you please state your full name for
`the record.
` A. Kenneth Zeger.
` Q. And it's Dr. Zeger, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Dr. Zeger, do you understand that you're
`here to be cross-examined about testimony you gave
`in two declarations that were submitted in
`inter-partes review proceedings at the Patent
`Office?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm going to hand to you -- the first is
`a document that's been marked as Exhibit 2004 in
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 6 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-00176.
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 2004
` is referenced herein.)
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sir, is this one of the two declarations
`that you're here to testify about today?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` Q. And did you read the content of this
`declaration carefully?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you believe that the contents of
`this declaration are accurate?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And does this declaration set forth the
`complete set of opinions that you formulated with
`respect to the '506 Patent?
` A. It certainly sets forth the opinions I
`have on these -- on the '506 Patent, yes.
` Q. Do you have any other opinions regarding
`the '506 Patent that you held back from your
`declaration?
` A. I don't know if I held back. I have
`lots of opinions. I don't know if I put every
`opinion in the world in there.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 7 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Did you put all the opinions that you
`intend to offer in this proceeding in the
`declaration?
` A. Well --
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I put all the opinions in
`this declaration that are in the declaration. I
`guess that's a tautology.
` But I mean you may ask me questions
`today and I may respond. So conceivably new
`opinions may come out.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sure. But as you sit here this morning
`do you have any other opinions about the validity of
`the claims that were challenged in the 176 IPR
`proceeding that you haven't provided in your
`declaration?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's possible I do. I
`mean I'm not sure. I have a lot of opinions.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. I understand that.
` But based on my question, can you think
`of opinion that you currently hold that you did not
`offer?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 8 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Just at this moment I can't think of any
`offhand.
` Q. Okay.
` A. It doesn't preclude me from having any,
`though.
` Q. No. I'm just wondering if you made an
`intentional decision to hold opinions back.
` A. Oh, I did not do that.
` Q. Very good. Thank you.
` And I'm going to hand to you now another
`Exhibit 2004, but this one was submitted in case
`IPR 2017-179.
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 2004
` is referenced herein.)
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sir, is this the second declaration that
`you understand you're here to be cross-examined
`about?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And before you signed this declaration
`did you read it carefully?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. And do you believe that this declaration
`is accurate?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 9 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. I believe so.
` Q. And as with the 176 proceeding
`declaration, so the first Exhibit 2004 that I gave
`you, did you make any intentional decision to
`withhold any opinions that you might have formulated
`in connection with your work?
` A. No.
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Sorry.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Did you review these declarations in
`preparing for your testimony today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And as you reviewed those declarations
`did you notice any mistakes or corrections that
`needed to be made?
` A. I might have noticed a couple typos. I
`don't know if they were significant. I can't
`remember any offhand right now.
` Q. Can you recall any substantive
`corrections that you believe needed to be made to
`the declarations as you reviewed them in preparation
`for your testimony?
` A. I don't think there were any that I can
`recall.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 10 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. When did you review the
`declarations to prepare for today?
` A. Well, I mean I reviewed them during the
`process of creating them, of course. And then after
`they were submitted I read them I think a couple
`weeks ago. And in then the last two or three days
`I've been reading them.
` Q. So you've read them several times; is
`that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. And just so we can get some of
`the introduction of exhibits out of the way, I'm
`going to hand to you Exhibit 1001 submitted in the
`179 IPR proceeding. And it's a copy of U.S. Patent
`9,054,728.
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 1001
` is referenced herein.)
` THE WITNESS: Can I ask you a question
`about the numbering system? You --
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sure.
` A. I'm just confused, because these both
`say REALTIME 2004.
` Were these supposed to have different
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 11 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`numbers?
` Q. I don't believe so, because they're in
`different proceedings.
` A. Oh.
` Q. We just happen to be taking a
`consolidated deposition.
` A. Okay. So we have to refer to more than
`just Exhibit Number 1 when we describe it?
` Q. Yeah. That's a fair point.
` Would it be acceptable to you if we
`called the declaration submitted in IPR 2017-00176
`your 176 declaration?
` A. Yes. Or even the 506 would be great.
` Q. Okay. Why don't we call it by the
`patent number. That will make things a little bit
`more clear.
` So this is your 506 declaration.
` And then you also have a 728
`declaration, right?
` A. That's perfect, yes.
` Q. Okay. Let's -- let's do that.
` The patent that I handed to you,
`Exhibit 1001, is the '728 Patent that is the subject
`of your '728 Patent declaration, correct?
` A. Correct.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 12 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Did you review the '728 Patent carefully
`before you formulated your opinions?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you read the text of the patent; is
`that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you studied the figures; is that
`right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you attempt to gain an understanding
`of the scope of the claims that were at issue,
`namely --
` Just a moment -- let me start the
`question over again here.
` Did you attempt to gain an understanding
`of the claims at issue in this proceeding for the
`'728 Patent; namely claims 1 through 10, 15, 20 and
`24?
` A. I reviewed the claims and gained an
`understanding of them to the extent that I needed to
`to set forth my opinions in the declarations.
` Q. Now, what do you mean by you gained an
`understanding of them to the extent that you needed
`to?
` A. I'm not sure what's not clear about
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 13 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`that.
` Q. Well, can you describe for me what you
`did to gain an understanding to the extent that you
`needed to?
` A. Well, I read the claims and the
`content -- in the context of the specification, and
`I tried to understand them to the extent that I
`could offer opinions regarding whether I agree or
`disagree with the petition and the expert -- the
`expert's opinions.
` Maybe to make it more clear, I didn't
`need to do a full analysis on the scope or -- or
`look at any infringement issues or things like that.
` So, sometimes there's -- claims can be
`used in many different ways. And for these IPR
`proceedings I was not concerned at all with
`infringement. I was concerned with validity issues,
`specifically the opinions offered by Dr. Creusere in
`the petition.
` So, there's a lot of analysis one could
`do about claims. The analysis I did was enough to
`answer those questions accurately.
` Q. So is it correct to say that you did not
`try to understand the full scope of the claims at
`issue in the '728 Patent proceeding?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 14 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by
`"full scope."
` I understood -- I tried to gain and did
`understand the scope of the claims, certainly far
`beyond what I needed to, to offer the opinions that
`are in my declaration.
` I did not perform an analysis
`necessarily as to every possible, you know,
`infringing accused product.
` I'm not involved in accused products
`right now in this proceeding. So that was not an
`issue. So if that's part of full scope, then you
`can omit that part.
` Q. Well, I guess I'm just asking about your
`analysis of the scope of the claims, not -- not
`questions of infringement which, as you -- you
`agree, you weren't testifying on questions of
`infringement.
` We don't have any information about any
`accused products in this case. But we do have
`information about whether the prior art falls within
`the scope of the claims.
` Do you believe that you've done an
`analysis of the claims sufficient to determine
`whether the prior art falls within the scope of the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 15 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`claims?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The -- I did not offer
`opinions in my declaration as to a complete analysis
`necessarily as to whether certain prior art falls
`within the scope or not.
` What I did do is respond to specific
`opinions about validity or invalidity of the claims
`at issue, and I offered opinions about validity and
`invalidity based on specific opinions that I either
`agreed or disagreed with.
` And to the extent that I offered those
`opinions, I analyzed the scope of the claims at
`issue.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Okay. But I'm trying to understand what
`the difference is between a full analysis of the
`scope of the claims and the work that you did.
` Can you describe that for me?
` A. Well, as an example, if you were to ask
`me does a certain hypothetical system infringe upon
`these claims, I'm not sure sitting here today that
`I'd be able to answer that quickly. I'd have to go
`back and consider it and think about all the
`details, because I didn't analyze the scope of the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 16 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`17
`
`claims with respect to a question like that.
` Q. Okay. Did you attempt to gain a full
`understanding of each of the claims that were
`challenged in these proceedings?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I think the
`answer's question yes. And it really kind of
`depends what you mean by "full understanding."
` Certainly a full understanding well
`beyond what I needed to offer the opinions in my
`declaration.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Okay. You found the claims
`understandable; is that correct?
` A. Yeah. I find them understandable to
`both me and to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art.
` Q. Okay. So, when you read these claims
`you understood them, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Okay. So let me hand you the other
`Exhibit 1001, which we'll call the '506 Patent for
`clarity today. And that was introduced as
`Exhibit 1001 in the 176 IPR proceeding.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 17 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 1001
` is referenced herein.)
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sir, is this a copy of the '506 Patent
`to which your 506 declaration pertains?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And the questions that I asked about
`your understanding of the claims, you -- you applied
`the same rigor in your analysis of claims 104 and
`105 in the 506 proceeding as did you in the 728
`proceeding; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And did you read and understand the
`context of the text of the '506 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you reviewed the figures and gained
`an understanding about what they were showing,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you did that exercise carefully; is
`that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So, let me hand you another exhibit.
` This one I'm only going to give you one
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 18 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`copy of this, but it's in both proceedings. This is
`from the 176 proceeding. It's Exhibit 1004. And
`it's a copy of the patent that we're going to call
`Franaszek?
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 1004
` is referenced herein.)
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Are you familiar with the exhibit that
`I've just handed you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And have you read Franaszek carefully?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you've read the text and you've
`studied the figures; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you formulated certain opinions
`about the teachings of Franaszek; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And those opinions are set forth to the
`extent relevant to this proceeding in your two
`declarations; is that right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay. So I'm going to hand to you yet
`another exhibit. And this one is Exhibit 1005. And
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 19 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`it was provided in the 176 proceeding. It's also
`been submitted in the 179 proceeding. And this is
`an article by -- the first named author being
`William H. Hsu, I believe.
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 1005
` is referenced herein.)
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sir, can you take a look at Exhibit 1005
`and let me know if you've seen this exhibit before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you've formulated opinions about
`this document that I'll call Hsu; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, you are thanked in the
`acknowledgments of this particular article; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know Mr. Hsu?
` A. I met him a long time ago in, I think,
`the early 1990's. And so that would be more than
`20 years ago. And it was very briefly, I think -- I
`really don't remember how long, maybe like an hour
`conversation or something like that.
` And I have not heard or had any
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 20 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`communication with him since that time.
` Q. Do you recall what you discussed in that
`hour-long conversation in general?
` A. I actually don't really. I have a vague
`recollection that it had something to do with this
`publication that you handed me. But I don't
`remember any details at all.
` Q. Okay. Sir, did you read the text of
`this article carefully when you formulated your
`opinions for this proceeding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. And was there anything in
`the article that you found difficult to understand
`or confusing?
` A. I think there were some points where it
`wasn't that clear, and I had to make my best
`estimate as to what a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand.
` I don't specifically remember those
`offhand right now.
` Q. If any of those points that you found to
`be unclear or difficult to understand required you
`to make assumptions relevant to your analysis, would
`those be found in your declaration?
` A. I don't think any -- any unclarity here
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 21 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`caused me to make any assumptions that are in my
`declaration.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So I think that answers the question.
` Q. I believe so, as well. Thank you.
` Let me hand you one more document. And
`this is U.S. Patent 6,253,264 to Sebastian. And it
`was marked as Exhibit 1030 in the 176 IPR
`proceeding.
` (Whereupon the document previously
` marked Petitioners' Exhibit 1030
` is referenced herein.)
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Sir, are you familiar with the
`'264 Patent to Sebastian?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you study it carefully in
`connection with these proceedings?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you read the text and you studied
`the figures; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you formulated certain opinions
`about the teachings of this reference; is that
`correct?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 22 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Correct.
` Q. And those opinions are set forth in your
`declaration, correct?
` A. Some -- some of them are in my
`declaration, yes.
` Q. Any opinions relevant to your analysis
`are in your declaration, correct?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: As I said before, there
`may be other opinions I have. I did not
`intentionally withhold any, though.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Okay. You can't think of any that you
`formulated that you left out, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. Now, both of your two
`declarations, the 728 and the '506 Patent
`declarations have an identical paragraph 15. And in
`that paragraph you say that your opinions are based
`on the study of relevant materials.
` The next couple of paragraphs go on to
`identify some materials that you've considered.
` Sir, taking a look at your declaration
`and your testimony, is the list of materials that
`you considered identified in paragraphs 16 to 18
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 23 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`complete and accurate?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's certainly accurate.
`I think it's complete unless I forgot to put
`something in there.
` But I -- you know, sitting here right
`now I can't think of anything that I omitted by
`accident.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Okay. So when you wrote these
`paragraphs 16 to 18, you attempted to be complete
`and accurate as to the materials you considered,
`correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And as you sit here today, you don't
`notice anything missing from these paragraphs that
`you did review and consider in rendering your
`opinions, correct?
` A. That's right. I don't notice anything
`right now.
` Q. Okay. Well, if at some point today you
`think of something, if you could just let me know,
`that would be very helpful.
` A. Okay.
` Q. When were you retained by Realtime Data
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 24 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`to handle these two specific IPR proceedings
`approximately?
` A. I want to clarify something about your
`question so I can answer it accurately.
` Q. Okay.
` A. As far as I know, there's four IPR's
`here and you referred to them as two proceedings.
` Can you explain --
` Q. Yeah. They've been consolidated by the
`Board. So I'm going to refer to them as two
`proceedings.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Because they're -- each is proceeding in
`parallel, and actually all four of them have kind of
`been lumped together for scheduling purposes.
` A. Okay. So one proceeding is like a pair
`of consolidated --
` Q. Yes.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Yes. So, when I say, you know, one
`proceeding, I'm referring to the earliest number.
`So, for example, in the 179 it's also, I believe,
`the 808.
` A. Right.
` Q. And for the 176 it's also the 806, but
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 25 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`I'm just referring to the first number.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So you follow me?
` A. Yeah. Now I understand.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And your question was when was I first
`retained for these?
` Q. Yeah. And first retained for the
`earliest of them?
` A. First of all, I believe I was retained
`for both of them at the same time, but I don't
`exactly remember. And I think it was like the
`beginning of September approximately, but I'm not
`100 percent sure. Maybe -- it might have been
`August. August, September, somewhere in that time
`frame.
` Q. So we're talking maybe late summer of
`2017; is that right?
` A. Yeah. Let's say late summer of 2017. I
`don't know how close I can get it beyond that.
` Q. That -- that's perfect.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. But when you were retained, what type of
`analysis were you asked to perform?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. I'd just
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 26 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`caution you not to go into attorney-client
`privilege.
`BY MR. SOMMER:
` Q. Okay. Let me rephrase the question to
`make sure that I'm clear as to what I'm getting at.
` You've authored two declarations, as
`we -- we've established.
` What was the task that you were assigned
`when you wrote those two declarations?
` A. Well, I was asked to review a lot of
`materials such as patents and prior art,
`declarations, all the -- all the materials that are
`listed in my paragraphs 15, 16 and maybe beyond that
`in the section two of my declaration; and read those
`materials, understand them, and to formulate
`opinions about whether I agreed or disagreed with
`certain opinions of the petition and Dr. Creusere.
` Q. Now, you said you were asked to
`formulate opinions about whether you agreed or
`disagreed with certain opinions in the petition and
`of Dr. Cruesere.
` Which specific opinions were you asked
`to opine on?
` A. Specifically the ones I address in these
`declarations.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Teradata Ex. 1035
`Dell Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data (IPR2017-00806)
`Page 27 of 332
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176; IPR2017-00179
`Zeger, Kenneth A.
`November 2, 2017
`
`28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. So your -- your task was not
`broad as to tell me everything that you think about
`the arguments made in the petition and the
`declaration; rather, you were instructed by counsel
`to focus on the specific issues that you've rendered
`an opinion on; is that right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. And you did so; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in each instance you disagreed with
`the opinions that were rendered by Dr. Cruesere,
`correct?
` MR. NOROOZI: Objection. Form.
`
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
