TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp,
`Inc.,
` Petitioners,
` U.S. Patent No.
` v. 8,995,433
`Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A.,
` Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF EXPERT
` TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
` MARCH 9, 2018
`
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California
`
`REPORTED BY:
`Siew G. Ung
`CSR No. 13994, RPR, CSR
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp,
`Inc.,
` Petitioners,
` U.S. Patent No.
` v. 8,995,433
`Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A.,
` Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF EXPERT
` TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
` MARCH 9, 2018
`
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California
`
`REPORTED BY:
`Siew G. Ung
`CSR No. 13994, RPR, CSR
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 1
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` For the Petitioner:
` ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
` BRETT A. MANGRUM, ESQ.
` P.O. Box 20969
` Charleston, South Carolina 29413
` 843.614.0007
` brett@etheridgelaw.com
` For the Patent Owner:
` COOLEY LLP
` LOWELL MEAD, ESQ.
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California, 94304
` 650.843.5734
` lmead@cooley.com
` FACEBOOK, INC.
` STACY S. CHEN, ESQ.
` 300 Constitution Drive
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` Also Present:
` JAYSON SAYLOR, Videographer
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 2
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`3
`
` INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS
`
` WITNESS: TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`BY MR. MANGRUM 6
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`
`6789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 3
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`4
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
` EXPERT
` TAL LAVIAN
` Siew G. Ung CSR No. 13994, RPR
`
`MARKED DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1001 March 31, 2015, United States 14
` Patent No. US 8,995,433 B2
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Tal Lavian in 22
` Support of Petition for Inter
` Partes Review of U.S. Patent
` No. 8,995,433
`
`Exhibit 1008 April 20, 2004, United States 24
` Patent No. US 6,725,228 B1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 4
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`5
`
` PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA;
` FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2018, 10:19 A.M.
` ***
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going on the
`record at 10:19 a.m. on March 9, 2018. This is DVD
`No. 1 of the video deposition of Dr. Tal Lavian
`taken by the patent owner in the matter of
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., versus Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A., filed in the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board. Number is IPR2017-01427. This deposition is
`being held at 3175 Hanover Street in the City of
`Palo Alto, California.
` My name is Jason Saylor, and I am the
`videographer; the court reporter is Siew Ung, both
`on behalf of the firm Complete Legal with offices in
`Dallas, Texas.
` Will counsel and all present please state
`your appearances and affiliations for the record.
` MR. MANGRUM: I'll start. This is Brett
`Mangrum with the Etheridge Law Group on behalf of
`the Uniloc entity, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., and I
`will be taking the deposition today.
` MR. MEAD: Lowell Mead with Cooley LLP on
`behalf of the petitioners. And also present is
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 5
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`6
`
`Stacy Chen with Facebook.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`please swear in the witness and then we can begin.
` TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn, was examined and
` testified as follows.
` EXAMINATION BY MR. MANGRUM
` Q. Okay. Mr. Lavian, can you hear me okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. I'm sorry, Dr. Lavian.
` Could you please state your full name and
`address for the record.
` A. Tal Lavian. 1640 Mariani Drive,
`Sunnyvale, California, 94087.
` Q. Okay. Apparently we live in sister
`cities. I live in Sunnyvale, Texas.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I didn't know if you were aware there was
`another Sunnyvale.
` All right. Are you aware you'll be
`deposed today in not only the matter of
`IPR2017-01427, but also the related matter 01428?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 6
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`7
`
` Q. Okay. Have you been deposed before in
`matters pending before the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I'm just going to go through a few
`ground rules, and this is probably all familiar to
`you, but actually, just let me get an idea. How
`often -- how many times have you been deposed?
` A. I believe over 50.
` Q. Okay. You're probably aware of the next
`several questions, but just to make certain that we
`don't talk past each other, there's -- there's -- I
`want to be certain we both understand there are some
`differences between a deposition and civil
`conversation. You're aware that a court reporter is
`going to be attempting to transcribe everything you
`say?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And so I'd just remind you -- and I'm sure
`you're well aware of this, that let's try not to
`talk over each other, particularly given that we
`don't have immediate face contact in front of each
`other. So let's just take care that you wait until
`I finish my question before you answer, and I'll
`extend the same courtesy. I'll attempt to wait to
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 7
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`8
`
`ask a follow-up question until you given your full
`answer. Do you understand?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Okay. And in order to facilitate the
`deposition, if possible, I might try to rephrase a
`question and then have you answer the -- the
`question that I rephrased. Would you understand
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And already you've -- you've
`answered questions "yes" and "no," and I appreciate
`that. But because this is an oral transcription,
`the court reporter cannot indicate head nods or --
`or gestures or things like "huh-uh," and so I'd
`appreciate you giving verbal answers.
` Do you understand the importance of that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you understand your answers today
`are under oath and could subject you to potential
`criminal charges of perjury for willfully giving
`false, misleading or incomplete testimony under
`oath?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is there any reason, such as being
`under undue stress, a physical or mental condition
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 8
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`9
`or being under the influence of any substances, that
`would prevent you or limit you from testifying
`truthfully today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Now, there's nothing wrong with you
`asking me to repeat a question or -- or perhaps even
`having the court reporter read back a question or
`ask me to explain something.
` However, if you answer my question, I'm
`going to assume that you understood it. Do you
`understand this?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Also, if you need to take a break,
`just let me know, and we'll go off the record. I
`would just simply ask that if there's a question
`pending, that you would first give a complete answer
`to that question before break.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is that fair, Doctor?
` Did you bring any documents with you
`today?
` A. No.
` Q. You understand that over the course of the
`deposition, we may be taking a look at some
`documents?
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 9
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`10
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I believe, at least initially, we may
`be using a digital version of documents.
` Are -- are you going to -- is that -- are
`you comfortable looking at an iPad to look at
`digital copies of documents?
` A. It would be better to use paper. Can we
`get a printout? It would be much easier for me.
` MR. MEAD: Brett, this is Lowell Mead. So
`I do have printouts of the five exhibits that
`you-all had indicated. And I know that your-all
`copies are still on the way via FedEx, so -- so if
`needed, we have courtesy copies that the witness
`could look at on paper instead of the iPad.
` MR. MANGRUM: I -- I would prefer that
`just as long as you stipulate they're clean copies,
`no annotations.
` MR. MEAD: Yes.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. So, Dr. Lavian, what -- is English your
`first language?
` A. No.
` Q. What's your first language?
` A. Hebrew.
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 10
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`11
`
` Q. Okay. And I'll -- I generally speak
`quickly. If I -- if you find that I'm speaking too
`fast, you just tell me to slow down, and I'll try to
`make certain there's nothing lost in my speed of
`speech. Is that fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Have you testified as an expert on
`behalf of Facebook before?
` A. I believe it [sic], yes.
` Q. And do you know approximately how many
`times?
` A. Not on top of my head.
` Q. Is it -- was it more than ten?
` A. I -- I don't have it in front of me. I
`cannot say.
` Q. What about on behalf of WhatsApp?
` A. That's the reason that Facebook, WhatsApp,
`and other might be different. I don't have -- I
`don't have the list in front of me, so I don't know.
` Q. Have you testified at least one other time
`on behalf of either entity?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. Okay. How many -- how many times have you
`submitted declarations to the PTAB in -- in an IPR
`matter if you had to guess?
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 11
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`12
`
` (Reporter clarification.)
` THE WITNESS: I don't know on top of my
`head, but I believe over 50.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. And do you know approximately how
`many of those times you've submitted declarations on
`behalf of Facebook?
` A. Not on top of my head.
` Q. Okay. Was it -- was it over five times?
` A. I don't know. Facebook has several
`different entities. I don't know.
` Q. Let me -- let me just speak in more
`general terms because I'm trying to get you numbers.
` How many times have you submitted
`declarations on behalf of petitioners or for a
`petitioner in general?
` A. I believe over 50. I don't know. I don't
`know off the top of my head.
` Q. Have you submitted declarations on behalf
`of the patent owner -- a patent owner to the Patent
`Office?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And generally, what's the balance of --
`what percentage of the time are you testifying on
`behalf of petitioner as opposed to the patent owner?
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 12
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`13
`
` A. I don't know. I need to look at the
`information. I don't know. Not on top of my head.
` Q. Okay. Is it close to an even balance or
`do you mostly testify -- have you mostly had
`experience testifying on behalf of petitioner?
` A. I believe mostly for the petitioners.
` Q. When testifying for a petitioner in front
`of the PTAB, have you ever found a claim to be
`valid?
` A. It's not my job to find. It's the job of
`the judges. I'm not the judge.
` Q. Have you ever had a -- formulated an
`opinion as to whether or not a claim was valid or
`invalid?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So let me rephrase. When
`testifying for petitioner, have you ever formulated
`an opinion that a claim is valid?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So to make sure I understand your answer,
`that there has been a matter where you were
`testifying on behalf of the petitioner and came to
`the conclusion that a patent claim is valid, not
`invalid? That was -- that was "yes"?
` A. I need to think about it. Just one
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 13
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`14
`
`second.
` Q. Sure.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And can you recall what matter that was?
` A. Yes. Alacritech.
` Q. Could you spell that for the convenience
`of the court reporter.
` A. I -- I don't know to spell it. I -- I
`think, sound, "Alacritech." I'm not exactly sure
`how to spell it right now.
` Q. Do you have any stock in Facebook?
` A. No.
` Q. In WhatsApp?
` A. No.
` Q. Huawei?
` A. I don't have any stocks.
` Q. Oh. Let's see -- you don't. Thank you.
` MR. MANGRUM: Let's move on to the -- if
`you have a copy of the patent in front of you, this
`was -- it should be previously marked as Exhibit
`1001.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1001 was marked
` for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`///
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 14
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`15
`
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. Great. To make certain we're on
`the same page here, are you looking at a document
`that, at the top right-hand corner, it says
`"US 8,995,433 B2"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. Now, for the purposes of this
`deposition, I'm going to refer to this document as
`the '433 patent.
` Do you understand when I abbreviate the
`patent to '433, we're referring to the document
`before you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the phrase
`"priority date" in the context of patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And does the priority date matter when
`formulating opinions on patentability?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And how so?
` A. It's important, the priority. It's
`important, the date.
` Q. You have an understanding that the -- the
`priority date, that's kind of the time period for
`when prior art was applied?
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 15
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`16
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Do you see, on Page 1 of the '433
`patent, the heading -- it's close to the -- in the
`middle of the left column, "Related U.S. Application
`Data"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And there's a paragraph that has a number
`63 next to it. Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And there are a number of application
`numbers listed, each as a continuation. Do you see
`that the phrase "continuation" is repeated?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with the term
`"continuation"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And the -- the latest continuation
`listed -- I said latest. I should say the earliest
`in terms of date is December 18th, 2003. Do you see
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it pertains to U.S. Patent
`No. 7,535,890 --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- correct? Okay.
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 16
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`17
`
` And do you recall what priority date you
`applied in formulating your opinions in these
`matters?
` A. I believe that's the priority date.
` Q. Which date is that?
` A. You just read, 2003 -- December 2003.
` Q. December 18th, 2003, correct? Okay.
` Are you aware that during prosecution of
`the application of issues, has that last patent, the
`7,535,890 patent, that the inventor, Michael Rojas,
`filed a declaration? It was a 37 CFR 1.131
`declaration.
` (Reporter clarification.)
` MR. MANGRUM: Let me try and rephrase the
`question. It was a long question.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Let me ask it this way: Dr. Lavian, did
`you read the file history for U.S. Patent
`No. 7,535,890 in formulating your opinions?
` A. I've reviewed the file history of the '433
`and the relevant material.
` Q. But my question was: Did you -- did you
`read the file history of the -- the parent patent --
`the parent patent 7,535,890?
` A. No, I didn't look at this one.
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 17
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`18
`
` Q. All right. So are you aware that there
`was a declaration filed by the inventor in that
`parent patent, the '890 patent?
` A. No, I'm not aware of --
` Q. So you didn't review that declaration in
`determining what priority date to apply, correct?
` A. The judge -- the lawyer told me what is
`priority date they should look at.
` Q. Okay. Let me -- let's move on to -- just
`-- I'm going to ask you some questions in general.
`Your -- you have -- do you have a general background
`in -- well, actually I think you're -- sorry, strike
`that. Let me start even more general.
` Are -- are you familiar with the phrase
`"software architecture"?
` A. Which phrase?
` Q. Just in general, are you familiar with the
`-- a term of art, "software architecture"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So let me -- let me rephrase it this way,
`it might be easier for you to answer. Is
`"architecture" a term of art in computer technology?
` A. Architecture can be many different things.
` Q. What does it mean in the context of
`software?
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 18
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`19
`
` A. Architecture can be the architecture of
`the processor that the software [sic] running on.
`Architecture can be the architecture of the
`periphere [sic] that software is running on.
`Architecture can be architecture of the networking
`that software is connected to. Architecture can be
`many different things.
` Q. And if -- and if I could have you limit
`your answer to software, how can software have an
`architecture? What -- what would that mean?
` A. Architecture is a term of art that's
`related to the entire system. Software cannot be
`alone. Software is part of networking, of storage,
`of databases, of communications, of many different
`things. It's very hard for me to think about
`architecture of software alone.
` Q. But -- but software does have -- software
`can have an architecture?
` A. It is possible, but usually when you are
`talking about architecture, you are talking about
`architecture of a system. System includes hardware,
`software, storage, database, networking and many
`more things.
` Q. Let me ask you about the word
`"application." Would a -- would a person of
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 19
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`20
`
`ordinary skill in the art -- let's say, just in
`general, the 2003 time frame, would they understand
`the word "application" to -- to refer exclusively to
`"hardware"?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand
`exactly what you mean by this.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Sure. Let me -- let me -- okay. Let me
`break my question apart. I'm going to ask you to
`answer as a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`2003.
` So I'm asking you: Do you have an
`understand- -- you gave an opinion as to what you
`felt a person of ordinary skill in the art was in
`2003, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So from that perspective, and to
`make this deposition easier, I'm going to refer to
`that person -- that hypothetical person as a POSITA,
`P-O-S-I-T-A for the acronym, person of ordinary
`skill in the art. You understand when I say the
`term "POSITA," I'm referring to that whole phrase?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. It's just to help with my
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 20
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`21
`
`questioning. Okay.
` So thinking of a POSITA in 2003, would a
`POSITA understand the word "application" to refer
`exclusively to hardware --
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. -- in the context -- in the context of
`computer architecture?
` A. It depends.
` Q. It depends on what?
` A. On many different things.
` Q. Okay. So I'm asking you what -- when you
`say -- when you say you're speaking of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, what -- what art or skill
`are you referring to?
` A. I applied -- it's in my report, the
`specifics. You want me to look at my report?
` Q. I'm just curious -- I'm curious what
`field -- what art do you consider to be pertinent to
`the '433 patent?
` A. I would like -- can I look at my report,
`please?
` Q. Is it in front of you?
` A. Not in front of me, but I can get it
`from -- it's on the side.
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 21
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`22
`
` I would appreciate if I can get it.
` Q. If you want to testify from the report,
`you're -- you're welcome to.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1002 was marked
` for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Okay. So I described in my
`report in Paragraph 15 and 16 the definition of
`my -- of person of ordinary skill -- of POSITA.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Does that paragraph identify the
`particular field that's relevant to the '433 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what would you consider that skill to
`be?
` A. In my opinion, person of ordinary skill in
`the art in December 2013 would have a
`professional -- at least a bachelor's degree in
`computer science, computer engineering or electrical
`engineering with at least two years of experience in
`development or in programming relating to network
`communication systems or equivalent degree or
`experience.
` Q. Okay. Now, considering those fields that
`you just mentioned, would a -- would a POSITA in
`those fields understand the word "application" to
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 22
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`23
`
`refer exclusively to hardware?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's -- can be hardware as
`well, yes. Possibly it's hardware. It depends.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. But my question -- my question is not "can
`be hardware." My question is: Would they have
`understood "application" to refer exclusively to
`hardware?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, it's possible.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. How do you -- you have your declaration in
`front of you, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I want to have you turn to Paragraph 52 of
`your declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. The second line of Paragraph 52 states, "A
`person of ordinary skill in the art typically uses
`the term 'application' to refer to computer software
`for performing a particular function."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you stand by that statement today?
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 23
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`24
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay.
` Does the '433 patent offer an explicit
`definition for the term "application"?
` A. No.
` Q. Let's -- do you also have Exhibit 1008
`within reach, which is the Clark reference?
` THE WITNESS: I can ask the lawyer.
` Can I get it?
` MR. MEAD: Yes.
` THE WITNESS: Okay, I've got a copy.
` Yes, I have a printed copy.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you some questions
`where we'll be referring to this reference for a
`while, so you want to keep that on top.
` A. Sure.
` Q. And actually, let me make sure I'm
`following here on my own -- my own papers. I'm
`flipping in Exhibit 1008, the Clark reference --
` THE WITNESS: So just to be -- just to be
`easier, can you could please mark '8- --
`Exhibit 1008? That would be easier for me.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1008 was marked
` for identification.)
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 24
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`25
`
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Sure, you're asking her to refer to this
`document as 1008; is that what you're asking?
` A. No, I just asked the court reporter just
`to mark it. That's all.
` Q. Oh, sure.
` A. So now I'll know what is 1008. I will not
`know without marking. Okay.
` Q. Okay, I understand. What you're saying
`is -- let me ask you this. On the bottom of your
`document, are you -- does it have an exhibit number
`or it doesn't have it --
` A. No.
` Q. -- the bottom right-hand side?
` A. No. I have a clean copy.
` MR. MEAD: So, Brett, to be clear -- so
`the court reporter has just put a sticker on it now,
`on the copy that we brought, which is a clean copy.
` MR. MANGRUM: This wasn't a -- the same
`copy that was filed? It's the same document, just
`not the -- just not the Bates-labeled copy that was
`filed?
` MR. MEAD: That's right.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay. That's fair enough.
`///
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 25
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`26
`
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. All right. Dr. Lavian, perhaps I will
`just refer to this -- well, I'll try to be
`consistent.
` A. Call it Clark. It's easier for me. Call
`it Clark. It's much easier for me.
` Q. Yeah, yeah. I had assumed that we had a
`marking on it -- the bottom of each right-hand side
`of it.
` MR. MEAD: But let's refer to it as Clark,
`and we'll note for the record that we're referring
`to Exhibit 1008, which in the 1428 matter was
`relabeled Exhibit 1108.
` THE WITNESS: It's much easier for me --
`much easier for me, Clark reference, thanks.
` MR. MANGRUM: Sure. I'll refer to it as
`the Clark reference.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. I'd like to have you turn to Figure 5A of
`the Clark reference. And if you're looking at the
`top of the -- of each page, it says "Sheet 6 of 33."
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And there is a -- there are two
`elements featured here -- or at least two larger
`boxes, one identified as Reference No. 28 in the
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 26
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`27
`
`upper left and another with a Reference No. 23
`towards the bottom. Do you see those two
`references?
` A. Yes.
` Q. One pertains to the -- what's identified
`as "catalog" on the right-hand side of the box. The
`"23" pertains to the message storer on the
`right-hand side of the box. Do you see where it's
`labeled?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is it your understanding that
`Element 23 of Figure 5A of Clark is a database?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's part of a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And is it -- why do you qualify "it's part
`of a database"?
` A. Because we have here the schema of the
`database.
` Q. Oh, I see. So what you're saying is what
`is shown inside Block 28 shows part of the schema of
`the database? That's what you're saying?
` A. Yes, including the pages of the database,
`yes -- the tables of the database.
` Q. Okay. And then I'm going to ask you the
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 27
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`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
`
`same question with respect to Element 28. Is it
`your understanding that Element 28 of Clark -- I'm
`sorry, let me be more specific.
` Is it your understanding that Element 28
`of Figure 5A of Clark is a database?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's representing a schema
`and tables of a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Is "database" a term of art?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And what is a database?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't have a -- I looked
`at the ordinary meaning of "database."
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And -- and -- and what is the ordinary
`meaning of a database in your opinion?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Database is a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. How -- how would you define "database"?
` MR. MEAD: Same objection.
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 28
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`29
` THE WITNESS: I didn't define it. It's --
`I used the ordinary meaning of a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. Is it your testimony that
`"database" has a known connotation in the art as of
`2003?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It depends.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And here, in this Clark reference. Is --
`does Clark actually refer to the -- use the word
`"database" in its reference?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is -- is Clark using the word
`"database" in the same -- according to the same
`ordinary meaning that you apply?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is there -- do you understand if
`there's a difference between temporary memory and
`permanent storage in the context of computers?
` A. Can you please clarify your question --
`clarify your question.
` Q. Are you -- sure. Let me -- let me break
`that into pieces.
` Are you familiar with what's referred to
`
`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 Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1428
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 29
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`30
`
`as temporary memory -- temporary memory in the
`computer arts?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And are you familiar with the phrase
`"permanent storage" in the computer arts?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is there a difference known in the art
`between temporary memory and permanent storage?
` A. It depends.
` Q. And what -- then what would be some
`differences between those terms?
` A. It depends in many -- depends on many
`different things.
` Q. I -- I can -- and that's what I'm asking
`you to answer. Just go ahead and give me those
`things that it depends on.
` A. The size, the cost, the magnitude, the
`need, the speed. Many different things.
` Q. All those things would differentiate
`temporary memory from permanent storage?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It can. Several options --
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- yes, among many others.
`
`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 Legal
`
`2
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
