Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`Page 1
`
` U N I T E D S T A T E S P A T E N T A N D T R A D E M A R K O F F I C E
`
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` B E F O R E T H E P A T E N T A N D A P P E A L B O A R D
`
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` T O M T O M , I N C . , a n d
`
` T O M T O M I N T E R N A T I O N A L , B . V . ,
`
` P e t i t i o n e r
`
` v .
`
`B L A C K B I R D T E C H , L L C d / b / a B L A C K B I R D T E C H N O L O G I E S ,
`
` P a t e n t O w n e r .
`
` C a s e I P R 2 0 1 7 - 0 2 0 2 3
`
` U . S . P a t e n t N o . 6 , 4 3 4 , 2 1 2
`
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` D e p o s i t i o n
`
` o f
`
` M I C H A E L C A L O Y A N N I D E S , P h . D
`
` W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .
`
` F r i d a y , S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 8
`
` 1 0 : 0 3 a . m .
`
`R e p o r t e d b y : A m y E . S i k o r a - T r a p p , R P R , C R R , C L R
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 1 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`September 21, 2018
` C O N T E N T S
`EXAMINATION OF
`MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES, Ph.D. PAGE
`By MR. DOSHI 5
` ******
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`EXHIBIT PAGE
`PO2002 previously marked 7
`PO2001 previously marked 20
`TomTom 1001 previously marked 23
`TomTom 1003 previously marked 46
`Paper No. 7 previously marked 50
`TomTom 1002 previously marked 109
`
` ******
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`Whereupon,
` MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES, Ph.D.,
`called as a witness, having been first duly
`sworn by the Notary Public (Amy E. Sikora-Trapp),
`was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER
`BY MR. DOSHI:
` Q. Good morning, Doctor. My name is
`Dipu Doshi. How are you?
` A. Okay.
` Q. As you may know, I'm representing
`petitioners in this matter. And you've been
`deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And so you've been deposed
`before so you know the ground rules on
`deposition. Yes?
` A. Yes. I do.
` Q. All right. Cool. And the court
`reporter is taking everything down so please make
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Deposition of MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES, held at
`the offices of:
` Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, L.L.P.
` 8300 Greensboro Drive
` Suite 500
` McLean, Virginia 22102
`
` Pursuant to notice, before Amy E.
`Sikora-Trapp, Registered Professional Reporter,
`Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified LiveNote
`Reporter, and Notary Public within and for the
`Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Page 3
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`3 DIPU A. DOSHI, ESQUIRE
`4 MEGAN R. WOOD, ESQUIRE
`5 BlankRome LLP
`6 1825 Eye Street, Northwest
`7 Washington, D.C. 20006-5403
`8 202-420-2200
`9 ddoshi@blankrome.com
`10 mwood@blankrome.com
`11 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`12 WALTER D. DAVIS, JR., ESQUIRE
`13 Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`14 8300 Greensboro Drive
`15 Suite 500
`16 McLean, Virginia 22102
`17 571-765-7700
`18 wdavis@dbjg.com
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 2 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`sure that your answers are audible. Yes?
` A. Yes. Of course.
` Q. Okay. If you don't understand any
`question, please just let me know and I'll try to
`clarify. Is that okay?
` A. Of course.
` Q. All right. If you need a break,
`please let me know, and we'll take a break at
`your convenience.
` A. Very good.
` Q. Okay. There's no reason that
`you -- well, let me rephrase that.
` Any reason you can't give accurate
`and truthful testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. All right. And you are
`represented by counsel here today?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. All right. When were you first
`contacted by Blackbird for consulting in this
`matter?
` A. I don't recall the exact date, but
`
`1 A. Its title is "CV For," has my name,
`2 and it proceeds in some level of detail about my
`3 background.
`4 MR. DOSHI: Off the record.
`5 (Discussion off the record.)
`6 Q. Doctor, if you could turn to
`7 page 13 of 15 of Exhibit 2002.
`8 A. That's the résumé, the CV?
`9 Q. Yes.
`10 A. So you said 15?
`11 Q. 13.
`12 A. Yeah. I have it.
`13 Q. Okay. And these are some specific
`14 cases that you have represented as -- I'm sorry.
`15 Let me rephrase that.
`16 It says these are some -- a listing
`17 of recent specific cases that you were retained
`18 as an expert witness in?
`19 A. That is correct.
`20 Q. And you've been opposite of TomTom
`21 before. That fourth case, you see a patent case?
`22 A. I do.
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`within the last five, six months.
` Q. Five, six months. And do you
`recall who contacted you?
` A. Well, I was first contacted by the
`referral service that matches expert witnesses
`with attorneys. And then after that I was
`contacted by one of the attorneys associated in
`this case, but I don't remember his name.
` Q. You were contacted, said five, six
`months ago. So that would have been in 2018?
` A. It was in 2018, to the best of my
`recollection. It may have been four months. I
`don't remember exactly.
` Q. Okay. Let's look through your CV.
`I have here your CV that was marked as
`Exhibit 2002. Yeah, 2002.
` (Exhibit Number PO2002 previously
` marked.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. I do.
` Q. What do you recognize it to be?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. And it says "TomTom v. Dr. Michael
`Adolph"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you've previously been in
`opposition to TomTom before?
` A. Yes. To the best of my
`recollection, there was no deposition, no court
`case. But I was consulted on that, yes.
` Q. Okay. And here it says "I
`supported Michael Adolph's team."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And then it says in parentheses
`"Plaintiff"?
` A. Yeah. That is, from what I recall
`now, going to memory, it was a case where the
`plaintiff became a defendant and the defendant
`became a plaintiff, sueding each other, so I'm
`not quite sure exactly who is the plaintiff and
`who is the defendant.
` Q. Understood. Okay.
` Do you know what year approximately
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 3 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`that was?
` A. Oh, guessing, about five, six years
`ago.
` Q. Okay. And was that relating to
`TomTom's watches?
` A. No. It was relating to TomTom's
`GPS navigators that people use in their cars to
`go from point A to point B.
` Q. Understood. Under No. 3 you have
`multiple different IPR cases at the patent
`office.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And, to the best of your
`recollection, under A you list IPR2015-01220.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Were you representing patent owner
`or petitioner in that?
` A. I don't recall what this number
`corresponds to which case. I don't remember.
` Q. Okay. How about the next one?
`
`1 and for accessing the outside world.
`2 Q. That's interesting. And were these
`3 all related IPRs that related to Securus?
`4 A. No. Only two of them, to the best
`5 of my recollection, were.
`6 Q. Understood. Have you previously
`7 provided testimony at trial?
`8 A. Yes, I have.
`9 Q. Has your testimony ever been
`10 excluded from trial?
`11 A. Well, yes, but for a technicality.
`12 Namely, there was one case of the ITC court in
`13 Washington where I had been told to be ready to
`14 testify for one day, it was on a Monday, and I
`15 was. Then the case went on Tuesday, and I also
`16 came on Tuesday. They said, oh, we will need to
`17 take it to Wednesday. I said, I'm sorry, but I
`18 have a heart operation scheduled.
`19 I've had a number of heart
`20 surgeries before and after, but -- and the
`21 opposing party says, well, we have to examine him
`22 tomorrow, so tomorrow I will be on the operating
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
` A. None of them. They're just
`numbers, so I don't remember what it was about.
` Q. Okay. Sure. And then you have
`numerous others as well under E. I take it that
`you don't recall the numbers or the matters?
` A. Exactly.
` Q. Okay. Do you recall generally if
`you were supporting the patent owner or the
`petitioner in any of these IPRs?
` A. Not -- most likely it was a mix.
`In some case, it was the petitioner. In some
`case, it was the patent owner. I don't recall
`the specifics.
` Q. Okay. And how many times -- well,
`let me ask -- let me rephrase that.
` Were you deposed in some of these
`IPR cases?
` A. Yes. I recall being deposed on
`one, two, perhaps more of them. It had to do
`with a company called Securus, S-E-C-U-R-U-S.
`Securus or Securus, however it's pronounced. It
`had to do with a telephone system used in prisons
`
`1 table, and so I just cancel.
`2 So then they move to have my
`3 testimony that was given excluded because they
`4 claimed they did not have the opportunity to
`5 further examine me beyond the dates they had
`6 specified.
`7 Q. And was that the only time that
`8 your testimony --
`9 A. Yes.
`10 Q. I'll finish the question. Was that
`11 the only time that your testimony was excluded?
`12 A. To the best of my recollection,
`13 yes.
`14 Q. Did any of these cases or IPR
`15 proceedings involve a pedometer?
`16 A. No.
`17 Q. To the best of your recollection?
`18 A. No. They did not. To the best of
`19 my recollection, no.
`20 Q. Let's go over your work history a
`21 little bit.
`22 A. Sure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 4 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
` Q. Actually, let me turn back to your
`testimony. Your experience or history.
` How long have you been consulting
`as an expert?
` A. Oh, roughly since the year 2000,
`give or take a year.
` Q. And how many times, to the best of
`your recollection, have you provided testimony
`either in a deposition or at trial?
` A. I would say in about 80 to
`90 percent of those cases.
` Q. 80 to 90 percent of the cases?
` A. That I was involved as an expert
`witness, yes.
` Q. So would that be more than 10 times
`that you've been deposed and/or gave testimony at
`trial?
` A. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I would say on
`the order of a hundred, give or take some.
` Q. 100 times?
` (Reporter-initiated discussion off
` the record.)
`
`1 A. I'm sorry. With?
`2 Q. Wearable electronics.
`3 A. Yes.
`4 Q. Okay. Could you explain that?
`5 A. Yeah. For pretty much all of my
`6 professional career, I was involved in the
`7 development and -- oversight and development by
`8 others of devices that were meant to be carried
`9 on the person of the intended user. And doing
`10 that, of course, I had to concern myself with all
`11 of the issues that come to bear on portable
`12 devices, such as power consumption and so on.
`13 Q. And what kind of devices were they?
`14 A. Oh, transmitters, receivers,
`15 recording devices, with or without sensors.
`16 That's the general class of devices. Also in GPS
`17 receivers.
`18 Q. How about phones?
`19 A. You mean cellphones?
`20 Q. Yes.
`21 A. And the question about them was
`22 what, again, to be precise?
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
` A. Yes. I'm sorry. I know that to
`answer. That -- that's a yes, okay.
` Q. And how many times have you
`testified at trial?
` A. One, two, three, four that come to
`mind. Five.
` Q. Now, were all of these patent
`matters?
` A. No. They were not.
` Q. Okay. Was the majority of the
`cases that you were involved in patent matters?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Okay. Could you put a percentage
`to that?
` A. As to what is the majority, you
`mean?
` Q. Yes.
` A. I would say 95 percent.
` Q. So primarily?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Do you have industry experience
`with wearable electronics?
`
`1 Q. Did you work on cellphones?
`2 A. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Very extensively.
`3 Q. Were any of the devices that you
`4 worked on actually commercialized?
`5 A. Yes.
`6 Q. Do you recall which ones?
`7 A. Well, I was involved, for example,
`8 in some of the development of GPS receivers that
`9 were meant to be handheld. That was in the days
`10 that a GPS receiver itself was a novelty, let
`11 alone a portable one.
`12 I was involved in the -- in the
`13 design and development of, again, as I mentioned,
`14 transmitters, receivers, sensors, recorders.
`15 Does that answer your question?
`16 Q. Yes. And the receivers and
`17 transmitters, were they incorporated into
`18 cellphones?
`19 A. Some were and most were for
`20 specialized purposes.
`21 Q. What do you mean by "specialized
`22 purposes"?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 5 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
` A. I was employed for some 14 years
`approximately by the federal government. And in
`that capacity, given that the federal government
`does not develop devices for the purpose of
`commercializing them, I was involved in the
`development of a number of technologies that were
`intended to be used by government employees.
` Q. Okay. So turning back to your CV,
`when you say you were working for the government,
`is that from '84 to '98?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. 1984 to 1998?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you have any industry
`experience with wearable electronics for exercise
`applications?
` A. I've had experience with wear --
`I'm sorry, wearable electronics in industry, but
`not for exercise applications. I view the
`exercise application as being just an example of
`a -- of a wearable device as to what it can do.
` Q. So is it fair to characterize
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. No. I've not worked on developing
`or overseeing the development of pedometers.
` Q. Okay. Let's just go back to heart
`rate monitors. What was your experience with
`designing and/or developing heart rate monitors?
`And, to be clear, these are nonwearable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that correct?
` A. Yes. That was in connection with
`heart rate monitors used in poligraphy, also
`known as lie detectors.
` Q. That's in the news these days.
`Okay.
` What did you do, if anything, in
`preparation for today's deposition?
` A. I reviewed the documents that
`pertain to this case. And, in fact, I believe I
`list them in my declaration, if you would be so
`kind to give it to me.
` (Exhibit Number PO2001 previously
` marked.)
` Q. I'm handing you Patent Owner's
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`exercise devices as a subclass of wearable
`device?
` A. No. I can envision exercise
`devices not being wearable. Treadmill, for
`example, you don't wear it, you use it. But
`exercise devices also are a subclass of wearable
`devices. There's also a subclass of nonwearable
`devices. That's why I was hesitating.
` Q. Okay. Do you have any industry
`experience with wearable electronics for heart
`rate monitors?
` A. I have experience with heart rate
`monitor devices, but most of them were intended
`for use in a nonwearable scenario. So I have not
`designed or built personally such devices for
`wearable scenarios, but I don't see the
`difference between wearable and nonwearable,
`other than the implementation of the electronics
`from sampling that is size constrained to
`something which is not size constrained.
` Q. Okay. Any industry experience with
`wearable electronics for pedometers?
`
`1 Exhibit 2001.
`2 A. Thank you. I see here -- I don't
`3 see here the exact patent that was shown. If you
`4 just point me to it. Otherwise I'll take the
`5 time to search here.
`6 Q. That's okay. We can get into the
`7 declaration in a bit. I just wanted to touch on
`8 what you did in preparation for today's
`9 deposition.
`10 And your testimony is that you
`11 reviewed some of the papers that related to this
`12 proceeding; correct?
`13 A. That is correct.
`14 Q. Okay. Did you meet with anybody?
`15 A. I met with the attorney that's
`16 representing me here today.
`17 Q. Okay. Do you recall reviewing your
`18 declaration, Exhibit 2001, that's before you
`19 right now?
`20 A. My declaration you just handed me
`21 now?
`22 Q. Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 6 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. Oh, yes. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And did you have any
`corrections to the declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Did you see any errors in
`the declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. And you reviewed the -- I'm
`going to refer to the patent at issue here, that
`is Blackbird's patent, as the '212 patent.
` Is that okay with you?
` A. Sure.
` MR. DOSHI: And, just for the
`record, that's US patent No. 6,434,212.
` Off the record.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` Q. So I take it that you reviewed the
`'212 patent, which is Exhibit 1001? And I'll
`give you a copy of that.
` A. Yes, I have. Thank you. Again, if
`you would be so kind as to give me the '212
`patent, then I will not be referring to it from
`
`Page 23
`
`memory.
` (Exhibit Number TomTom 1001
` previously marked.)
` Q. I'm handing you 1001 --
` A. Thank you.
` Q. -- which is the '212 patent. And
`you reviewed this for your deposition?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Okay. Let's turn to your
`declaration, Exhibit 2001.
` A. All right.
` Q. And in particular let's turn to
`paragraph 1. You state, "I am being compensated
`for my time at the rate of $200 per hour for time
`spent on both nondeposition tasks and for
`deposition time."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. All right. Beyond the $200 per
`hour of compensation, are you being compensated
`in any other form in this matter?
` A. No.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. Okay. Do you stand to benefit in
`any way based on the outcome of the IPR?
` A. Not in the least.
` Q. All right. If you could turn to
`page 11 of Exhibit 2001, and specifically
`paragraph 26. If you could just read that to
`yourself and let me know when you're done.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So you disagree with
`Mr. Blackadar on the definition of the PHOSITA?
` MR. DOSHI: P-H-O-S-I-T-A, in all
`caps.
` A. Usually POSITA without the H.
` MR. DOSHI: Just off the record.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` Q. Okay. So here you define -- let's
`go up to paragraph 25 first. And, for the
`record, we'll just define -- you define PHOSITA
`as a person of ordinary skill in the art;
`correct?
` A. On paragraph 25 I'm quoting what
`Mr. Blackadar's position as to what the PHOSITA
`
`Page 25
`
`is.
` Q. Let me rephrase the question.
` Just so we understand each other,
`when I use the term "PHOSITA" we'll both
`understand that as a person of ordinary skill in
`the art; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And so paragraph 26 you say
`"I disagree with Mr. Blackadar's definition";
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And you say that "The
`technology of the '212 Patent implicates other
`fields, such as Sports Medicine, Exercise
`Science, and Physiology."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. Do you have experience in
`sports medicine?
` A. No. I think you're misreading the
`context of paragraph 26.
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 7 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
` A. The paragraph 26 says that what
`Mr. Blackadar describes indeed qualifies one as a
`PHOSITA in this case, and I meet those
`qualifications. In addition to those, one could
`also quote one has to have expertise in sports
`medicine, exercise science, and physiology.
` So in those particular fields I
`personally do not have expertise. However, these
`are not required expertises. They are options
`for one to have expertise in.
` Q. Understood. Thanks for the
`clarification.
` Is there a reason that you added
`these other fields?
` A. Well, I felt in the interest of
`completeness that someone who has a background in
`those fields, and at least two years of practical
`experience, as I say, with pedometers and so on,
`would be a person of skill in the art.
` Q. Okay. Let me turn to that second
`part. You say "pedometers and/or health or
`fitness trackers or sensors, or an advanced
`
`1 skills in the art was not inclusive enough.
`2 Q. Do you have -- I think we went over
`3 this. I'm going to rephrase it a little bit.
`4 You earlier testified that you did
`5 not have industry experience with pedometers;
`6 correct?
`7 MR. DAVIS: Objection. Form.
`8 A. Well, that's not exactly what I
`9 said. It's out of context. What I said was that
`10 I did not design and build or oversee the
`11 development of pedometers. However, I also added
`12 that pedometers are just one minor application of
`13 the technologies involved, which is mostly
`14 microelectronics, communication, sensors and so
`15 on. And in that technology I have a lot of
`16 experience in.
`17 Q. What about health or fitness
`18 trackers?
`19 A. Are you asking me if I have
`20 experience in health or fitness trackers?
`21 Q. Yes.
`22 A. I do as a user, but not as a -- as
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`degree in one of these areas."
` These are in addition -- well, what
`did you mean by that? Let me put it that way.
` A. Well, it's really a minor variation
`of what Mr. Blackadar said, that one would have
`to have a bachelor's degree in one of the fields.
`In this case, he did not include medicine,
`exercise science or physiology, and at least two
`years of practical experience working with
`pedometers and so on.
` So really, for a person to have
`ordinary skill in the art, would have to have a
`background in the fields mentioned earlier in
`paragraph 26, and some practical experience
`working with pedometers and so on. Or an
`advanced degree in those areas.
` Q. And why did you include that
`qualification as well?
` A. When?
` Q. Why.
` A. Oh, because I felt that
`Mr. Blackadar's description of what the required
`
`1 a person who designs and builds those things for
`2 that purpose.
`3 Q. Okay. Paragraph 30, which is on
`4 page 13 of your declaration, Exhibit 2001.
`5 A. Yes.
`6 Q. If you can turn to paragraph 30 and
`7 just review that.
`8 A. Sure.
`9 Q. And let me to know when you're
`10 done.
`11 A. Sure. Okay.
`12 Q. You state on paragraph 30 that
`13 prior art pedometers had issues of complexity and
`14 inaccuracy? Do you see that? It's about halfway
`15 down in paragraph 30.
`16 A. Yes. I do.
`17 Q. Okay. Do you agree with that
`18 statement?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. Okay. And what did you mean by
`21 that, "complexity and inaccuracy"? What did you
`22 mean by prior art pedometers have complexity and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 8 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`9 (Pages 30 to 33)
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`inaccuracy?
` A. Well, as the inventor states in his
`column 1 of the patent --
` Q. So you're looking at Exhibit 1001;
`correct?
` A. Well, mine doesn't have
`exhibit number. Yeah, it does. I'm sorry. Yes,
`Exhibit 1001, yes.
` So, as I was saying, if you're
`looking at that exhibit, the inventor himself
`points out the shortcomings of past
`implementations of attempted pedometers and
`exercise devices, and these are the ones that I
`was alluding to.
` Q. I see. Did you have firsthand
`knowledge of these issues at the time of 1998?
` A. Yes. In a general sense, yes.
`Because, again, these are simply -- these being
`applications in pedometry -- are just one minor
`example of microelectronics, and sensors, and
`communications devices, signal processers, so on.
`So I have lots of experience on those.
`
`Page 31
`
` I did not, as I indicated,
`specialize in the field of pedometry, if you want
`to call it a field. Application of pedometry.
` Q. So in your opinion how did the '212
`patent address the complexity and inaccuracy of
`prior art pedometers?
` A. As I indicate in my declaration at
`paragraphs 32, 33 and 34, the pedometer disclosed
`in the '212 patent includes a data processor
`programmed to determine the distance traveled in
`a particular very specific way.
` It's also programmed to select the
`stride length with reference to a plurality of
`calibrations for any one particular user, which
`allows one to determine stride length --
`"determine" is the operative word here, as
`opposed to "measure" -- used in distance
`calculations accurately.
` And paragraph 34 mentioned that the
`'212 patent itself describes specific significant
`advantages over prior art pedometers. And they
`all pertain to accuracy and reduced complexity.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. And how does it improve accuracy?
` A. Well, a pedometer is really a
`combination of a sensor and other stuff. This
`other stuff is what the sensor feeds into that
`make computations, massage the data for
`presentation, and so on. It also includes how
`the data from the motion sensors is processed.
` So all these functions inherently
`involve complexity and inaccuracies. Some of the
`inaccuracies are as a result of the
`implementations and the algorithms used. And
`after reading the '212 patent I felt that the
`approach that is taught in the '212 patent
`addressed the factors that can result in
`inaccuracies in prior art pedometers.
` Q. And how did it resolve the
`inaccuracies of the prior art?
` A. Well, I can read the whole patent,
`if you want me to. But it resolve it in the
`manner that is detailed in the patent, first
`under the summary of the patent, and then under
`all the details under brief description of the
`
`Page 33
`
`drawings, and the conclusions and ultimately the
`claims.
` Q. And in paragraph 32 you state,
`"These strides" -- I'm sorry. Let me rephrase.
` In paragraph 32 you state, "These
`stride lengths are, in turn, calculated from a
`range of stride rates (i.e., numbers of strides
`over some period of time), such as in walking and
`running."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. What did you mean by that
`sentence?
` A. What I meant is self-explanatory.
`I meant that the size of one step, stride, is not
`measured with a yardstick or measured some other
`way but is actually calculated. And the
`calculation is based on a range of the strides
`over a period of time, called stride rates, while
`one is walking, and separately while one is
`running, and so on.
` Q. Let's go to the patent,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`TomTom Exhibit 1023, Page 9 of 54
`
`

`

`Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. - September 21, 2018
`
`10 (Pages 34 to 37)
`
`Page 34
`
`Page 36
`
`Exhibit 1001.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Column 2.
` A. Column 2.
` Q. Yes. And line -- it's under the
`"Summary of the Invention," the first paragraph
`there. It's that last sentence in that
`paragraph. Feel free to read the whole
`paragraph.
` A. Yes. I see the last paragraph.
` Q. That last sentence says "The
`invention recognizes the interdependency of
`stride length and stride rate and uses that
`relationship to provides superior
`distance-calculating accuracy."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. What do you interpret that to mean
`to you, the interdependency of stride length and
`stride rate?
` A. What is meant by that is -- it's
`kind of a statement of the, I guess, observation
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did I read that correctly?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What do you mean by "point of
`debate to this day"?
` A. Well, unlike a mathematical case
`where one plus one equals two, there's no debate
`about that. And in the case of determining a
`relationship between two observable, measurable
`parameters of a human being, one cannot appeal to
`some ultimate authority that decrees what the
`relationship is.
` People determine to the best of
`their respective judgments as to what the
`relationship is, and just as there are different
`interpretations of what the Constitution says
`here or there, there are also different
`interpretations of how or what that relationship
`between stride rate and stride length is. That's
`what I meant by saying it remains a point of
`debate to this date.
`
`Page 35
`
`Page 37
`
`but is acknowledged in this patent to the effect
`that when one is walking fast to get from one
`place to another, then one tends to make bigger
`steps. And