throbber
Page 1
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________________
` RIOT GAMES, INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.
` Patent Owner
` ____________________________
` Case IPR IPR 2018-00129
` Patent 5,822,523
` Case IPR 2018-00130
` Patent 5,822,523
` Case IPR 2018-00131
` Patent 6,226,686
` Case IPR 2018-00132
` Patent 6,226,686
` ____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, Ph.D.
` Century City, California
` November 8, 2018
`
`Reported by: Nikki Roy, CSR No. 3052
`Job No. 150165
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
` Videotaped deposition of KEVIN C. ALMEROTH,
`Ph.D., taken on behalf of the Petitioner, at 1999
`Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700, Century City,
`California, on Thursday, November 8, 2018 at
`9:09 a.m., before NIKKI ROY, CSR No. 3052.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 2
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`FOR PETITIONER:
` SCOTT BORDER, Attorney at Law
` SAMUEL DILLON, Attorney at Law
` SIDLEY AUSTIN
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
` GREGORY HOWISON, Attorney at Law
` KEITH HARDEN, Attorney at Law
` MUNCK WILSON MANDALA
` 600 Banner Place Tower
` 12770 Coit Road
` Dallas, Texas 75251
`
`FOR VALVE CORP:
` REYNALDO BARCELO, Attorney at Law
` BARCELO HARRISON & WALKER
` 2901 West Coast Highway
` Newport Beach, California 92663
`
`Also Present:
`Sharon Israel Esq. (Appeared via livestream)
`Lydia Raw Esq. (Appeared via livestream)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 3
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
`KEVIN C. ALMEROTH,
`PH.D.
` MR. BORDER 6, 84
` MR. HOWISON 111
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent 5,822,523 6
`Exhibit 1002 United States Patent 6,226,686 6
`Exhibit 1011 RFC 791 Internet Protocol, 36
` DARPA Internet Program
` Protocol, Specification
` September 1981
`
`Exhibit 1051 RFC 793 Transmission Control 42
` Protocol, DARPA Internet
` Program Protocol
` Specification, September 1981
`Exhibit 1009 PCT International Publication 44
` Number WO 94/11814
`
`Exhibit 1010 Request for Comments 1692, 52
` Transport Multiplexing
` Protocol TMux
`
`Exhibit 2002 Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. 63
` Almeroth
`Exhibit 1016 Plaintiff's Complaint for 104
` Patent Infringement
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 4
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
` I N D E X (CONTINUED):
`
` QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
` None
`
` INFORMATION REQUESTED
` None
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 5
`
`

`

`Page 6
` LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2018
` 9:09 A.M.
`
` KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, PH.D.
` called as a deponent and sworn in by
` the deposition officer, was examined
` and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Almeroth.
` A. Good morning.
` (Exhibit 1001 United States Patent
` 5,822,523, marked for identification
` as of this date.)
` (Exhibit 1002 United States Patent
` 6,226,686, marked for identification
` as of this date.)
` BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. I put in front of you two exhibits,
` Exhibit 1001 and Exhibit 1002. They've been
` premarked for this proceeding.
` Do you recognize these?
` A. I do.
` Q. You reviewed these?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 6
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` A. I have.
` Q. Okay. Are these -- are the specifications
` largely identical?
` A. My recollection is that they are.
` Q. Okay. So we don't have to go through each
` one. Obviously the claims are different, but is it
` okay if we just focus on one of these patents?
` A. I'm fine with that.
` Q. Okay. Great. Okay. Let's start with
` Exhibit 1001. It's the '523 patent.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Just wanted to start with column, 2 and it's
` actually column 2, line 67, and it transitions over
` to column 3.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. It says (reading):
` "Latency introduced by the time
` needed to send all the outbound
` packets. Each packet sent or
` received by a PC will require some
` amount of processing time."
` You see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And so what this is explaining is that one
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 7
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` aspect of latency or one impact on latency could be
` the time necessary to process received packets.
` Agree with that?
` A. Let me take a quick look. You started
` reading in the middle of the sentence. I just wanted
` to see the context.
` Right. So I see that sentence. I think it
` says what it says. High packet rates and there can
` be latency introduced by the time needed to send all
` of the outbound packets. I see that in the context
` of that paragraph.
` Q. And do you also see that latency can be
` caused by the time necessary to process sent or
` received packets?
` A. Where are you reading from somewhere?
` Q. It's the next sentence in column 3. It says
` (reading):
` "Each packet sent or received by
` PC will require some amount of
` processing time."
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. And you agree that also can cause latency?
` A. I agree with that sentence, yes.
` Q. And so if you have a system where fewer
` packets are received by a PC, you agree that would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 8
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` create less processing time by that PC?
` A. Not necessarily. I mean, it depends. It's
` quite a broad question. It depends on lots of
` factors.
` Q. What factors?
` A. Off the top of my head, size of the packets,
` complexity of the processing, what's in the packets,
` capabilities of the devices. Lots of things.
` Q. So you disagree that fewer packets in a
` system can cause less latency?
` A. It depends. I mean, your hypothetical is so
` broad that I can't really agree or disagree.
` Q. What does it depend on?
` A. The things I already mentioned. It depends
` on what's in the packets, how much processing time it
` takes, how they're constructed, what the protocols
` are. Could depend on the network, could depend on
` the devices, could depend on the hardware. I mean,
` the list goes on.
` Q. Okay. In the system described in the '523,
` would fewer packets received by the destination PC,
` would that result in less latency?
` A. I don't think that provides any further
` clarification. I don't recall the patent going into
` details about what the requirements would be. I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 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
`
`Page 10
` think it still depends. You're asking a hypothetical
` question that's extremely broad, and the best I can
` say is, it depends.
` Q. So you have no opinion on whether in a
` system where fewer packets are sent, less latency
` could be one of the benefits?
` MR. HOWISON: Objection; misstatement.
` THE WITNESS: That's not quite what I was
` saying. Certainly in your hypothetical you haven't
` really described any of the details to the point
` where you can say one way or another.
` BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Let's go to line 5. It says (reading):
` "Latency is important in an
` interactive application."
` You see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Do you agree with that?
` A. I think in a general sense I think that's
` true.
` Q. Let's go down to line 44, still with
` column 3. (Reading):
` "TCP is a connection-oriented
` service to applications that does
` provide reliable delivery of a data
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 10
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` stream."
` You agree with that?
` A. I think that's true.
` Q. Then it these (reading):
` "TCP handles division of the
` stream into packets and ensures
` reliable in-order delivery."
` You agree with that?
` A. I think that's generally true.
` Q. Okay. You have no reason to believe it's
` not true?
` A. I think in a general sense it's certainly
` true.
` Q. Okay. Let's go to column 8 --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- around line 35. I guess it starts at
` line 34, says (reading):
` "The server group messaging
` protocol is layered on top of the
` transport level protocol, TLP, of the
` network and is called the upper level
` protocol, or ULP."
` You see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. What is a TLP?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 11
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` A. I'm not sure what you're asking.
` Q. Well, the sentence that I just read to you
` has something called a transport level protocol
` (TLP). What is a TLP?
` A. I mean, it's a transport level protocol.
` Q. Okay. And what is that?
` A. Again, I'm not sure what you're asking. Are
` you asking for a definition or an example?
` Q. Sure. Give me a definition.
` A. I don't know that I could come up with a
` definition off the top of my head. I don't know if
` it says something else in the specification about
` what a TLP might be. I'd have to go through and
` look. I mean, I haven't tried to come up a
` definition.
` Q. All right. In the next sentence it says
` (reading):
` "In the OSI reference model the
` ULP can be thought of as a session
` layer protocol built on top of a
` transport or applications layer
` protocol."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. What is a transport layer protocol?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 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
`
`Page 13
` A. Again, are you asking for a definition or an
` example?
` Q. Sure. What's the definition of a transport
` layer protocol?
` A. So I don't know that I can give you a
` definition off the top of my head. It's not one that
` I tried to define as part of my declaration.
` Normally it's just a transport layer protocol.
` Q. Okay. Can you give me some examples?
` A. In the context of OSI two of the common
` transport layer protocols are TCP and UDP.
` Q. Is the transport layer protocol described
` here, is it the same as the transport level protocol
` described in this patent?
` A. I haven't tried to answer that question.
` I'd have to look through the specification and see.
` Sitting here right now, I don't recall having an
` opinion one way or the other whether it's the same or
` not.
` Q. You have no opinion whether the transport
` level protocol described in this paragraph has
` correspondence to the OSI layer?
` A. As I sit here now I don't have the
` declaration in front of me. I don't recall whether
` or not there were opinions in line with that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 13
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` question. There might be.
` Q. Can you give me the definition of a session
` layer protocol?
` A. Not off the top of my head.
` Q. What about an applications layer protocol?
` A. If you're asking for a dictionary
` definition, I don't -- I'm not really prepared to
` give you one off the top of my head.
` Q. Okay. At a high level can you give me your
` understanding of the OSI model that's referenced in
` this sentence?
` A. So the OSI reference model stands for the
` open system interconnect reference model. It's
` usually represented by a seven-layer model. And it
` runs in order from bottom to top, physical, data
` link, network, transport, session, presentation, and
` application layers.
` Q. And is the transport layer that you just
` mentioned, is that the same as the transport layer
` protocol identified in column 3, line 39?
` A. That sentence does appear to talk about the
` OSI reference model and references the transport
` layer protocol. That would be one of the seven
` layers of the OSI model.
` Q. And so but you don't know whether the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 14
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` transport level protocol described in line 36 has
` correspondence to the OSI layer?
` A. There you used the word "correspondence".
` Earlier I thought you essentially asked about whether
` or not they were the same.
` Certainly I think that you can use as an
` example a transport layer protocol like TCP from the
` OSI stack as something that could be a transport
` level protocol, but in terms of whether the two
` correspond to each other or are synonymous or are
` limited, those are questions that I haven't tried to
` answer I don't believe.
` Q. All right. Well, we can get back to that
` when we take a look at your declaration.
` Let's go to column 24.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Around line 21 there are a number of
` statements in here. This contains a list of -- or
` sort of a counting of three benefits to the
` aggregation described in the patent; is that right?
` A. I'd probably have to look at more of these
` sentences in context to see if I would agree with
` your characterization that they rise to the level of
` defining the benefits.
` Q. Well, let's start with column 24, I believe
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 15
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` that's line 18. It says (reading):
` "Aggregation will be very
` effective in collecting together all
` the messages from all the other hosts
` into a single message for each member
` of the group."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And I believe there's a typo there. I think
` it says -- it says "the reduces." I believe it means
` (reading):
` "This reduces processing at each
` receiving host since a single message
` will be received rather than many
` separate messages."
` You see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And so is this talking about the benefit of
` aggregation -- or one benefit of aggregation is
` having fewer packets?
` A. It says that this will reduce processing of
` each receiving host since the single message will be
` received rather than many separate messages. That's
` part of what it said in this paragraph.
` Q. Okay. So one benefit is instead of multiple
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 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
`
`Page 17
` messages you have a single message, one benefit of
` aggregation?
` A. I think that's pretty close to summarizing
` what's in that sentence.
` Q. Okay. And a second benefit to aggregation
` starts with the next sentence. It says (reading):
` "Aggregation will also reduce the
` total data rate to the host since
` aggregation eliminates the need for
` separate message headers for each
` payload item."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And so is this benefit to aggregation
` talking about smaller messages?
` A. I don't see where it says that.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Well, if you keep reading, it says
` (reading):
` "The savings will be significant
` for small payload items since there
` will be only one message header
` comprising fields 123, 124 and 125
` for multiple payload items."
` Q. Okay. And so this benefit relates to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 17
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 18
` essentially creating a smaller packet versus sending
` multiple small packets?
` A. I think that's part of what it's saying. I
` think there's more to it than that.
` Q. Okay. What more to it is there?
` A. Well, it talks about reducing the total data
` rate for the host since aggregation eliminates the
` need for separate message headers for each payload
` item. I think you seem to be combining a couple of
` different concepts that were slightly different than
` the way it describes it here in the specification.
` Q. Okay. But this benefit is generally related
` to reducing the size of the messages to be sent?
` A. I think in a very general sense.
` Q. Okay. And then beginning at line 28 to 51
` there's a discussion here about compression. Do you
` recall this?
` A. I do.
` Q. And so a third benefit of -- at least at a
` very general level, a third benefit of aggregation is
` described here as having compressible messages; is
` that right?
` A. You know, I don't think that's quite right.
` I understand you might be trying to paraphrase what
` it says here, but there's a fair amount. We can go
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 18
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` through it.
` Q. Okay. Would you explain to me what this
` third benefit of aggregation is?
` A. Sure. Let me read it.
` So starting there about line 33, it talks
` about the fact that you're aggregating is the "this."
` And it says (reading):
` "That affords the opportunity
` within an aggregated payload of
` multiple payload items to apply a
` data compression method across the
` multiple data elements of the payload
` elements."
` And then it goes on to identify a variety of
` data compression methods and then how those can be
` applied to data elements within a payload.
` Q. Okay. So then we do agree that this third
` benefit is, at a general level -- at a general level
` is discussing the compressibility of the messages?
` A. In part and at a high level. I mean, the
` reality is with each of these and they say what they
` say.
` Q. Would this benefit exist if you did not
` remove the headers in the aggregated message?
` A. I think by "remove headers," should I assume
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 19
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` you mean transport layer headers?
` Q. No, you shouldn't. So any headers. Would
` the benefit discussed here in lines 28 to 51
` generally related to compressibility, would that
` benefit still exist even if you did not remove any of
` the message headers?
` A. I would have to give it some thought. It
` might. I could think of instances where it does,
` where it might not. It depends on the compression.
` It depends on what the headers are. It depends on
` lots of factors.
` Q. Okay. So you agree that -- so you agree
` that compressibility -- that -- I'm sorry. Strike
` that.
` Let's go back up to the first benefit, and
` this is the fact that each receiving host receives a
` single message rather than separate messages.
` You agree that benefit would exist if you
` did not remove any of the headers?
` A. I really haven't thought to answer that
` question. I mean, I suspect you could contrive a
` scenario where it does. You could probably contrive
` a scenario where it does -- where it does and where
` it doesn't again. It's such a broad question.
` Q. Okay. Well, let me narrow it a bit.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 20
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` Would that benefit exist if you did not
` remove transport layer headers?
` A. I think it's the same answer. I don't think
` that that really narrows it.
` Q. You have no opinion on whether removing
` transport layer headers would affect the benefit
` described in column 24, line 20 to 23?
` A. As I sit here right now, I don't recall that
` my declaration discusses it, but to the extent it
` does and I don't remember it, then I would defer to
` what is in the declaration. I don't have it in front
` of me.
` Q. I'm not talking about your declaration,
` Dr. Almeroth. I'm talking about this patent. You
` reviewed this patent, correct?
` A. I did.
` Q. Okay. So sitting here today, can you tell
` me whether or not the benefit described there -- and
` I'll read it. (Reading):
` "It reduces processing at each
` receiving host since a single message
` will be received rather than many
` separate messages."
` Sitting here today, you have no opinion
` whether that benefit would exist if you did not
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 21
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` remove the transport layer headers?
` A. So I don't have my declaration in front of
` me. I don't understand this to be a memory contest.
` To the extent I have opinions that are relevant to
` that question that are in the declaration, I would
` defer to the declaration. Sitting here right now, it
` seems to be a fairly broad hypothetical. I'd have to
` give it some thought.
` Q. Why don't you give it some thought.
` Dr. Almeroth, this is a cross-examination. You have
` to answer my question.
` A. I'm doing the best to my ability. You're
` asking a very broad hypothetical, and to the extent
` I've addressed it in the declaration, then I have the
` opinion sit forth there. If you're asking something
` that's not in the declaration, given the breadth of
` the hypothetical, it would take me sometime to think
` about.
` Q. Why is the hypothetical broad?
` A. You're not saying what the system is.
` You're not describing aspects of it. As I testified
` to earlier, I suppose and suspect you could contrive
` a scenario where you would still have benefits and a
` scenario where you wouldn't have benefits. It
` depends on what the system might actually be. So
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 22
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` you're asking about a particular system that has
` certain aspects to it. I'd have to give it some
` thought.
` Q. I'm not talking about a hypothetical system.
` I'm talking about the system described in the '523
` patent which you reviewed. Correct?
` A. I did.
` Q. And you relied on to form your opinions?
` A. I did.
` Q. So you're not going to answer my question
` whether a benefit would exist even if you did not
` remove the transport layer headers with respect to
` the statement column 24, line 22 to 24?
` A. I think I've answered your question to the
` best of my ability given what the question is.
` Q. You haven't answered my question,
` Dr. Almeroth.
` A. Well, I guess we disagree then.
` Q. So you have no opinion then?
` MR. HOWISON: Objection; misstatement.
` BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Okay. You have no opinion whether a
` benefit -- that benefit would exist if you did not
` remove the transport layer headers?
` A. I think I've already answered that question.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 23
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` I'm not sure what else to add.
` Q. We'll get back to it.
` Let's go to claim 1.
` A. This is the re-exam. I don't think it's
` changed, so I'll just use the regular patent.
` Q. Yeah.
` A. Okay. That's fine.
` Q. I assume you reviewed this claim?
` A. I have.
` Q. This claim 1 doesn't specify any OSI layer,
` does it?
` A. I don't recall that it does. But now that I
` think about it, I'm not sure exactly what you're
` asking. Do you mean -- well, I'm just -- I'm not
` sure what you're asking.
` Q. Is this -- is claim 1 limited to any OSI
` layer protocol?
` A. As I sit here right now, I don't recall
` offering an opinion in the context of this IPR that
` it's limited in that way or not, but again, I would
` defer to my declaration.
` Q. Okay. Well, will you read claim 1 to
` yourself, please. Let me know when you're finished.
` (Document reviewed by witness.)
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 24
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` BY MR. BORDER:
` Q. Does claim 1 -- is there any mention in
` claim 1 of an OSI layer protocol?
` A. If by that question you're asking about a
` specific protocol, something like TCP or IP, I don't
` see those words in the claim.
` Q. So you agree with me that claim 1 does not
` specify any OSI layer protocol?
` A. The best I can say is I don't see the words
` of a particular OSI protocol that appear in claim 1.
` Q. Then does claim 1 specify any message or
` payload size?
` A. I don't see, at least in the words of the
` claim --
` Q. Is claim 1 limited --
` A. Sorry. I wasn't finished.
` -- where it says a particular size of
` packets. But whether the words appear there or not,
` I think it gets into a question of claim scope. And
` so, I mean, I don't have opinions, looking at all of
` the limitations, what the scope of those claims would
` encompass.
` Q. I'm not trying to trick you here,
` Dr. Almeroth. I'm just talking about the literal
` terms of claim 1. So you agree that there is no
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 25
`
`

`

`Page 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
`
` specification of a message or payload size for
` claim 1?
` A. I mean, you say you're not trying to trick
` me. You're asking me whether or not certain words
` appear in the claims. I think it's a fairly
` straightforward exercise to determine whether those
` words appear or not.
` If you're asking about specific words, I can
` look through the claim and say whether they're there
` or not. I don't believe there is the words "message
` size" or "payload size," that those words don't
` appear in the claim.
` Q. So you agree that claim 1 is not limited to
` any specific message or payload size?
` A. So the question about whether it's limited
` or not gets into claim scope, and whether or not
` those words appear, whether there could be a
` construction that would bear on that question, I
` think is different than what you've just asked.
` I don't recall offering opinions about claim
` scope as it relates to message size or payload size
` in the declaration, but again, I would defer to
` what's in the declaration.
` Q. Is claim 1 limited to a system that only
` uses small packets?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1052,
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132, p. 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
`
`Page 27
` A. Again, you're asking about claim scope. I
` don't believe I've offered opinions about claim
` scope, what the legal metes and bounds of the claims
` are as it relates to message or payload size.
` Q. There's no mention of a header in the
` literal terms of claim 1, is there?
` A. I don't see the word "header" appearing in
` the words of claim 1.
` Q. Okay. Look down at claim 6.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Now, this claim limits -- well, let me just
` read it. (Reading):
` "The method of claim 1, wherein
` said network is Internet and said
` server communicates with said
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket