EXHIBIT B
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 90
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 90
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`James J. Foster
`jfoster@princelobel.com
`Aaron S. Jacobs (CA No. 214953)
`ajacobs@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: 617-456-8000
`Facsimile: 617-456-8100
`
`Matthew D. Vella (CA No. 314548)
`mvella@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`410 Broadway Avenue, Suite 180
`Laguna Beach, CA 92651
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No.: 3:18-cv-00365-WHA
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C.
`EASTTOM II IN REFERENCE TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`DATE: September 27, 2018
`TIME:
`8:00 a.m.
`PLACE:
`Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`JUDGE:
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 90
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I, William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom), declare as follows:
`
`I am a computer science expert retained by Uniloc in this matter. I have been asked
`
`by Uniloc to review technical materials, including patents and source code, to test certain Apple
`
`devices, and to provide my observations and opinions, which are set forth below and in the attached
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Exhibits.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`3.
`
`I have been working professionally in the computer science industry for over 25
`
`years. I have extensive experience with programming in a wide range of languages, including
`
`programming of apps for mobile devices. I have both developed mobile phone apps and taught
`
`mobile phone app programming for both iOS and Android. I also have extensive experience with
`
`mobile device forensics. I am the author of 26 computer science books, approximately 50 research
`
`articles, and an inventor of 14 computer science related patents. I have been a speaker at over 50
`
`computer science related venues including being an invited speaker, keynote speaker, and/or
`
`13
`
`chairing sessions.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`4.
`
`I am also a member of the IEEE Systems and Software Engineering Standards
`
`Committee, as well as a Distinguished Speaker of the Association of Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM). During the late 1990’s I was working as a software engineer developing
`
`telecommunications software. I have direct experience with the technology used in the timeframe
`
`of the patent in suit. Further details regarding my qualification can be found in my complete
`
`curriculum vitae, which I have attached to this declaration, as Exhibit A.
`
`5.
`
`I have inspected source code produced for inspection by Apple in this action, and in
`
`other actions brought by Uniloc against Apple. I have conducted direct experiments using a variety
`
`of Apple products including the iPhone, iPad/iPod touch, and Apple Watch. The details of those
`
`experiments are provided in Exhibit B to this declaration. I have also conducted direct analysis of
`
`the HDMI to lightning adapters. The details of that analysis are in Exhibit C to this declaration.
`
`Furthermore, I have examined the Pebbles product, and the details of that analysis are in Exhibit D.
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed United States Patent No 6,216,158 (the ‘158 patent), the application
`
`for which was filed January 25, 1999. I have reviewed Apple’s Opposition to Uniloc’s Motion for
`
`28
`
`Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,158 and Apple’s Cross-
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 90
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment of Non0-Infringement, Invalidity, and Unpatentability, along with
`
`the Exhibits to Apple’s brief. I have also reviewed the deposition transcripts for the depositions
`
`of Dr. Myers, Apple’s expert, and two Apple witnesses: Theresa Lanowitz and Aurie Bendahan.
`
`As I explain in this declaration, it is my opinion that Apple has failed to show that claim 9 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,216,158 (“the ’158 Patent”) is not infringed or is invalid.
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSE TO APPLE’S CLAIMS
`
`7.
`
`In this section I provide my response to Apple’s claims via their counsel and their
`
`expert witness(s).
`
`8.
`
`Apple has alleged that “Claim 9 of the ’158 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(a), 102(g), and/or 103 as anticipated by, or obvious over, the “Pebbles Project” and/or “Jini”
`
`prior art;” Claim 9 of the ‘158 patent is dependent upon claim 8, and both claims are provided
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Pebbles
`
`8. A method of controlling a program on a network device from a palm sized
`computer, the computer is not capable of executing the program by itself, the
`network device and computer being coupled in communications via a
`network, the method comprising:
`accessing a directory of services, a service in the directory of services
`corresponding to the program, the description of the service including at least
`a reference to program code for controlling the service;
`loading the program code;
`issuing control commands to the network device using the program code, the
`control commands causing the network device to control the program.
`
`9. The method of claim 8, wherein loading the program code includes loading
`the program code onto the palm sized computer and the issuing the control
`commands includes the palm sized computer issuing the control commands.
`
`9.
`
`Pebbles is an experimental device created by Dr. Myers, Apple’s expert. I have
`
`reviewed Dr. Myers’ testimony regarding Pebbles, including his deposition transcript, the
`
`documents describing Pebbles cited by Apple, as well as inspected a device produced by Apple,
`
`which I understand to be a version of Pebbles. In my opinion, as I explain in further detail below,
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`2
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 5 of 90
`
`the information that I reviewed about Pebbles does not teach each and every feature of Claim 9 of
`
`the ’158 patent.
`
`10.
`
`The first issue is Claim 8 requires a method of controlling a program on a network
`
`device. There are two significant problems with the Pebbles product in relation this claim
`
`element.
`
`11.
`
`The first problem with Pebbles is that it doesn’t include the “on a network” clause.
`
`While I understand that Apple has claimed that Pebbles operates on a network, my
`
`experimentation with the product did not validate this claim. Those experiments are detailed in
`
`exhibit D. In fact, the latest version of Pebbles that I was provided with, Pebbles v2, did have a
`
`choice to select a network, but when I selected that choice, absolutely nothing happened. There
`
`was no network communication, attempt to communicate over a network, nor prompt to choose a
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`network.
`
`12.
`
`On paragraph 88 of his declaration, Dr. Myers claimed that serial connections are
`
`networks. “The Pebbles system used a serial connection between the PC and at least one
`
`PalmPilot. In our lab, we tested up to four PalmPilots simultaneously using a serial hub that
`
`allowed the four PalmPilots to be networked to the PC.”
`
`13.
`
`The first problem with this claim is that Dr. Myers’ own Pebbles website does not
`
`consider serial communications to be networks. This is shown in the following screenshot from
`
`http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pebbles/v5/overview/software.html:
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`3
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 6 of 90
`
`
`
`14.
`
`It should be noted first that this screenshot is from the current Pebbles website and
`
`
`
`referencing version 5. Version 2.0 was the latest version I was provided. Secondly, it is clear that
`
`even today, Dr. Myers’ own Pebbles website does not consider serial communications to be a
`
`network.
`
`15.
`
`A serial connection is a connection between a computer and a peripheral device.
`
`serial interface \sērˋē-əl inˊtər-fās\ n. A data transmission scheme in
`which data and control bits are sent sequentially over a single channel. In
`reference to a serial input/output connection, the term usually implies the
`use of an RS-232 or RS-422 interface. See also RS-232-C standard, RS-
`422/423/449. Compare parallel interface.
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`4
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 7 of 90
`
`16.
`
`Microsoft Dictionary defines a network as a group of computers and devices that are
`
`connected.
`
`
`network \netˊwərk\ n. A group of computers and associated
`devices that are connected by communications facilities. A
`network can involve permanent connections, such as cables, or
`temporary connections made through telephone or other
`communication links. A network can be as small as a local
`area network consisting of a few computers, printers, and
`other devices, or it can consist of many small and large
`computers distributed over a vast geographic area.
`
`
`17.
`
`The Que Computer & Internet Dictionary 6th edition also defines a network as
`
`connecting two or more computers.
`
`
`network A communications and data exchange system created by
`physically connecting two or more computers with network interface cards
`and cables, and running a network operating system (NOS).
`
`
`18.
`
`The definitions provided above are consistent with my understanding of how
`
`network is used in the ’158 patent. For example, column 5, lines 57 – 65 talk about using a LAN
`
`bridge or route. The patent also discloses using middleware and various servers, and states that
`
`the control device is capable of controlling services “on the network.” See, column 4, lines 30-
`
`31. The patent also talks about network communications program that “allows the control device
`
`200 to communicate with other devices on the network.” Column 4, lines 36-38.
`
`19.
`
`The serial hub that Dr. Myers describes does not meet this definition of network.
`
`His own description correctly identifies the serial hub as connecting the Palm Pilots to the
`
`computer, but not to each other. To be a network, the Palm Pilots would have to be connected to
`
`each other. Thus, even using Dr. Myers’ scenario, this is not a network.
`
`20.
`
`A POSITA would immediately recognize that Pebbles does not operate over a
`
`network and thus cannot anticipate nor render obvious claim 8 or claim 9.
`
`21.
`
`The second problem with Dr. Myers’ assertions and Apple’s claims, is the
`
`requirement for “A method of controlling a program”. Pebbles does not actually provide control
`
`of any program, such as PowerPoint. Rather, Pebbles simply issues standard Windows
`
`commands that are input into whatever the currently open Windows program, wherein since that
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`5
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 8 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Windows program has the focus, it will receive those commands. In my opinion, this is not
`
`controlling a program. Rather, Pebbles just emulates mouse and keyboard functions using a
`
`primitive encoding technique. My own experiments coupled with Pebbles’ description on the
`
`website http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pebbles/v5/ confirms this. Again, it must be noted that this
`
`website is Pebbles v5, the current version. And even now, Pebbles does not actually control a
`
`program. Instead the Pebbles application on the Palm III sends a command to the Pebbles
`
`application on the Windows computer, and that Pebbles application on the Windows computer
`
`issues standard Windows actions such as mouse move, mouse click, and similar commands.
`
`Those commands will be received by whatever program happens to currently have Windows’
`
`focus.
`
`22.
`
`The next issue is “loading the program code onto the palm sized computer and the
`
`issuing the control commands includes the palm sized computer issuing the control commands.”
`
`Even if one ignores the issues with there being no network in Pebbles and ignores the issue that
`
`Pebbles on the Palm Pilot is not issuing commands to a program, but rather simply issuing
`
`generic Windows calls, the Pebbles on the Palm Pilot does not control any program on the
`
`computer. Rather Pebbles on the Palm Pilot communicates with Pebbles PC executable on the
`
`computer. However the commands issued by the Pebbles on the Palm Pilot may be characterized,
`
`those commands are not issued to the program such as PowerPoint, but rather to Pebbles on the
`
`computer.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, the skilled person having reviewed all the information about Pebbles
`
`would never have envisioned or sought to practice the invention of claims 8 and 9 of the ’158
`
`Patent.
`
`Jini
`
`24.
`
`Jini, as used in the ’158 Patent is merely a layer used in the invention. The ’158
`
`Patent does not merely describe and claim Jini, as Apple appears to argue.
`
`25.
`
`The Jini Quick Study article published December 7, 1998 which is Exhibit V to
`
`Apple’s motion describes the Jini product as it existed one (1) month before the filing of the ’158
`
`28
`
`patent. The article specifically states the product is not ready, does not fully function and won’t
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 9 of 90
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`be ready until late 1999. Regardless of how one views Jini, it clearly was not developed prior to
`
`the earliest priority date of the ’158 patent. Rather it was merely a concept that was not fully
`
`developed. This document includes some Jini jargon, but the skilled person would not have
`
`understood this document as teaching how to implement the steps of claims 8 and 9 of the ’158
`
`patent.
`
`26.
`
`Exhibit Z, an Infoworld article from October 1, 1998, just two months prior to the
`
`filing of the ’158 patent, also simply describes Sun’s vision for what Jini will be. It does not
`
`describe an actual product.
`
`27.
`
`Exhibit R (Guth) is yet another article from late 1998. And again, it discusses how
`
`things might be once Jini gets released. In fact, every exhibit Apple produced simply
`
`demonstrates that Sun Microsystems did not have a working product prior to the ’158 patent, but
`
`rather had hopes for what their product might eventually do. Guth is speculative and not
`
`technical. It does not disclose the features of any working prototype. The POSITA would not
`
`understand this reference as actually teaching how to make a device using Jini.
`
`28.
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Myers stated, “One solution proposed by Sun Microsystems’
`
`Jini project was to find a way to connect those handheld computers to other, more powerful,
`
`computing devices on the network, and use both at the same time. Others in this field at the time,
`
`including myself and my colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, were also working on ways
`
`to allow handheld devices to control applications running on a PC such as Microsoft
`
`PowerPoint.”
`
`29.
`
`Regardless of what Sun Microsystems or Dr. Myers was attempting to produce in the
`
`late 1990’s, it is clear that Jini did not actually have a solution in late 1998 and did not even
`
`confirm a solution until well into 1999 after the filing of the ’158 Patent. Dr. Myer’s statement
`
`simply demonstrates the long felt need for the solution that the ’158 Patent provided.
`
`30.
`
`Dr. Myer’s also stated in his deposition “In the summer of 1998, more than six
`
`months before the ’158 Patent was filed, Sun Microsystems announced Jini, a distributed
`
`networking platform it had been working on for years.” Dr. Myer’s is correct that Sun
`
`28
`
`Microsystems did announce Jini, however, they announced a product that they planned to have
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 10 of 90
`
`ready in 1999. A POSITA would readily recognize that companies frequently announce their
`
`intentions for a product, and that such a product may or may not be fully realized. However, that
`
`announcement is not actually having the product.
`
`31.
`
`Ms. Lanowitz testified that there were working demonstrations of Jini prior to
`
`January 25, 1999. I have reviewed all the Jini documents provided by Apple and cannot find a
`
`single document that describes a working copy of Jini utilizing a palm computer in the manner
`
`described by claims 8 and 9 of the ’158 patent.
`
`32.
`
`I also reviewed the videos provided by Ms. Lanowitz.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`It is my understanding that Apple is asserting that it would have been obvious to
`
`combine the Jini prior art with either Exhibit Guth or the Jini Quick Study article. I disagree that
`
`the skilled person would have found it obvious.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion from reviewing all the information about Jini, prior to January 25,
`
`1999, Jini was just experimental, in the development and testing stage. As I explain above, I have
`
`seen no evidence that Jini embodied the features of claims 8 and 9. Also, I do not believe there is
`
`any evidence that Sun had a working demonstration that allowed a palm sized computer 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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`download program code that would allow it to control a program on a network device that the
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`8
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 11 of 90
`
`palm sized computer could not itself execute. Guth is just a forward looking marketing piece that
`
`does not explain how to modify Jini to perform the claimed steps. Guth merely imagines a work
`
`where a PalmPilot can tap into a network. Guth is not technical and there is no suggestion in
`
`Guth to perform the steps of claim 9. The same goes for Jini Quick Study. It defines some Jini
`
`speak but does not explain how to perform the steps of claim 9. I do not believe the skilled
`
`person in the art would have found these forward looking, marketing style articles to suggest how
`
`to modify Jini to come up with the method of claim 9.
`
`The Apple TV and Apple TV Remote App
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`36.
`
`The first issue is the HDMI to lightning adapter. This is not merely a dongle with
`
`different ports at each end. It is rather an actual computer system, consisting of an ARM System-
`
`on-Chip functioning as a computer. My analysis of the HDMI to lightning adapters is detailed in
`
`Exhibit C. This Dr. Myer’s scenario essentially requires an additional computer device to be
`
`inserted between the Apple iPhone and the Television.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Apple has stated, “Mr. Easttom’s statements are fatally unreliable: his test results are
`
`not documented and cannot be replicated, and his analysis is based on false assumptions about
`
`Apple’s products that he made no effort to verify.” This problem is belied by Dr. Myers who states
`
`“I attempted to recreate Mr. Easttom’s “product testing” as described in his expert declaration,
`
`Exhibit C to that declaration, and in his deposition.”
`
`39.
`
`Furthermore, my initial declaration contained an appendix with step by step
`
`processes and images. That declaration also contained the specific models of iPhone and Apple TV
`
`28
`
`devices used, and even included the specific a television series used to view on the Apple TV. This
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`9
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 12 of 90
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`was in fact discussed at length at my deposition. However, in the interest of addressing Apple’s
`
`concerns, I have provided even more details in Exhibit B to this declaration. This exhibit has 12
`
`pages detailing the experiments conducted, 16 photos of the experiments as well as details of
`
`repeating those experiments with additional devices such as the iPhone 6, iPad, iPod, and Apple TV
`
`5
`
`4th generation.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`40.
`
`It is my belief that my initial declaration and exhibits where adequate for any
`
`POSITA to understand my processes and to repeat my processes. Nonetheless, since Apple has
`
`alleged that there was inadequate detail, I am providing even more detail in exhibits to this
`
`declaration. It should also be noted that all experiments, including additional experiments with
`
`additional devices simply confirmed my initial experiments. Nothing in the further experiments has
`
`refuted my previous experiments, nor caused me to change my opinion.
`
`Apples criticism of my code review
`
`41.
`
`Apple also made significant criticisms of my earlier declaration claiming that I had
`
`identified the wrong code and my testimony was thus unreliable. During Mr. Bendahan’s
`
`deposition, he validated a number of my findings. A sample of those findings Mr. Bendahan
`
`16
`
`validated are provided here.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`10
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`www.goldmanismail.com<http://www_.goldmanismail.com>
`
`jacobs@princelobel.com
`uniloc <uniloc@princelobel.com=>; Apple-uniloc
`pple-uniloc@goldmanismail.com=
`Subject: Re: Uniloc v. Apple (HPE)-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aaron,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 13 of 90
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`11
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 14 of 90
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`12
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 15 of 90
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 16 of 90
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Based on my careful analysis described in this declaration and the attached exhibits,
`
`in addition to my many years of experience and training, it is my expert opinion that the Apple
`
`products (Apple Watch, iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad) infringe the ’158 patent through at least
`
`three scenarios.
`
`54.
`
`Furthermore, it is my expert opinion that Pebbles does not anticipate nor render
`
`obvious the ’158 patent.
`
`55.
`
`Furthermore, it is my expert opinion that Jini was not functional prior to the filing of
`
`the ’158 patent, and thus, regardless of what features Jini may have eventually had, could not
`
`invalidate nor render obvious the claimed invention described in the ’158 patent.
`
`It is my expert opinion that Apple’s scenarios explained in their petition are very different
`
`28
`
`than the actual products they sell. They use a third-party computer device (i.e. an HDMI to
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`
`
`14
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 147-3 Filed 09/06/18 Page 17 of 90
`
`
`
`Lightning adapter) and/or iPhones with a build and code modified away from what is actually sold.
`
`Even with these modified devices and additional computing devices, the Apple modified iPhone is
`
`still not able to function as Apple claims.
`
`Date: September 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William C. Easttom II
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`EASTOM DECLARATION
`
`15
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`EX2004
`
`