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 1
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _____________
` APPLE INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
` Patent Owner.
` _____________________
` Case IPR2018-00361
` Patent 6,216,158
`
` DEPOSITION OF
` WILLIAM C. EASTTOM
` Rockwall, Texas
` Thursday, January 10th, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`Daniel J. Skur, Notary Public and CSR
`Job No. 153396
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 1 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`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
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
` Haynes and Boone
` Attorney(s) for Petitioner
` 2323 Victory Avenue
` Dallas, Texas 75219
` BY: Jamie McDole, Esq.
` Scott Jarratt, Esq.
` Samuel Drezdzon, Esq.
`
` Etheridge Law Group
` Attorney(s) for Patent Owner
` 2600 East Southlake Boulevard
` Southlake, Texas 76092
`
` BY: Brett Mangrum, Esq.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Mr. Mack Spurlock, Videographer
`
`Page 5
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` VIDEOGRAPHER: This starts media
`labeled number 1 in the video deposition of
`William C. Easttom, in the matter of Apple,
`Inc. versus Uniloc Luxembourg, in the
`United States Patent Trademark Office, Case
`Number IPR 2018-0036.
` The deposition is being held at 2601
`Lake Front Trail, Rockwall, Texas, on
`January 10th, 2019, at approximately
`8:58 a.m.
` My name is Mack Spurlock. I'm a
`Legal Video Specialist with TSG Reporting,
`headquartered at 747 Third Avenue, New
`York, New York. The court reporter is Dan
`Skur in association with TSG Reporting.
` Will counsel please introduce
`yourselves, after which will the court
`reporter please swear in the witness.
` MR. MCDOLE: Jamie McDole, from
`Haynes and Boone, representing petitioner.
` MR. MANGRUM: Brett Mangrum, from
`the Ethridge Law Group, representing Uniloc
`USA 2017, the patent owner.
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`
` January 10th, 2019
` 8:57 a.m. - 10:54 a.m.
`
` Deposition of WILLIAM C. EASTTOM,
`held at the SpringHill Suites by Marriott,
`2601 Lakefront Trail, Rockwall, Texas,
`before Daniel J. Skur, Notary Public and
`Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the
`State of Texas.
`
`1
`
`23456
`
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED
`by and between the attorneys for the respective
`parties herein, that filing and sealing be and
`the same are hereby waived.
` IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
`that all objections, except as to the form of
`the question, shall be reserved to the
`time of the trial.
` IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
`that the within deposition may be sworn to and
`signed before any officer authorized to
`administer an oath, with the same force and
`effect as if signed and sworn to before the
`Court.
` - oOo -
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 2 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` WILLIAM C. EASTTOM,
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` (8:58 a.m.)
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Dr. Easttom, thank you for appearing
`for the deposition today.
` Do you understand that you're
`appearing for a deposition in the IPR relating
`to U.S. patent number 6,216,158?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you submit a declaration in
`the IPR relating to U.S. patent number
`6,216,158?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is it okay if we refer to U.S.
`patent number 6,216,158 as the '158 patent?
` A. Certainly.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you a
`document that I believe has been previously
`marked as Exhibit 2001.
` (Exhibit 2001 introduced.)
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Here you go. Would you please let
`
`Page 8
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`defended your dissertation?
` A. No, when I signed this, I had not
`yet defended my dissertation.
` Q. Okay. So as of today, you have
`defended your dissertation though?
` A. Yes, about three months ago.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Easttom, you've had your
`deposition taken before, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Go over a few of the groundrules
`that I'm sure you're familiar with.
` If I ask you a question today that
`you don't understand, will you agree to let me
`know?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you let me know that you
`don't understand a question, I will try to
`clarify the question or ask a different
`question to get around why you may not
`understand it.
` Does that sound fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And if at any point today you
`need a break, just let me know. I'll try 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
`
`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 7
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`me know if the document that I've handed you
`entitled Declaration of William C. Easttom II
`is the Declaration you've submitted in the IPR
`relating to the '158 patent?
` A. It appears to be.
` Q. Okay. And if I could have you turn
`to the final page of the Declaration, prior to
`your CV.
` And if you could please let me know
`if -- and just after paragraph 95 of your
`Declaration, previously marked as Exhibit 2001,
`whether that is your signature next to dated
`April 13th, 2018?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And did you sign Exhibit 2001, the
`Declaration of William C. Easttom II, on or
`about April 13th, 2018?
` A. On or about, yes.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Easttom, were you a
`doctor or did you have a Ph.D. when you signed
`the Declaration, Exhibit 2001?
` A. No, I had not yet defended my
`dissertation.
` Q. Is -- so as of today, you have not
`
`Page 9
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`take breaks every hour.
` Does that sound fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. Is it okay if we refer
`to the Declaration of William C. Easttom II as
`your Declaration? Will you understand that
`that's referring to the document I've handed
`you, which has been previously marked as
`Exhibit 2001?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. How many times have you been
`engaged as an expert for Uniloc?
` A. I don't know. It's been quite a few
`times.
` Q. Okay. Have you been engaged as an
`expert for Uniloc in both litigations and inter
`partes reviews?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Approximately how many patents have
`you opined on on behalf of Uniloc?
` A. In both IPRs and litigation?
` Q. Yes.
` A. I would have to take a best guess.
`Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 3 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. Okay. Of those 10 to 15 patents on
`which you have been engaged as an expert for
`Uniloc, how many of the claims of those 10 to
`15 patents have you determined were invalid?
` A. I've never been asked to determine
`the validity or invalidity of any claims.
` Q. Okay. Have you ever been asked to
`determine whether a claim is valid?
` A. Well, I've been asked to prepare a
`validity report recently in another case.
` Q. Okay. In IPRs, have you been asked
`to determine whether a patent is valid?
` A. I don't believe that's my role in
`the IPR. I believe that's the patent board's
`role.
` Q. Okay. And what do you believe your
`role is in an IPR?
` A. To examine the claims of the
`petition, the assertions in the petition from a
`scientific and independent point of view, and
`to form my opinions and responses to those
`assertions made in the petition.
` Q. Okay. And do any of those opinions
`relate to the validity of Uniloc patents?
`
`Page 12
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` A. Well, I think we're getting into an
`area of attorney-client privilege, because I've
`worked for Uniloc on several occasions, and in
`some cases, I have told them I did not agree
`with their position and they didn't move
`forward with me. But beyond that, I can't give
`any details.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. When were you first contacted
`for the engagement on which you've offered
`opinions on the '158 patent?
` A. I really don't know. But given that
`the Declaration was in April, I would assume a
`few months prior to that.
` Q. Okay. How many depositions have you
`given relating to your opinions for Uniloc?
` A. I've never broken it down by
`particular client or case. I've testified -- I
`believe this will be my 44th time --
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. -- of all my testimonies, both trial
`and deposition. I don't know immediately how
`many of those were Uniloc, how many of those
`were other people, and how many were IPRs, how
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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 11
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` A. Well, again, whether it's valid or
`not is an issue for the patent board. That's
`not for me to decide. I -- I don't really have
`any role in deciding if it's valid or not.
` Q. Okay. Do you offer any opinions or
`conclusions as to whether any of Uniloc patents
`are valid or invalid?
` A. Well, as I just said, that's up to
`the patent board. I offer the opinions
`reflected in my Declaration, which in this case
`are in regards to the assertions made in the
`petition.
` Q. Okay. And do you come to
`conclusions in your role as to whether a patent
`is valid or invalid in your opinion?
` A. Any conclusions I come to are
`contained within declarations or reports.
`Beyond that, I have no conclusions.
` Q. Okay. And have you ever come to a
`conclusion on behalf of Uniloc as to whether
`any of their patents' claims are valid or
`invalid?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, relevance,
` and form.
`
`Page 13
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`many were not.
` Q. Okay. All right. Dr. Easttom, you
`received a BA from Southeastern Oklahoma in
`1998, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And the BA you received in 1998 was
`in communications?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Now, that's not networking, correct?
`That's a general communications degree?
` A. Sort of. That's what the degree
`was. I focused a lot on radio communication,
`things of that nature. I also took a great
`many computer classes, just didn't bother to
`major in it. And also by that time, I had
`already worked in the IT industry for quite a
`few years.
` Q. Okay. The BA you received in 1998
`was not a technical degree, was it?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. You did not receive any
`technical degree from Southeastern Oklahoma,
`correct?
` A. Not a technical degree, but a great
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 4 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`many technical and scientific courses, yes.
` Q. Okay. And those, what you call
`"great number of technical and scientific
`courses," did not earn you a degree at
`Southeastern Oklahoma, a technical degree, did
`it?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form.
` A. No. I had this habit of being
`interested in everything and taking a huge
`number of courses outside the main scope of the
`degree.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. You did not receive a
`computer science or electrical engineering
`degree from Southeastern Oklahoma, did you?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. You received a Master's of
`Education from Southeastern Oklahoma in 2000,
`correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And that Master's of Education was
`not a technical degree either, was it?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. And that Master's of
`
`Page 16
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`Administration considered a technical degree?
` A. Yes. In fact, the degree literally
`says "Master's of Business Administration in
`Applied Computer Science."
` The MBA is simply because the school
`that offered the program was the School of
`Business.
` Q. Okay. So the School of Business at
`North Central University provided you a
`technical degree?
` A. At that time, that's where they
`offered their computer science program. Now,
`I've been told that they've since split the
`computer science off into its own separate
`school. But at that time, that's how it was
`done.
` Q. Okay. And the degree you received
`as an MBA at North Central University was -- or
`you graduated in 2011?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. Now, you also received a
`degree from Capital Technology University; is
`that correct?
` A. That is correct.
`
`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
`
`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 15
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`Education was not a computer science or
`electrical engineering degree, was it?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Now, your next degree was an
`MBA from North Central University, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And the MBA degree was an online
`course?
` A. Yes, it was distance learning.
` Q. Okay. And the MBA degree is not a
`technical degree either, is it?
` A. In this case, that's not correct.
`It was applied computer science, literally. I
`only took two business classes. Everything
`else was graduate level computer science
`courses, including advanced courses in
`networking, programming, artificial
`intelligence, database management, things of
`that nature.
` Q. So MBA is Master's in Business
`Association, correct?
` A. Actually, it's Master's in Business
`Administration.
` Q. Okay. Is your Master's in Business
`
`Page 17
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. Was that an online course?
` A. No. There was some parts of it done
`by distance learning, some parts done in
`in-person residencies --
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. -- and, of course, the college
`itself has a number of completely on-campus
`programs, dormitories. It's a traditional
`university. They just allow you to take some
`degrees or portions of some degrees by distance
`learning.
` Q. Okay. And was your focus at Capital
`Technology University on cyber security?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And your dissertation was on
`post quantum cryptography?
` A. Specifically, it was a comparative
`study of lattice-based algorithms for use in
`post quantum cryptography.
` Q. Okay. And what date did you receive
`your Ph.D. from Capital Technology University?
` A. Well, first, it's actually a doctor
`of science as opposed to a doctor of
`philosophy. So it's a DSc.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 5 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. Okay.
` A. But I got the call -- this is kind
`of weird the way this works on a doctorate.
`Your coursework is not the issue; it's when
`your dissertation's accepted.
` And I actually got a call
`October 4th that the committee had accepted my
`dissertation.
` I should also mention there's one
`other item that's not on the CV. I was
`concurrently working on a Master's in Systems
`Engineering from University of Texas. I have
`one more course to finish this semester, and
`that will be completed.
` Q. Was the first time you received a
`technical degree from a university or college
`in 2011?
` A. A degree that was specifically
`technical? Yes.
` Q. Okay. Prior to the BA you received
`in 1998 in communications from Southeastern
`Oklahoma, what relevant job experience did you
`have in networking?
` A. Sure. When I left the Army in 1991,
`
`Page 20
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. Okay. Do you believe you are
`considered a person of ordinary skill in the
`art as related to the technology in the '158
`patent, as of January 1999?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And why is that?
` A. Based on experience, training, and
`by '99--we're going a year later--I had already
`been running all of the network, including the
`network administrators actually worked for me
`as well as the web administrators for over a
`year, year and a half, which is relatively
`intense experience.
` Prior to that, several years of
`technical support, which involved networking,
`several years of programming, which involved
`applications that had to interact with the
`network. And in those days, programming was a
`little different. To make something work over
`network, you had to understand the network and
`write that code yourself, as opposed to today,
`some of that's automatically done in the
`background for a programmer.
` Q. Okay. What do you consider yourself
`
`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
`
`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 19
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`for the next several years, I had worked a
`variety of technical jobs, ranging from
`technical support to web development, and the
`technical support jobs usually involved
`assisting in setting up small networks, that
`sort of thing.
` And by the time I finished the BA at
`Southeastern, they actually hired me to run
`their academic computing department. So I was
`responsible for the entire network of the
`university.
` Q. Okay. And when did the university
`hire you to be responsible for the entire
`network?
` A. Last semester of my bachelor's. And
`that's why I continued on with the master's.
`It was very cheap tuition for employees.
` Q. So was that in 1998?
` A. Either that or the fall of '97.
`It's hard to recall after 20 years.
` Q. Would you say that as of 1998, you
`had over five years of experience in
`networking?
` A. Yes.
`
`Page 21
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`an expert in?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, there's quite a few topics.
`Do you really want me to list every single one?
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Yes.
` A. Okay. Computer programming and
`software engineering, computer networking,
`cellular communications, computer architecture,
`computer cryptography and just cryptography in
`general, digital forensics, computer security,
`engineering processes.
` And those broad topics include quite
`a few subtopics, but those would be the broad
`areas.
` Q. Okay. Anything else?
` A. Nothing that comes to mind as I'm
`sitting here right now.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert
`in Java and remote programming of Java?
` A. Yes.
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form.
` A. Yes.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
`
`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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 6 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. When did you become an expert in
`Java?
` MR. MANGRUM: Same objection.
` A. I don't think there's a specific
`fine white line where you're suddenly an
`expert, but I've worked with Java since its
`initial release.
` By the early 2000s, I was publishing
`books on Java. I was teaching Java by
`2000/2001. So by any objective measurement, I
`would certainly be an expert at least by that
`time.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. And you considered yourself a
`person of ordinary skill in the art with
`respect to computer networking in January of
`1999, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. When did you move from being a
`person of ordinary skill in the art to an
`expert in computer networking?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, you'll have to define what
`your criteria is for an expert.
`
`Page 24
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. When did you consider yourself an
`expert in computer networking.
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form, asked
` and answered, and scope and relevance.
` A. I repeat. I would need to
`understand. Are you referring to an expert as
`per Federal Rule 702, as per my -- just my own
`personal opinion of what an expert is, or at
`what point did someone other than myself refer
`to me as an expert?
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. All right. Well, let's take each of
`those, then.
` What do you consider to be an expert
`under Federal Rule 702?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, calls for a
` legal conclusion.
` A. I am not an attorney, but the plain
`reading of the rule I believe says someone
`whose skill and knowledge can aid a trier of
`fact, a judge or jury, in understanding, and
`that's a relatively low bar. So I certainly
`would have been expert under those criteria
`sometime in the mid 1990s.
`
`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
`
`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 23
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Well, sir, you told me you thought
`you were an expert. I'm just wondering when
`you considered yourself to be an expert in
`computer networking?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, the reason I asked my
`clarifying question is are you asking expert as
`defined by Federal Rule 702, my personal
`opinion of what expertise is, or at what point
`someone else referred to me as an expert?
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. I'm simply asking you on how you
`considered yourself an expert in computer
`networking, when you considered yourself an
`expert in computer networking?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form.
` A. Well, if you can identify which of
`those three criteria or some other criteria
`we're calling expert, I'm happy to answer.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. I've just told you what that is.
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
`
`Page 25
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. And when -- you apparently
`have a different opinion of what an expert is
`than Rule 702.
` So when did you consider yourself an
`expert in computer networking?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form, and
` foundation and scope.
` A. Well, my opinion of an expert's a
`little tighter than that, a little more high
`end. I think an expert should be one who could
`inform one of ordinary skill in the art. In
`other words, you know enough that you could at
`least teach something to one of ordinary skill
`in the art.
` So I would say by sometime in '98,
`there were at least some aspects of networking
`that I knew that were not common to most
`standard network administrators.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. When was the first time
`someone referred to you as an expert --
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection --
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
`
`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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 7 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`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
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` Q. -- in computer networking?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, relevance,
`scope, and foundation and form.
` A. Now, that one, oddly enough, is
`actually earlier. But '96, a few other people
`had referred to me in that way.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Actually, I'm sorry. It just comes
`to mind. By '96 -- I'm trying to remember
`whether it was '95 or '96. I was working
`programming and I was actually asked to
`reconfigure the network for that programming
`department, and it was at that point, I think
`the head software engineering called me our
`networking expert.
` Q. Okay. Now, you said that there are
`some aspects of networking that you knew were
`not common to most standard network
`administrators.
` What aspects of networking were not
`common to most standard network administrators
`in the 1990s?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, relevance,
` foundation and form.
`
`Page 28
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`knowledge of a standard network operator was in
`the 1990s?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form,
` foundation, and scope.
` A. Well, actually, what I had stated is
`it's difficult for me to recall the very
`specific questions people asked me, because I
`get asked my opinion on technical issues so
`frequently to remember even last year specific
`questions I got asked would be difficult much
`less 20, 22 years ago.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. So I'll ask my question
`again. Is it difficult for you to recall what
`the knowledge of a standard network operator
`was in the 1990s?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form,
` foundation, relevance, and scope.
` A. No, that's a different question.
`That's not difficult to recall.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. How do you know what the
`knowledge of a standard network operator was in
`the 1990s?
`
`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
`
`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
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` A. Well, it's been over --
` MR. MANGRUM: I'm sorry. And scope.
` A. It's been over 20 years. It's very
`difficult to remember specifics, but I do
`recall on several occasions people, who were
`themselves network administrators, asked me to
`aid them with some particular situation they
`were unable to solve.
` But asking me to remember the
`particulars after over 20 years, I can't.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. So is it difficult for you to recall
`specifics of the networks in the 1990s?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, misstates
` record, foundation, form, and scope.
` A. Well, that wasn't your previous
`question. Are you asking me now to describe
`networks in general or are you asking me to
`describe the knowledge of networking held by
`your average network administrator at the time?
`Two different questions.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. Well, let's -- I'll stick
`with is it difficult for you to recall what the
`
`Page 29
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` MR. MANGRUM: Same objections.
` A. There are three bases for that
`opinion. Bases number 1: What was taught in a
`standard networking class, because although I
`didn't get a technical agree, I did take a few
`networking classes.
` Bases number 2: What was in
`standard networking certifications, for
`example, the CompTIA and Network+, what they
`expected an average network administrator to
`know.
` And bases number 3 would be my
`interaction with other network administrators
`at the time.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. Have you ever owned a
`PalmPilot?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form,
` foundation, scope.
` A. Yes.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. When was the first time you owned a
`PalmPilot?
` A. It was late '90s. I can't recall
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 8 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`specifically when.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you--I
`think we were given some questions here--a copy
`of the '158 patent --
` MR. MCDOLE: Is this 1001?
`(Question to co-counsel.)
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. -- which was previously marked as
`Exhibit 1001.
` (Deposition Exhibit 1001 introduced.)
` MR. MANGRUM: Counsel, our version
` is not marked.
` MR. MCDOLE: I don't think any of
` them were marked because at --
` Was it some point? (Question to
` co-counsel.)
` If you want, we can remark it, but I
` don't think we need to.
` MR. MANGRUM: Well, if counsel is
` willing to stipulate that this is not the
` copy that was filed as Exhibit 1001, but
` is, in fact, a true and correct copy of
` U.S. patent number 6,216,158, then we can
` consider this to be simply a copy of that
`
`Page 32
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Well, as a person of ordinary skill
`in the art and you considering yourself an
`expert in computer networking in 1990, do you
`believe that palm-sized computers -- the
`adoption of palm-sized computers was rapid in
`the 1990s?
` MR. MANGRUM: Same objections.
` A. Have no opinion on whether it was
`rapid or not. That's an ambiguous term.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. So you consider the statement
`"the adoption of palm-sized computers has been
`rapid" to be ambiguous?
` A. No, that's not what I said. I said
`the word "rapid." I don't know what the
`inventor meant by that.
` Q. Okay. Do you believe that tech --
`the advancement of technology related to
`palm-sized computers in the 1990s was rapid?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, scope.
` A. I wouldn't have defined it that way,
`because the word rapid may mean something
`different to you than it did to me, but they
`
`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
`
`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 31
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
` patent.
` MR. MCDOLE: It -- yeah, it's just a
` copy of the '158 patent. Yeah.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. If I could have you turn to column
`1.
` A. (Complied.)
` Q. And I'd like to ask you a question
`under Description of the Related Art, which
`is -- starts at approximately line 12 of column
`1.
` Are you there?
` A. I am there.
` Q. Okay. Second sentence says, "The
`adoption of palm-sized computers has been
`rapid."
` Do you see that?
` A. I see that.
` Q. Do you agree with that statement?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form,
` foundation and scope.
` A. Haven't given it any thought. I'm
`not sure how the inventor defined the term
`"rapid."
`
`Page 33
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`were certainly advances happening periodically.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. Well, would you say that
`advances as related to palm-sized computers
`were happening quickly?
` MR. MANGRUM: Same objection. I'll
` add foundation, form.
` A. I don't recall having opined on the
`speed in my Declaration at any point, and I
`have no opinion on the speed now.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. You do have an opinion on the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art in the 1990s, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. How did you determine the
`skill of someone -- strike that.
` How did you determine and decipher
`the skill of a person of -- let me try it a
`third time here.
` A. Sure.
` Q. How did you determine and decipher
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art in the -- at the time of the patent as
`
`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
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`9
`
`APPL-1032 / IPR2018-00361
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 9 of 37
`
`

`

`Page 34
`
` Easttom - 1-10-2019
`opposed to two years later?
` MR. MANGRUM: Objection, form. Just
` form.
` A. Basically, technology had changed
`over the next two years, and therefore, I would
`expect one of ordinary skill in the art to
`maybe know new things, because one of ordinary
`skill in the art is not expected to know the
`cutting-edge research. That would be someone
`beyond one of ordinary skill in the art.
` I expect one of ordinary skill in
`the art to understand those things that you can
`go buy off the shelf at an electronics store.
`Not those things that some engineering
`researcher is developing and may come out with
`next year.
`BY MR. MCDOLE:
` Q. Okay. Do you think that a -- that
`the knowledge of a p