`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp,
`Inc.,
` Petitioners,
` U.S. Patent No.
` v. 8,995,433
`Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A.,
` Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF EXPERT
` TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
` MARCH 9, 2018
`
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California
`
`REPORTED BY:
`Siew G. Ung
`CSR No. 13994, RPR, CSR
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 1
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` For the Petitioner:
` ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
` BRETT A. MANGRUM, ESQ.
` P.O. Box 20969
` Charleston, South Carolina 29413
` 843.614.0007
` brett@etheridgelaw.com
` For the Patent Owner:
` COOLEY LLP
` LOWELL MEAD, ESQ.
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California, 94304
` 650.843.5734
` lmead@cooley.com
` FACEBOOK, INC.
` STACY S. CHEN, ESQ.
` 300 Constitution Drive
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` Also Present:
` JAYSON SAYLOR, Videographer
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 2
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`3
`
` INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS
`
` WITNESS: TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`BY MR. MANGRUM 6
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`
`6789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 3
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`4
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
` EXPERT
` TAL LAVIAN
` Siew G. Ung CSR No. 13994, RPR
`
`MARKED DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1001 March 31, 2015, United States 14
` Patent No. US 8,995,433 B2
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Tal Lavian in 22
` Support of Petition for Inter
` Partes Review of U.S. Patent
` No. 8,995,433
`
`Exhibit 1008 April 20, 2004, United States 24
` Patent No. US 6,725,228 B1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 4
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`5
`
` PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA;
` FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2018, 10:19 A.M.
` ***
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going on the
`record at 10:19 a.m. on March 9, 2018. This is DVD
`No. 1 of the video deposition of Dr. Tal Lavian
`taken by the patent owner in the matter of
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., versus Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A., filed in the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board. Number is IPR2017-01427. This deposition is
`being held at 3175 Hanover Street in the City of
`Palo Alto, California.
` My name is Jason Saylor, and I am the
`videographer; the court reporter is Siew Ung, both
`on behalf of the firm Complete Legal with offices in
`Dallas, Texas.
` Will counsel and all present please state
`your appearances and affiliations for the record.
` MR. MANGRUM: I'll start. This is Brett
`Mangrum with the Etheridge Law Group on behalf of
`the Uniloc entity, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., and I
`will be taking the deposition today.
` MR. MEAD: Lowell Mead with Cooley LLP on
`behalf of the petitioners. And also present is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 5
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`6
`
`Stacy Chen with Facebook.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`please swear in the witness and then we can begin.
` TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn, was examined and
` testified as follows.
` EXAMINATION BY MR. MANGRUM
` Q. Okay. Mr. Lavian, can you hear me okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. I'm sorry, Dr. Lavian.
` Could you please state your full name and
`address for the record.
` A. Tal Lavian. 1640 Mariani Drive,
`Sunnyvale, California, 94087.
` Q. Okay. Apparently we live in sister
`cities. I live in Sunnyvale, Texas.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I didn't know if you were aware there was
`another Sunnyvale.
` All right. Are you aware you'll be
`deposed today in not only the matter of
`IPR2017-01427, but also the related matter 01428?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 6
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`7
`
` Q. Okay. Have you been deposed before in
`matters pending before the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I'm just going to go through a few
`ground rules, and this is probably all familiar to
`you, but actually, just let me get an idea. How
`often -- how many times have you been deposed?
` A. I believe over 50.
` Q. Okay. You're probably aware of the next
`several questions, but just to make certain that we
`don't talk past each other, there's -- there's -- I
`want to be certain we both understand there are some
`differences between a deposition and civil
`conversation. You're aware that a court reporter is
`going to be attempting to transcribe everything you
`say?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And so I'd just remind you -- and I'm sure
`you're well aware of this, that let's try not to
`talk over each other, particularly given that we
`don't have immediate face contact in front of each
`other. So let's just take care that you wait until
`I finish my question before you answer, and I'll
`extend the same courtesy. I'll attempt to wait to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 7
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`8
`
`ask a follow-up question until you given your full
`answer. Do you understand?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Okay. And in order to facilitate the
`deposition, if possible, I might try to rephrase a
`question and then have you answer the -- the
`question that I rephrased. Would you understand
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And already you've -- you've
`answered questions "yes" and "no," and I appreciate
`that. But because this is an oral transcription,
`the court reporter cannot indicate head nods or --
`or gestures or things like "huh-uh," and so I'd
`appreciate you giving verbal answers.
` Do you understand the importance of that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you understand your answers today
`are under oath and could subject you to potential
`criminal charges of perjury for willfully giving
`false, misleading or incomplete testimony under
`oath?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is there any reason, such as being
`under undue stress, a physical or mental condition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 8
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`9
`or being under the influence of any substances, that
`would prevent you or limit you from testifying
`truthfully today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Now, there's nothing wrong with you
`asking me to repeat a question or -- or perhaps even
`having the court reporter read back a question or
`ask me to explain something.
` However, if you answer my question, I'm
`going to assume that you understood it. Do you
`understand this?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Also, if you need to take a break,
`just let me know, and we'll go off the record. I
`would just simply ask that if there's a question
`pending, that you would first give a complete answer
`to that question before break.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is that fair, Doctor?
` Did you bring any documents with you
`today?
` A. No.
` Q. You understand that over the course of the
`deposition, we may be taking a look at some
`documents?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 9
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`10
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I believe, at least initially, we may
`be using a digital version of documents.
` Are -- are you going to -- is that -- are
`you comfortable looking at an iPad to look at
`digital copies of documents?
` A. It would be better to use paper. Can we
`get a printout? It would be much easier for me.
` MR. MEAD: Brett, this is Lowell Mead. So
`I do have printouts of the five exhibits that
`you-all had indicated. And I know that your-all
`copies are still on the way via FedEx, so -- so if
`needed, we have courtesy copies that the witness
`could look at on paper instead of the iPad.
` MR. MANGRUM: I -- I would prefer that
`just as long as you stipulate they're clean copies,
`no annotations.
` MR. MEAD: Yes.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. So, Dr. Lavian, what -- is English your
`first language?
` A. No.
` Q. What's your first language?
` A. Hebrew.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 10
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`11
`
` Q. Okay. And I'll -- I generally speak
`quickly. If I -- if you find that I'm speaking too
`fast, you just tell me to slow down, and I'll try to
`make certain there's nothing lost in my speed of
`speech. Is that fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Have you testified as an expert on
`behalf of Facebook before?
` A. I believe it [sic], yes.
` Q. And do you know approximately how many
`times?
` A. Not on top of my head.
` Q. Is it -- was it more than ten?
` A. I -- I don't have it in front of me. I
`cannot say.
` Q. What about on behalf of WhatsApp?
` A. That's the reason that Facebook, WhatsApp,
`and other might be different. I don't have -- I
`don't have the list in front of me, so I don't know.
` Q. Have you testified at least one other time
`on behalf of either entity?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. Okay. How many -- how many times have you
`submitted declarations to the PTAB in -- in an IPR
`matter if you had to guess?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 11
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`12
`
` (Reporter clarification.)
` THE WITNESS: I don't know on top of my
`head, but I believe over 50.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. And do you know approximately how
`many of those times you've submitted declarations on
`behalf of Facebook?
` A. Not on top of my head.
` Q. Okay. Was it -- was it over five times?
` A. I don't know. Facebook has several
`different entities. I don't know.
` Q. Let me -- let me just speak in more
`general terms because I'm trying to get you numbers.
` How many times have you submitted
`declarations on behalf of petitioners or for a
`petitioner in general?
` A. I believe over 50. I don't know. I don't
`know off the top of my head.
` Q. Have you submitted declarations on behalf
`of the patent owner -- a patent owner to the Patent
`Office?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And generally, what's the balance of --
`what percentage of the time are you testifying on
`behalf of petitioner as opposed to the patent owner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 12
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`13
`
` A. I don't know. I need to look at the
`information. I don't know. Not on top of my head.
` Q. Okay. Is it close to an even balance or
`do you mostly testify -- have you mostly had
`experience testifying on behalf of petitioner?
` A. I believe mostly for the petitioners.
` Q. When testifying for a petitioner in front
`of the PTAB, have you ever found a claim to be
`valid?
` A. It's not my job to find. It's the job of
`the judges. I'm not the judge.
` Q. Have you ever had a -- formulated an
`opinion as to whether or not a claim was valid or
`invalid?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So let me rephrase. When
`testifying for petitioner, have you ever formulated
`an opinion that a claim is valid?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So to make sure I understand your answer,
`that there has been a matter where you were
`testifying on behalf of the petitioner and came to
`the conclusion that a patent claim is valid, not
`invalid? That was -- that was "yes"?
` A. I need to think about it. Just one
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 13
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`14
`
`second.
` Q. Sure.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And can you recall what matter that was?
` A. Yes. Alacritech.
` Q. Could you spell that for the convenience
`of the court reporter.
` A. I -- I don't know to spell it. I -- I
`think, sound, "Alacritech." I'm not exactly sure
`how to spell it right now.
` Q. Do you have any stock in Facebook?
` A. No.
` Q. In WhatsApp?
` A. No.
` Q. Huawei?
` A. I don't have any stocks.
` Q. Oh. Let's see -- you don't. Thank you.
` MR. MANGRUM: Let's move on to the -- if
`you have a copy of the patent in front of you, this
`was -- it should be previously marked as Exhibit
`1001.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1001 was marked
` for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`///
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 14
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`15
`
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. Great. To make certain we're on
`the same page here, are you looking at a document
`that, at the top right-hand corner, it says
`"US 8,995,433 B2"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. Now, for the purposes of this
`deposition, I'm going to refer to this document as
`the '433 patent.
` Do you understand when I abbreviate the
`patent to '433, we're referring to the document
`before you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the phrase
`"priority date" in the context of patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And does the priority date matter when
`formulating opinions on patentability?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And how so?
` A. It's important, the priority. It's
`important, the date.
` Q. You have an understanding that the -- the
`priority date, that's kind of the time period for
`when prior art was applied?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 15
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`16
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Do you see, on Page 1 of the '433
`patent, the heading -- it's close to the -- in the
`middle of the left column, "Related U.S. Application
`Data"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And there's a paragraph that has a number
`63 next to it. Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And there are a number of application
`numbers listed, each as a continuation. Do you see
`that the phrase "continuation" is repeated?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with the term
`"continuation"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And the -- the latest continuation
`listed -- I said latest. I should say the earliest
`in terms of date is December 18th, 2003. Do you see
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it pertains to U.S. Patent
`No. 7,535,890 --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- correct? Okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 16
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`17
`
` And do you recall what priority date you
`applied in formulating your opinions in these
`matters?
` A. I believe that's the priority date.
` Q. Which date is that?
` A. You just read, 2003 -- December 2003.
` Q. December 18th, 2003, correct? Okay.
` Are you aware that during prosecution of
`the application of issues, has that last patent, the
`7,535,890 patent, that the inventor, Michael Rojas,
`filed a declaration? It was a 37 CFR 1.131
`declaration.
` (Reporter clarification.)
` MR. MANGRUM: Let me try and rephrase the
`question. It was a long question.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Let me ask it this way: Dr. Lavian, did
`you read the file history for U.S. Patent
`No. 7,535,890 in formulating your opinions?
` A. I've reviewed the file history of the '433
`and the relevant material.
` Q. But my question was: Did you -- did you
`read the file history of the -- the parent patent --
`the parent patent 7,535,890?
` A. No, I didn't look at this one.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 17
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`18
`
` Q. All right. So are you aware that there
`was a declaration filed by the inventor in that
`parent patent, the '890 patent?
` A. No, I'm not aware of --
` Q. So you didn't review that declaration in
`determining what priority date to apply, correct?
` A. The judge -- the lawyer told me what is
`priority date they should look at.
` Q. Okay. Let me -- let's move on to -- just
`-- I'm going to ask you some questions in general.
`Your -- you have -- do you have a general background
`in -- well, actually I think you're -- sorry, strike
`that. Let me start even more general.
` Are -- are you familiar with the phrase
`"software architecture"?
` A. Which phrase?
` Q. Just in general, are you familiar with the
`-- a term of art, "software architecture"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So let me -- let me rephrase it this way,
`it might be easier for you to answer. Is
`"architecture" a term of art in computer technology?
` A. Architecture can be many different things.
` Q. What does it mean in the context of
`software?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 18
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`19
`
` A. Architecture can be the architecture of
`the processor that the software [sic] running on.
`Architecture can be the architecture of the
`periphere [sic] that software is running on.
`Architecture can be architecture of the networking
`that software is connected to. Architecture can be
`many different things.
` Q. And if -- and if I could have you limit
`your answer to software, how can software have an
`architecture? What -- what would that mean?
` A. Architecture is a term of art that's
`related to the entire system. Software cannot be
`alone. Software is part of networking, of storage,
`of databases, of communications, of many different
`things. It's very hard for me to think about
`architecture of software alone.
` Q. But -- but software does have -- software
`can have an architecture?
` A. It is possible, but usually when you are
`talking about architecture, you are talking about
`architecture of a system. System includes hardware,
`software, storage, database, networking and many
`more things.
` Q. Let me ask you about the word
`"application." Would a -- would a person of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 19
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`20
`
`ordinary skill in the art -- let's say, just in
`general, the 2003 time frame, would they understand
`the word "application" to -- to refer exclusively to
`"hardware"?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand
`exactly what you mean by this.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Sure. Let me -- let me -- okay. Let me
`break my question apart. I'm going to ask you to
`answer as a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`2003.
` So I'm asking you: Do you have an
`understand- -- you gave an opinion as to what you
`felt a person of ordinary skill in the art was in
`2003, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So from that perspective, and to
`make this deposition easier, I'm going to refer to
`that person -- that hypothetical person as a POSITA,
`P-O-S-I-T-A for the acronym, person of ordinary
`skill in the art. You understand when I say the
`term "POSITA," I'm referring to that whole phrase?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. It's just to help with my
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 20
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`21
`
`questioning. Okay.
` So thinking of a POSITA in 2003, would a
`POSITA understand the word "application" to refer
`exclusively to hardware --
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. -- in the context -- in the context of
`computer architecture?
` A. It depends.
` Q. It depends on what?
` A. On many different things.
` Q. Okay. So I'm asking you what -- when you
`say -- when you say you're speaking of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, what -- what art or skill
`are you referring to?
` A. I applied -- it's in my report, the
`specifics. You want me to look at my report?
` Q. I'm just curious -- I'm curious what
`field -- what art do you consider to be pertinent to
`the '433 patent?
` A. I would like -- can I look at my report,
`please?
` Q. Is it in front of you?
` A. Not in front of me, but I can get it
`from -- it's on the side.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 21
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`22
`
` I would appreciate if I can get it.
` Q. If you want to testify from the report,
`you're -- you're welcome to.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1002 was marked
` for identification.)
` THE WITNESS: Okay. So I described in my
`report in Paragraph 15 and 16 the definition of
`my -- of person of ordinary skill -- of POSITA.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Does that paragraph identify the
`particular field that's relevant to the '433 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what would you consider that skill to
`be?
` A. In my opinion, person of ordinary skill in
`the art in December 2013 would have a
`professional -- at least a bachelor's degree in
`computer science, computer engineering or electrical
`engineering with at least two years of experience in
`development or in programming relating to network
`communication systems or equivalent degree or
`experience.
` Q. Okay. Now, considering those fields that
`you just mentioned, would a -- would a POSITA in
`those fields understand the word "application" to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 22
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`23
`
`refer exclusively to hardware?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's -- can be hardware as
`well, yes. Possibly it's hardware. It depends.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. But my question -- my question is not "can
`be hardware." My question is: Would they have
`understood "application" to refer exclusively to
`hardware?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, it's possible.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. How do you -- you have your declaration in
`front of you, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I want to have you turn to Paragraph 52 of
`your declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. The second line of Paragraph 52 states, "A
`person of ordinary skill in the art typically uses
`the term 'application' to refer to computer software
`for performing a particular function."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you stand by that statement today?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 23
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`24
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay.
` Does the '433 patent offer an explicit
`definition for the term "application"?
` A. No.
` Q. Let's -- do you also have Exhibit 1008
`within reach, which is the Clark reference?
` THE WITNESS: I can ask the lawyer.
` Can I get it?
` MR. MEAD: Yes.
` THE WITNESS: Okay, I've got a copy.
` Yes, I have a printed copy.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you some questions
`where we'll be referring to this reference for a
`while, so you want to keep that on top.
` A. Sure.
` Q. And actually, let me make sure I'm
`following here on my own -- my own papers. I'm
`flipping in Exhibit 1008, the Clark reference --
` THE WITNESS: So just to be -- just to be
`easier, can you could please mark '8- --
`Exhibit 1008? That would be easier for me.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit 1008 was marked
` for identification.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 24
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`25
`
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Sure, you're asking her to refer to this
`document as 1008; is that what you're asking?
` A. No, I just asked the court reporter just
`to mark it. That's all.
` Q. Oh, sure.
` A. So now I'll know what is 1008. I will not
`know without marking. Okay.
` Q. Okay, I understand. What you're saying
`is -- let me ask you this. On the bottom of your
`document, are you -- does it have an exhibit number
`or it doesn't have it --
` A. No.
` Q. -- the bottom right-hand side?
` A. No. I have a clean copy.
` MR. MEAD: So, Brett, to be clear -- so
`the court reporter has just put a sticker on it now,
`on the copy that we brought, which is a clean copy.
` MR. MANGRUM: This wasn't a -- the same
`copy that was filed? It's the same document, just
`not the -- just not the Bates-labeled copy that was
`filed?
` MR. MEAD: That's right.
` MR. MANGRUM: Okay. That's fair enough.
`///
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 25
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`26
`
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. All right. Dr. Lavian, perhaps I will
`just refer to this -- well, I'll try to be
`consistent.
` A. Call it Clark. It's easier for me. Call
`it Clark. It's much easier for me.
` Q. Yeah, yeah. I had assumed that we had a
`marking on it -- the bottom of each right-hand side
`of it.
` MR. MEAD: But let's refer to it as Clark,
`and we'll note for the record that we're referring
`to Exhibit 1008, which in the 1428 matter was
`relabeled Exhibit 1108.
` THE WITNESS: It's much easier for me --
`much easier for me, Clark reference, thanks.
` MR. MANGRUM: Sure. I'll refer to it as
`the Clark reference.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. I'd like to have you turn to Figure 5A of
`the Clark reference. And if you're looking at the
`top of the -- of each page, it says "Sheet 6 of 33."
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And there is a -- there are two
`elements featured here -- or at least two larger
`boxes, one identified as Reference No. 28 in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 26
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`27
`
`upper left and another with a Reference No. 23
`towards the bottom. Do you see those two
`references?
` A. Yes.
` Q. One pertains to the -- what's identified
`as "catalog" on the right-hand side of the box. The
`"23" pertains to the message storer on the
`right-hand side of the box. Do you see where it's
`labeled?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is it your understanding that
`Element 23 of Figure 5A of Clark is a database?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's part of a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And is it -- why do you qualify "it's part
`of a database"?
` A. Because we have here the schema of the
`database.
` Q. Oh, I see. So what you're saying is what
`is shown inside Block 28 shows part of the schema of
`the database? That's what you're saying?
` A. Yes, including the pages of the database,
`yes -- the tables of the database.
` Q. Okay. And then I'm going to ask you the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 27
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`same question with respect to Element 28. Is it
`your understanding that Element 28 of Clark -- I'm
`sorry, let me be more specific.
` Is it your understanding that Element 28
`of Figure 5A of Clark is a database?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's representing a schema
`and tables of a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Is "database" a term of art?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And what is a database?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't have a -- I looked
`at the ordinary meaning of "database."
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And -- and -- and what is the ordinary
`meaning of a database in your opinion?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Database is a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. How -- how would you define "database"?
` MR. MEAD: Same objection.
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 28
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`29
` THE WITNESS: I didn't define it. It's --
`I used the ordinary meaning of a database.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay. Is it your testimony that
`"database" has a known connotation in the art as of
`2003?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It depends.
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. And here, in this Clark reference. Is --
`does Clark actually refer to the -- use the word
`"database" in its reference?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is -- is Clark using the word
`"database" in the same -- according to the same
`ordinary meaning that you apply?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Is there -- do you understand if
`there's a difference between temporary memory and
`permanent storage in the context of computers?
` A. Can you please clarify your question --
`clarify your question.
` Q. Are you -- sure. Let me -- let me break
`that into pieces.
` Are you familiar with what's referred to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Facebook v. Uniloc, IPR2017-1668
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 29
`
`
`
`TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D
`
`30
`
`as temporary memory -- temporary memory in the
`computer arts?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And are you familiar with the phrase
`"permanent storage" in the computer arts?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is there a difference known in the art
`between temporary memory and permanent storage?
` A. It depends.
` Q. And what -- then what would be some
`differences between those terms?
` A. It depends in many -- depends on many
`different things.
` Q. I -- I can -- and that's what I'm asking
`you to answer. Just go ahead and give me those
`things that it depends on.
` A. The size, the cost, the magnitude, the
`need, the speed. Many different things.
` Q. All those things would differentiate
`temporary memory from permanent storage?
` MR. MEAD: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It can. Several options --
`BY MR. MANGRUM:
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- yes, among many others.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Complete Legal
`
`2