·1· · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· ·________________________________
`
`·4· ·SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`·6· · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No.:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2018-00690
`·7
`· · ·FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR
`·8· ·FORDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN E.V.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·________________________________
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · ·VIDEO DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Newport Beach, California
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·Friday, February 7, 2020
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`· · ·Reported by:
`23· ·MICHELLE BULKLEY
`· · ·CSR #13658
`24· ·Job #299660
`
`25· ·PAGES 1 - 96
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 1
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· ·________________________________
`
`·4· ·SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`·6· · · · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No.:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2018-00690
`·7
`· · ·FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR
`·8· ·FORDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN E.V.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·________________________________
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · ·VIDEO DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Newport Beach, California
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·Friday, February 7, 2020
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`· · ·Reported by:
`23· ·MICHELLE BULKLEY
`· · ·CSR #13658
`24· ·Job #299660
`
`25· ·PAGES 1 - 96
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 1
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · Video Deposition of Expert WAYNE E.
`
`·4· ·STARK, Ph.D., taken on behalf of Petitioner, at 840
`
`·5· ·Newport Center Drive, Suite 400, Newport Beach,
`
`·6· ·California, beginning at 9:38 a.m. and ending at
`
`·7· ·1:52 p.m. on Friday, February 7, 2020, before
`
`·8· ·Michelle Bulkley, Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`·9· ·Number 13658.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 2
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · For Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· JEFFREY H. PRICE, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · ·1177 Avenue of the Americas
`· · · · · · · ·New York, NY 10036
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · For Patent Owner:
`
`·9· · · · · · ·IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· KAMRAN VAKILI, Ph.D., ESQ.
`10· · · · · · ·BY:· BEN J. YORKS, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`11· · · · · · ·Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · Also Present:
`
`15· · · · · · ·SHIMON GALILEY, Videographer
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 3
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · WITNESS:· WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.
`
`·4· ·EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·5· ·By Mr. Price· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · (NONE)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12· · · · · · ·WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · (NONE)
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · · · · ·INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · · (NONE)
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 4
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· ·MARKED· · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 2042 Declaration of Wayne E. Stark,· · · ·8
`· · · · · · · · · Ph.D.
`·4
`· · ·Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,314,289· · · · · · · · 9
`·5
`· · ·Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 6,347,122· · · · · · · ·68
`·6
`· · ·Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent 5,907,582· · · · · · · ·83
`·7
`· · ·Exhibit A· · Petition for Inter Partes· · · · · ·90
`·8· · · · · · · · Review of U.S. Patent No.
`· · · · · · · · · 6,314,289
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 5
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·Newport Beach, California
`
`·2· · · · · · Friday, February 7, 2020; 9:38 a.m.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are on the record at
`
`·5· ·9:38 a.m. on February 7, 2020.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Audio and video recording will continue to
`
`·7· ·take place until all parties agree to go off the
`
`·8· ·record.· Please note that microphones are sensitive
`
`·9· ·and may pick up whispering and private
`
`10· ·conversations.
`
`11· · · · · · ·This is the video-recorded deposition of
`
`12· ·Wayne E. Stark, taken by counsel for petitioner in
`
`13· ·the matter of Sirius XM Radio, Inc., v.
`
`14· ·Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Angewandten,
`
`15· ·filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`16· ·Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`17· · · · · · ·This deposition is being held at Irell &
`
`18· ·Manella located at 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite
`
`19· ·400, Newport Beach, California 92660.
`
`20· · · · · · ·My name is Shimon Galiley.· I am the
`
`21· ·videographer on behalf of U.S. Legal Support located
`
`22· ·at 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 400, Costa Mesa,
`
`23· ·California 92626.
`
`24· · · · · · ·The court reporter is Michelle Bulkley on
`
`25· ·behalf of U.S. Legal Support.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 6
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·I am not related to any party in this
`
`·2· ·action, nor am I financially interested in the
`
`·3· ·outcome.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Counsel, will you please state your
`
`·5· ·appearances for the record.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. PRICE:· This is Jeffrey Price
`
`·7· ·representing the petitioner Sirius XM, Inc.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Kamran Vakili of Irell &
`
`·9· ·Manella.· With me is Ben Yorks of Irell & Manella
`
`10· ·representing patent owner Fraunhofer.
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The court reporter may
`
`12· ·now swear in the witness.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · WAYNE E. STARK, Ph.D.,
`
`14· ·having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`
`15· ·testified as follows:
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`17· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·Good morning.
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·Good morning.
`
`20· · · · ·Q· ·Please state your full name and address
`
`21· ·for the record.
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Wayne Stark, 5277 Warren Road, Ann Arbor,
`
`23· ·Michigan 48105.
`
`24· · · · ·Q· ·Do you understand why you're here today?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 7
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·And why is that?
`
`·2· · · · ·A· ·Because there's an IPR petition.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·And what is your role associated with this
`
`·4· ·IPR petition?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·I wrote a declaration.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·And you wrote a declaration for which
`
`·7· ·party?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·For the Fraunhofer party.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·And Fraunhofer is the patent owner?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·I believe so.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·Do you recall whether your declaration
`
`12· ·provided an opinion on the validity of U.S. Patent
`
`13· ·number 6,314,289?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·Could you give me my declaration and I
`
`15· ·will review it?
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·I will give you your declaration and a
`
`17· ·copy of the patent.
`
`18· · · · · · ·I am first handing you a document that has
`
`19· ·been marked Exhibit 2042 in this case.
`
`20· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2042 marked.)
`
`21· · · · ·A· ·Will you give me the patent too?
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·I was going to just ask to make sure that
`
`23· ·that is --
`
`24· · · · ·A· ·Okay.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·-- your declaration after you went through
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 8
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·it.· It looked like you were taking your time with
`
`·2· ·it.· So take the time that you need.
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·It looks like my declaration.· I'd assume
`
`·4· ·it's correct.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1001 marked.)
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·I'm also handing you an exhibit that's
`
`·7· ·been marked Exhibit 1001 in this case.· Do you
`
`·8· ·recognize this document, Dr. Stark?
`
`·9· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·And what document is this?
`
`11· · · · ·A· ·This is U.S. Patent 6,314,289.
`
`12· · · · ·Q· ·And this is the patent that your
`
`13· ·declaration opines on; correct?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·Correct.
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Do you mind if we refer to this as the
`
`16· ·'289 patent today?
`
`17· · · · ·A· ·No.
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·And so could you tell me whether you've
`
`19· ·ever been deposed before?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·Roughly how many times?
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Probably, like, 15.
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Have you ever been deposed in an IPR
`
`24· ·proceeding before?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 9
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·And how about -- how many times?
`
`·2· · · · ·A· ·I don't know.· Maybe a half a dozen. I
`
`·3· ·don't know.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·Any other -- the balance were district
`
`·5· ·court proceedings?
`
`·6· · · · ·A· ·District court proceedings or ITC
`
`·7· ·proceedings or foreign proceedings.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q· ·So you know then I'm going to be asking
`
`·9· ·you a series of questions today, and we're going to
`
`10· ·require verbal answers because the reporter can't
`
`11· ·take down gestures?
`
`12· · · · ·A· ·Correct.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·And just for the sake of cleanliness of
`
`14· ·the record, I'll just ask you to wait till I finish
`
`15· ·my question before you start answering, and I'll
`
`16· ·extend the same courtesy to let you finish your
`
`17· ·entire answer before I move on to my next question.
`
`18· ·Does that sound good?
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·Sounds good.
`
`20· · · · ·Q· ·Dr. Stark, are you familiar with the
`
`21· ·concept of claim construction?
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·And what is your understanding of claim
`
`24· ·construction?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 10
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·conclusion.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, claims in a patent
`
`·3· ·should be construed to understand what they mean.
`
`·4· ·The terms in that claim should be construed to
`
`·5· ·understand what those terms mean.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·7· · · · ·Q· ·And I didn't see any overview of the legal
`
`·8· ·principles behind claim construction in your
`
`·9· ·declaration.· Did I miss it, or is that not in
`
`10· ·there?
`
`11· · · · ·A· ·Let me review it.
`
`12· · · · · · ·(Reviewing document.)
`
`13· · · · · · ·I believe it's in paragraph 29.
`
`14· · · · ·Q· ·So can you tell me -- so you applied the
`
`15· ·Phillips standard in construing the claims of the
`
`16· ·'289 patent?
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`18· ·conclusion.
`
`19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So as I understand, the '289
`
`20· ·patent has expired.· I believe my opinions as set
`
`21· ·forth below in my report are accurate under both the
`
`22· ·Phillips standard and the broadest reasonable
`
`23· ·interpretation standard of claim construction.
`
`24· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·Do you have an understanding of the
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 11
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·difference between the Phillips standard and the
`
`·2· ·broadest reasonable interpretation standard?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`·4· ·conclusion.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The Phillips standard is the
`
`·6· ·terms of giving their customary and ordinary meaning
`
`·7· ·as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`·8· ·art at the time of the invention in view of the
`
`·9· ·specification and examination history, whereas the
`
`10· ·broadest reasonable interpretation standard is -- is
`
`11· ·a -- in my view, a slightly different, more broad
`
`12· ·interpretation of the terms.
`
`13· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`14· · · · ·Q· ·Did you construe the claims of the '289
`
`15· ·patent?
`
`16· · · · ·A· ·I believe that I have a section about
`
`17· ·certain terms in the '289 patent and their
`
`18· ·construction.
`
`19· · · · ·Q· ·Is that beginning on page 9 of your
`
`20· ·declaration?
`
`21· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·Did you independently construe the claims
`
`23· ·that -- the claim terms that are explicitly
`
`24· ·construed here in the claim construction section, or
`
`25· ·were you asked to apply these constructions?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 12
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A· ·This is the construction that I used in
`
`·2· ·my -- forming my opinions about the claims.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·I understand that, but did you yourself
`
`·4· ·form the opinions on the construction of these claim
`
`·5· ·terms, or did counsel ask you to apply these
`
`·6· ·constructions?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·These are the constructions that I believe
`
`·8· ·are reasonable, and these are in my report.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·That's not my question.· My question was
`
`10· ·did you independently derive these constructions, or
`
`11· ·did counsel ask you to apply these constructions?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`13· ·answered.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, this is my report.
`
`15· ·These are my opinions about what these claims mean.
`
`16· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`17· · · · ·Q· ·You see in paragraph 22 where it says that
`
`18· ·you have been asked to consider the preambles of
`
`19· ·claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 as limiting?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·Who asked you to consider the preambles of
`
`22· ·the claims -- those claims as limiting?
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I've only been discussing this case with
`
`24· ·counsel.· I haven't been discussing this case with
`
`25· ·anyone else.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 13
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·So did counsel ask you to consider the
`
`·2· ·preambles of claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 as limiting?
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·That's what it -- I've been asked to do
`
`·4· ·that by counsel, yes.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q· ·And did counsel also ask you to apply the
`
`·6· ·following constructions to the means plus function
`
`·7· ·claims of the patent?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·Yes.· These are the means plus function
`
`·9· ·claims how -- these are the constructions for the
`
`10· ·mean plus function claims.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·And you only have explicit construction
`
`12· ·for the mean plus function claim terms in paragraphs
`
`13· ·23 through 27; is that correct?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·Correct.
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·So there's no explicit construction for
`
`16· ·any other claim term provided in your report;
`
`17· ·correct?
`
`18· · · · ·A· ·I believe that's correct.
`
`19· · · · ·Q· ·So in forming your opinion on whether or
`
`20· ·not the '289 patent is patentable or unpatentable,
`
`21· ·did you construe the other claim terms -- any other
`
`22· ·claim terms of the '289 patent?
`
`23· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`24· ·answered.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Did I construe them
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 14
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·explicitly or do I understand as someone -- what a
`
`·2· ·person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`·3· ·the terms to mean?
`
`·4· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·5· · · · ·Q· ·Let's take those two one at a time.· Did
`
`·6· ·you explicitly construe any other claim terms of the
`
`·7· ·'289 patent?
`
`·8· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`·9· ·answered.
`
`10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think the ones in
`
`11· ·paragraph -- paragraphs 23 to 27 are the only ones
`
`12· ·I've explicitly construed because they were means
`
`13· ·plus function terms.
`
`14· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Is it your understanding that only means
`
`16· ·plus function terms need explicit construction in an
`
`17· ·IPR proceeding?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`19· ·conclusion.
`
`20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know what the law is
`
`21· ·about what terms need to be construed or not
`
`22· ·construed.
`
`23· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`24· · · · ·Q· ·But you said that you've explicitly
`
`25· ·construed those terms because they were means plus
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 15
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·function terms.· What did you mean by that?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Misstates
`
`·3· ·testimony.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's my understanding that
`
`·5· ·means plus function terms need to be construed.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·7· · · · ·Q· ·So you also said that you -- well, tell
`
`·8· ·me, did you also under -- I'm sorry.· Withdrawn.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Did you also make a determination as to
`
`10· ·what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`11· ·understand any other claim terms in the '289 patent
`
`12· ·to mean?
`
`13· · · · ·A· ·Did I explicitly in my report, or did I
`
`14· ·just have it in my mind?
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Just in your mind.
`
`16· · · · ·A· ·Yes.· I had it in my mind what a person of
`
`17· ·ordinary skill in the art would understand at the
`
`18· ·time of the invention.
`
`19· · · · ·Q· ·So if I ask you questions about particular
`
`20· ·claim terms, you'll be able to tell me what was in
`
`21· ·your mind when you prepared your report?
`
`22· · · · ·A· ·Possibly.· We'll find out.
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Is it your understanding, when construing
`
`24· ·a claim term, that the term should be limited to an
`
`25· ·embodiment that's disclosed in the specification?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 16
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`
`·2· ·conclusion.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My understanding is that a
`
`·4· ·patentee can explicitly define some terms in the
`
`·5· ·specification that give that term special meaning --
`
`·6· ·meaning, but a term in general should be given its
`
`·7· ·understanding to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`·8· ·art in light of the specification.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·In your opinion, did you determine that
`
`11· ·the '289 patent explicitly defined any terms in the
`
`12· ·specification that gave that term a special meaning?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Compound; vague.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not apply any special
`
`15· ·definition to any term that -- that the patentee
`
`16· ·gave a special definition to.
`
`17· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·In coming to your understanding on the
`
`19· ·meaning of various terms in the '289 patent, can you
`
`20· ·tell me what sources of information you relied upon?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe I came -- I mean,
`
`23· ·my general understanding over many years of teaching
`
`24· ·and research of wireless communication systems was
`
`25· ·the main, you know, thing I relied on.· I mean, I
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 17
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·think there was other references that I made to
`
`·2· ·books that I used.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·Did you rely on the specification of the
`
`·5· ·'289 patent in order to come to your understanding
`
`·6· ·of what the claim terms mean?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·Well, that's part of understanding what a
`
`·8· ·claim means in general is looking at the
`
`·9· ·specification.· That's the first place you look.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·So you mentioned that you used your
`
`11· ·knowledge and some other -- and potentially some
`
`12· ·other books to construe -- or come to your
`
`13· ·understanding of what certain claim terms mean;
`
`14· ·correct?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Misstates
`
`16· ·testimony.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe just to understand
`
`18· ·the whole patent and other references, I -- other
`
`19· ·patents that were alleged to have certain of the
`
`20· ·claim elements of the '289 patent, I relied on some
`
`21· ·other books just for reference.
`
`22· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Did you list those books that you used to
`
`24· ·reference in your report?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·I believe I referenced the books, but did
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 18
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·I have a list of them explicitly?· I don't think
`
`·2· ·there was a list.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·Can you show me where you referenced those
`
`·4· ·books?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·Potentially.· If you go to page -- page
`
`·6· ·41, it references -- in the table there's Proakis.
`
`·7· ·That's a book.· There's also a book that I reference
`
`·8· ·by a person named Wessel, and I would have to search
`
`·9· ·to find out where I have that reference, but it's in
`
`10· ·there somewhere.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·How do you spell Wessel?
`
`12· · · · ·A· ·W-E-S -- I don't know if there's two S's
`
`13· ·or one S -- E-L.
`
`14· · · · ·Q· ·Is that the Exhibit 2049 referenced on
`
`15· ·page 26 of your declaration?
`
`16· · · · ·A· ·Yes, yes, I believe it is.
`
`17· · · · ·Q· ·Did you rely on -- in forming your
`
`18· ·opinions, did you rely on any sources of information
`
`19· ·that were not cited in your report?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·I don't think so.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·What did you do to prepare for today's
`
`22· ·deposition?
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I read my declaration, reviewed the
`
`24· ·patents.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·And what patents?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 19
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A· ·The patents at issue in this case.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·Is there more than one patent at issue in
`
`·3· ·this case?
`
`·4· · · · ·A· ·Well, there's the '289 patent, and then
`
`·5· ·there's the Chen patent and the Campanella patent.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Did you review the Smallcomb patent as
`
`·7· ·well?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·I did not.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·And why not?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·Well, because the only thing in my report
`
`11· ·about Smallcomb was not really -- I didn't really
`
`12· ·need to review that to prepare for my deposition.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·So is it correct that you didn't provide
`
`14· ·an analysis of whether or not Smallcomb taught the
`
`15· ·elements of the '289 patent claims?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not analyze Smallcomb.
`
`18· ·I was told that the priority date for the '289
`
`19· ·patent is 27 days before the Smallcomb filing date,
`
`20· ·so I was not asked to review that for analysis.
`
`21· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·Do you understand that Fraunhofer is also
`
`23· ·asserting that the Campanella patent is not prior
`
`24· ·art?
`
`25· · · · ·A· ·Yes.· I understand that there's some issue
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 20
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·about that.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·But you did provide an analysis -- a
`
`·3· ·technical analysis of whether Campanella taught
`
`·4· ·various claim elements of the '289 patent; correct?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·I was asked to do so.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Do you have any understanding of why you
`
`·7· ·were asked to perform a technical analysis for
`
`·8· ·Campanella and not for Smallcomb?
`
`·9· · · · ·A· ·No.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·You mentioned that you relied on the
`
`11· ·Proakis textbook; correct?
`
`12· · · · ·A· ·I -- I looked at Proakis in order to look
`
`13· ·at the tables for the convolutional codes that are
`
`14· ·in the claims.
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·Before this proceeding, were you aware of
`
`16· ·the Proakis textbook?
`
`17· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`18· · · · ·Q· ·And how did you become aware of the
`
`19· ·Proakis textbook?
`
`20· · · · ·A· ·Well, I taught out of the Proakis textbook
`
`21· ·probably, like, 20 years ago, maybe 25 years ago, at
`
`22· ·least the first edition of it.· And I don't know how
`
`23· ·many editions there are now, but -- so I -- I've
`
`24· ·known of it for many, many years.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·And what course did you teach out of the
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 21
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·Proakis textbook for?
`
`·2· · · · ·A· ·A course on digital communications.
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·And when was that course taught?
`
`·4· · · · ·A· ·Well, it's been taught for -- ever since
`
`·5· ·I've been at Michigan.· Okay.· So --
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Well, when did you teach the course that
`
`·7· ·employed the Proakis textbook?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·I don't remember the year, but it was many
`
`·9· ·years ago.· I taught out of the first edition, so
`
`10· ·you could look up when the second edition came out
`
`11· ·to find out a bound on when it was before, but I
`
`12· ·don't know the dates.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·Did you -- did you at some point switch to
`
`14· ·using a different textbook, or did you stop teaching
`
`15· ·digital communications?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form.
`
`17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I kept on -- I kept on
`
`18· ·teaching digital communications.· I developed my own
`
`19· ·notes for communications class I teach and then
`
`20· ·stopped using Proakis as a textbook.
`
`21· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`22· · · · ·Q· ·Do --
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I would recommend it as a reference book
`
`24· ·but not as a textbook that I would force the
`
`25· ·students to buy.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 22
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·I think, if I were a student, I would
`
`·2· ·appreciate that.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·Can you tell me about how you became
`
`·4· ·knowledgeable about the Wessel textbook?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·I don't really remember.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·Did you ever use Wessel to teach a class
`
`·7· ·on digital communications?
`
`·8· · · · ·A· ·I have not.
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·Was the Wessel textbook provided to you to
`
`10· ·use in these proceedings?
`
`11· · · · ·A· ·I -- no, I don't believe so.
`
`12· · · · ·Q· ·You located the Wessel textbook for
`
`13· ·citation in your declaration?
`
`14· · · · ·A· ·I believe that's true.· That's my
`
`15· ·recollection at this point.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·It's been a while?
`
`17· · · · ·A· ·Yeah.· I don't -- I don't remember
`
`18· ·exactly.· I probably did a search on our -- in our
`
`19· ·university library system for textbooks or books
`
`20· ·that might have certain information.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·I'm going to ask you to refer to the '289
`
`22· ·patent, and specifically I'm going to ask you to
`
`23· ·turn to claim 1.· Let me know when you're there.
`
`24· · · · ·A· ·I'm there.
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·You see the very last element of claim 1
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 23
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·where it talks about the transmitter further
`
`·2· ·includes delay means?
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·When preparing your declaration, did you
`
`·5· ·come to an understanding of the proper construction
`
`·6· ·for the term "transmitter"?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Asked and
`
`·8· ·answered and calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's not one of the means
`
`10· ·plus function in that claim element, so I didn't
`
`11· ·apply a means plus function analysis.· I gave the
`
`12· ·transmitter the -- what a person of ordinary skill
`
`13· ·in the art would understand at the time of the
`
`14· ·invention.
`
`15· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·And what would a person of ordinary skill
`
`17· ·in the art have understood the term "transmitter" to
`
`18· ·mean at the time of the invention?
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·A transmitter is a device for transmitting
`
`20· ·a signal.
`
`21· · · · ·Q· ·Does the '289 patent disclose examples of
`
`22· ·a transmitter?
`
`23· · · · ·A· ·I could look through the patent, but if
`
`24· ·you want to point me to some place in the patent to
`
`25· ·look at, I would be happy to look at that.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 24
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·Q· ·Let's turn to column 2.· Do you see where
`
`·2· ·in column 2 it talks about a description of prior
`
`·3· ·art?
`
`·4· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·5· · · · ·Q· ·The second sentence there, it says:
`
`·6· · · · · · ·"The transmitter receiver system generally
`
`·7· · · · · · ·comprises a transmitter section 60 and a
`
`·8· · · · · · ·receiver section 70."
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Then it goes on:
`
`10· · · · · · ·"The transmitter section 60, in the
`
`11· · · · · · ·simplest case, comprises a bitstream
`
`12· · · · · · ·source, a channel encoder, and a
`
`13· · · · · · ·transmitter 66."
`
`14· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`15· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·When the claims talk about a transmitter,
`
`17· ·do you understand them to be talking about the
`
`18· ·transmitter section 60 or the transmitter 66?
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form; calls for a
`
`20· ·legal conclusion.
`
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· This is Figure 6.· So in
`
`22· ·that specific sentence, you have a transmitter
`
`23· ·section that has a source 62.· It has a encoder 64
`
`24· ·and a transmitter 66.· So the tran- -- transmitter
`
`25· ·section encompasses all three.· The transmitter is
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 25
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·66.
`
`·2· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·3· · · · ·Q· ·And is the tran- -- transmitter 66, is
`
`·4· ·that an antenna?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·No.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·What is it?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·It's a transmitter.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q· ·Can you give me an example of what would
`
`·9· ·qualify as a transmitter?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·Your cell phone transmits signals.· Okay.
`
`11· ·So there is a transmitter in your cell phone.· Your
`
`12· ·Wi-Fi has transmitters.
`
`13· · · · ·Q· ·And what part of my cell phone constitutes
`
`14· ·the transmitter?
`
`15· · · · ·A· ·The transmitter part, I mean.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·So if I had in my cell phone a bitstream
`
`17· ·source, a channel encoder, and a transmitter, what
`
`18· ·part of my cell phone would be the transmitter?
`
`19· · · · ·A· ·The transmitter.
`
`20· · · · ·Q· ·So the only definition of "transmitter" is
`
`21· ·"transmitter"?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Vague; asked and
`
`23· ·answered.
`
`24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I already gave you a
`
`25· ·definition for a transmitter.· Transmits signals.
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 26
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·Does my cell phone have an antenna?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Relevance.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can I see your cell phone?
`
`·5· ·I could open it up and find out if you want. I
`
`·6· ·don't know which phone you have, so how would I
`
`·7· ·know?
`
`·8· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`·9· · · · ·Q· ·Do cell phones typically have antennas?
`
`10· · · · ·A· ·That's my understanding, yes.
`
`11· · · · ·Q· ·And is it the antenna in the cell phone
`
`12· ·that would be operating as the transmitter --
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.
`
`14· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`15· · · · ·Q· ·-- in the cell phone?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Relevance; asked
`
`17· ·and answered.
`
`18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The antenna is the means for
`
`19· ·converting an electrical signal into a
`
`20· ·electromagnetic signal, and that would be -- that
`
`21· ·can be considered part of a transmitter.
`
`22· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`23· · · · ·Q· ·Is there anything else that a person of
`
`24· ·ordinary skill in the art would understand to be
`
`25· ·part of a transmitter?
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 27
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·2· · · · ·Q· ·And what's that?
`
`·3· · · · ·A· ·There would probably be an amplifier.
`
`·4· · · · ·Q· ·Is there anything else?
`
`·5· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`·6· · · · ·Q· ·What else?
`
`·7· · · · ·A· ·There would probably be a mixer.
`
`·8· · · · ·Q· ·Anything else?
`
`·9· · · · ·A· ·I'm sure there are other things.
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·So continuing on in column 2, starting at
`
`11· ·line 34, you see that it says:
`
`12· · · · · · ·"In the case of satellite communication,
`
`13· · · · · · ·the transmitter 66 and 68b are realized by
`
`14· · · · · · ·two satellites"?
`
`15· · · · ·A· ·Yes.
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·So does the '289 patent, in your opinion,
`
`17· ·contemplate a satellite being a transmitter?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Form;
`
`19· ·speculating -- calls for speculation; outside the
`
`20· ·scope of testimony.
`
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think it realizes that a
`
`22· ·satellite could have transmitters in it as part of
`
`23· ·it.
`
`24· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`25· · · · ·Q· ·Meaning the transmitters could be part of
`
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. – Exhibit 1029, p. 28
`Sirius XM v. Fraunhofer – IPR2018-00690
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`·1· ·the satellite or the satellite is part of a
`
`·2· ·transmitter?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Compound;
`
`·4· ·misstates testimony; calls for speculation; outside
`
`·5· ·the scope of testimony.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think a satellite
`
`·7· ·communication -- a satellite would have transmitters
`
`·8· ·as part of it.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`10· · · · ·Q· ·Are there any other elements disclosed in
`
`11· ·the '289 patent that you would consider a
`
`12· ·transmitter?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. VAKILI:· Objection.· Vague.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can you repeat the question?
`
`15· ·BY MR. PRICE:
`
`16· · · · ·Q· ·I said are there any other elements
`
`17· ·disclosed in the '289 patent that you would consider
`
`18· ·a tr
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
