Paper No. 33
`Filed: May 28, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONOS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-00766
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`Filed: May 28, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONOS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-00766
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`IMPLICIT’S EXHIBITS ARE AUTHENTIC UNDER FEDERAL
`RULE OF EVIDENCE 901 ........................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The CVS Repository ............................................................................ 3
`
`The Computer Filesystem .................................................................... 6
`
`Implicit Has Provided Sufficient Evidence That the Exhibits Are
`Authentic .............................................................................................. 6
`
`III. DR. HASHMI’S DECLARATION WAS NOT IMPROPERLY
`INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ........................................................ 10
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., IPR2013-00292, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014)
` .................................................................................................................... 1, 3
`
`Neste Oil OYG v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper 52 (PTAB
`Mar. 12, 2015) ............................................................................................ 1, 3
`
`RULES
`
`FED. R. EVID. 801 .................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`FED. R. EVID. 803 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`FED. R. EVID. 901 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`FED. R. EVID. 902 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should deny Sonos’s Motion to Exclude. The totality of the
`
`evidence shows that Implicit’s exhibits are authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`901, which sets a low bar. Sonos’s Motion ignores most of the evidence, which
`
`includes computer and source code repository metadata. Implicit also did not
`
`improperly incorporate by reference its expert’s testimony, and Sonos was fully able
`
`to respond to and address that testimony and Implicit’s arguments in its Reply. For
`
`these reasons, Implicit respectfully requests that Sonos’s Motion be denied.
`
`II.
`
`IMPLICIT’S EXHIBITS ARE AUTHENTIC UNDER FEDERAL
`RULE OF EVIDENCE 901
`
`Sonos’s sole challenge to Exhibits 2002-2009, 2011-78, and 2083-2088 is
`
`based on a lack of authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The standard
`
`to authenticate a document under that Rule is low: “the proponent must produce
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it
`
`is.” FED. R. EVID. 901(a).
`
`Sonos makes only one argument: “Implicit solely relies on the testimony of
`
`Mr. Balassanian – an inventor – to authenticate these exhibits,” Mot. at 2, and
`
`therefore the Board should exclude those exhibits under Neste Oil OYG v. REG
`
`Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper 52 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2015) and
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., IPR2013-00292, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014).
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Those cases do not apply. In both cases, only the testimony from interested
`
`parties (e.g., the inventor) was submitted to establish the dates of the various exhibits
`
`(e.g., emails; unsigned, undated notebook entries; and whitepapers). The testimony
`
`was therefore circular—the patent owner needed the documents corroborate his
`
`testimony but the documents needed his testimony to corroborate the date of the
`
`documents. That is not the case here. The corroborating evidence, the documents
`
`and source code, are dated; they do not rely on Mr. Balassanian’s testimony to
`
`establish their date. Mr. Balassanian’s testimony is only as Implicit’s records
`
`custodian to authenticate the exhibits as business records under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 803(6) and 902(11). See, e.g., Exhibit 2001, ¶¶ 81-166; Balassanian Decl.
`
`(Attachment A), ¶¶ 3-12. His testimony is therefore not “circular” as to
`
`corroborating the dates of the Exhibits.
`
`Sonos’s argument also rests on an incorrect premise. Implicit does not
`
`“solely” rely on Mr. Balassanian’s testimony to authenticate these exhibits. Mot. at
`
`2. As Sonos has long been aware, Implicit relies on computer metadata from two
`
`sources: (1) the timestamps provided by the source code repository system (the
`
`“Concurrent Version System” or “CVS”); and (2) the computer file system
`
`timestamps. See Email Chain (Attachment B), at 2-8. In that regard—and at Sonos’s
`
`request—Implicit provided the BeComm demo laptop hard drive, see Exhibit 2001,
`
`¶¶ 53-59 (discussing demo laptop), and a CD backup of its CVS repository, see id.,
`
` 2
`
`
`
`¶ 35 (referring to BeComm CVS repository) to Sonos’s forensic expert, who made
`
`forensically sound images of those media. See Email Chain (Attachment B), at 1-4.
`
`Implicit has also produced in native form many Exhibits, the demo laptop hard drive
`
`files, the CVS repository, BeComm’s website, and the exported native files from the
`
`CVS repository that became the Exhibits. Id. at 4. That type of evidence was not at
`
`issue in Neste or Microsoft and makes this a much different case.
`
`The metadata evidence shows and reinforces that the Exhibits are authentic.
`
`Yet, Sonos’s Motion does not address any of it. That omission is telling. Sonos’s
`
`Motion asserts that over 80 exhibits are not authentic. Sonos has the native files and
`
`a forensically sound copy of two of Implicit’s media. If there were genuine
`
`authenticity issues with these Exhibits, Sonos has long had the ability and evidence
`
`to raise those issues. It did not do so in its Motion, and the Motion should be denied.
`
`A. The CVS Repository
`
`CVS is a version control system that records the history of source files within
`
`the CVS repository. Version Management With CVS (Attachment C), at 3; Hashmi
`
`Decl. (Attachment D), ¶¶ 2-6. Skilled artisans in the field rely on the time and date
`
`stamps, version numbers, and other metadata on source code files like those exported
`
`from CVS. Exhibit 2080, ¶ 19.
`
`Repositories like CVS “maintain an exact snapshot of files each time a file is
`
`‘checked-in’ to the repository. These source code repositories maintain metadata to
`
` 3
`
`
`
`store the exact time when a version of a file was ‘checked in’ to a repository.
`
`Furthermore, these source code repositories also keep track of changes made to a
`
`file each time that file is ‘checked in’ to the source code repository.” Hashmi Decl.
`
`(Attachment D), ¶ 2. In CVS, the “check in” command is “commit,” and CVS
`
`captures a number of data items, including the revision number and time and date
`
`(expressed in Coordinated University Time, “UTC”) that the revision was checked
`
`in. See, e.g., Version Management With CVS (Attachment C), at 79.
`
`Repositories like CVS also support commands to ‘“check out’ specific
`
`versions of the files that were previously ‘checked in’ to the repository, thereby
`
`enabling those in the field to ‘check out’ the exact snapshot of the source code file
`
`that was ‘checked in’ to the repository at a certain point in time.” Hashmi Decl.
`
`(Attachment D), at ¶ 4. The CVS command for this functionality is “checkout,”
`
`which can obtain “the most recent revision not later” than a specified date using the
`
`-D option. See, e.g., Version Management With CVS (Attachment C), at 105. The
`
`example command below of “-D yesterday” for a module “tc” would checkout a
`
`copy of the “tc” module as it looked yesterday (id. at 106):
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`In this case, Dr. Hashmi used CVS commands to “check out” the Implicit
`
`Source Code (submitted in a number of exhibits) as it existed on various dates,
`
`including November 1, 2001. See, e.g., Exhibit 2080, ¶¶ 18-19; Hashmi Decl.
`
`(Attachment D), ¶ 6; Exhibit 2001, ¶ 35; Balassanian Decl. (Attachment A), ¶ 4. Dr.
`
`Chertov (Sonos’s expert) also exported the code from CVS using those commands,
`
`and he testified that the repository produced the same code. Exhibit 2094, at 12:25-
`
`14:22, 15:17-16:15. An example checked out file, “audiosync.c,” includes the
`
`following version data from CVS:
`
`Exhibit 2017, at 2.
`
`In addition, source code repositories like CVS maintain a “log” file that
`
`
`
`contains summaries corresponding to the different file versions “checked in” to the
`
`repository.” Hashmi Decl. (Attachment D), ¶ 3. The log file “typically contains the
`
`version number of the file, the time, and the date when that version was ‘checked in’
`
`to the repository.” Id. In CVS, the “log” file is accessed using the “log” command.
`
`Version Management With CVS (Attachment C), at 122. When using the command,
`
`“[f]or each revision, the revision number, the date, the author, the number of lines
`
`added/deleted and the log message are printed.” Id. An example “log” entry for the
`
`same example file, “audiosync.c,” shows the following for revision 1.12:
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2016, at 6.
`
`Implicit produced to Sonos the full CVS log, the repository from which Sonos
`
`
`
`and its experts could export the log, and a a forensically sound image of the
`
`repository. See Sonos Email Chain (Attachment B), at 1-2, 4, 7.
`
`B.
`
`The Computer Filesystem
`
`In addition, Implicit provided evidence of the computer metadata for many
`
`exhibits. Sonos was able to obtain this metadata, as Implicit produced the Exhibits
`
`in native format and provided media (e.g., demo laptop hard drive) from which
`
`Sonos obtained a forensically sound image of the drive. See Email Chain
`
`(Attachment B), at 1-2. In addition, Dr. Hashmi opined that skilled artisans rely on
`
`computer filesystem metadata, such as the date modified. Exhibit 2080, ¶ 19. For
`
`example, the metadata for the “audiosync.c” file above shows that it was last
`
`modified on October 23, 2001, at 11:53 AM, which matches the CVS metadata.
`
`Exhibit 2077, at 14.
`
`C.
`
`Implicit Has Provided Sufficient Evidence That the Exhibits Are
`Authentic
`
`When considering the evidence in total, the evidence shows that each of the
`
`challenged exhibits contain sufficient evidence that they are what Implicit purports
`
` 6
`
`
`
`them to be. Implicit groups the exhibits as follows.
`
`Exhibits Exported From CVS. Exhibits 2013-2020, 2022-23, 2025-2028,
`
`2030-2037, 2043-2076, 2078, and 2083-2088 were exported from BeComm’s CVS
`
`repository. There is sufficient independent evidence regarding CVS, including the
`
`testimony of Dr. Hashmi, Dr. Chertov, and the CVS documenation, as described
`
`above, to conclude that CVS produces an accurate information using the “check out”
`
`and “log” commands. See FED. R. EVID. 801(b)(9). And, despite possessing the
`
`CVS repository, the log file, and a forensic image of the repository, Sonos does not
`
`raise any questions as to the authenticity of any of the Exhibits exported from the
`
`repository or those dates. Lastly, some of the Exhibits have copies that are on the
`
`hard drive of which Sonos has a forensically image (e.g., the audiosync.c file above).
`
`The metadata exported CVS indicates that the files are accurate. Many of the
`
`exhibits have
`
`three metadata entries
`
`regarding
`
`their date:
`
`(1)
`
`the
`
`SOS_SOURCE_VERSION in the source code file, (2) the file system meta data of
`
`the file itself, and (3) the log entries for the version, as exemplified above for the
`
`“audiosync.c” file. Exhibit 2016, at 6; Exhibit 2017, at 2; Exhibit 2077, at 14. All
`
`files exported from CVS have at least the second and third entries. Sonos does not
`
`point to discrepancies within the Exhibits or between the Exhibits and the
`
`innumerable files it could export from CVS (either from the image of the repository
`
` 7
`
`
`
`or the native repository produced by Implicit). This evidence is sufficient for the
`
`Board to admit these Exhibits.
`
`Exhibits with Computer Metadata. In addition to the Exhibits sourced from
`
`CVS, Exhibits 2002-12, 2021, 2024, 2029, 2039-2042 contain metadata showing
`
`when they were last modified. There is sufficient independent evidence regarding
`
`these timestamps to conclude that the computer filesystems produced accurate
`
`information, including the testimony of Dr. Hashmi above. See FED. R. EVID.
`
`801(b)(9). Moreover, some of these exhibits also reside on the demo laptop (e.g.,
`
`Exhibit 2024 (fightclubrgb.avi)), which Sonos has a forensically sound image of.
`
`Many of these Exhibits were provided natively, and Implicit produced a native
`
`version of its website from which a number of exhibits were sourced (e.g., Exhibit
`
`2006). Sonos takes an aggressive approach, objecting to Implicit historical company
`
`documents, including a photograph of Implicit’s team (Exhibit 2005) and website
`
`pages relating to Implicit’s DEMO 2000 presentation and the Intel Web Tablet
`
`(Exhibits 2003-2007). But the Exhibits have sufficient evidence of authenticity.
`
`Moreover, lining up the Exhibits with computer metadata with the CVS-
`
`exported documents provides further circumstantial evidence that shows that the
`
`Exhibits are authentic. For example, Exhibit 2024 contains a screenshot of the
`
`“fightclubrgb.avi” file with a date modified of September 7, 2001. Exhibit 2077, at
`
`21. The “source.pl” file exported from the CVS repository with a date of October
`
` 8
`
`
`
`29, 2001 references “fightclubrgb.avi” file as a source file. Exhibit 2033, at 1. The
`
`fact that the additional exhibits generally fall in line with the timeframe of the files
`
`from the repository and Mr. Balassanian’s testimony confirm the authenticity of the
`
`dates of the documents. In sum, there is sufficient evidence that these Exhibits are
`
`what Implicit purports them to be and that the dates of these Exhibits are authentic,
`
`not solely based inventor testimony, but based on the evidence itself. Any further
`
`disputes go to the weight of evidence, not its admissibility.
`
`The Remaining Exhibit. Circumstantial evidence shows that Exhibit 2038 is
`
`authentic. Exhibit 2038 is a December 15, 2001, and December 16, 2001, email
`
`chain from Mr. Bradley regarding the “synchronization.doc.” Exhibit 2038, at 1.
`
`The “synchronization.doc” file is Exhibit 2037, and it was sourced from the CVS
`
`repository, which shows that it had a check-in (and last-modified) date of December
`
`9, 2001. Exhibit 2077, at 32 (“Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 2:29 PM”); Exhibit
`
`2078, at 1 (“date: 2001-12-09 14:29:33 -0600; author: guyc”). The provisional
`
`patent application was filed on December 17, 2001. Sonos Ex. 1008 in the IPR of
`
`the ’252 Patent. The December 15, 2001, email thus falls between these other
`
`exhibits. This evidence, in addition to Mr. Balassanian’s testimony, authenticates
`
`Exhibit 2038.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`III. DR. HASHMI’S DECLARATION WAS NOT IMPROPERLY
`INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
`
`Implicit requests that the Board decline to exclude Exhibits 2081 and 2082.
`
`Implicit did not improperly incorporate them by reference. After explaining how
`
`the inventions were conceived and reduced to practice for multiple pages, Implicit’s
`
`Patent Owner’s Response contains a limitation-by-limitation chart for the claims that
`
`Petitioner identified in its Petition as illustrative and specifically cited to the source-
`
`code evidence in Dr. Hashmi’s declaration, Dr. Hashmi’s accompanying claim
`
`charts explaining his source code trace (Exhibits 2081 and 2082), and additional
`
`source code and documentary exhibits as meeting each of those limitations. Implicit
`
`did not improperly incorporate arguments by reference, 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); it
`
`pointed to the evidence that met each limitation of the illustrative claims.
`
`Sonos’s alleged word count of a cut-and-paste of all of Dr. Hashmi’s
`
`testimony into Implicit’s Patent Owner’s Response is a distraction. A Response is a
`
`brief—it is not supposed to reproduce verbatim each word of the evidence it cites.
`
`Indeed, Sonos provided nearly 150 pages of testimony from its expert, Dr. Chertov,
`
`which it cited portions of in summary form. Sonos did not reproduce all of that
`
`testimony in its various briefs. Sonos submits that the Board should consider that
`
`lengthy testimony from Dr. Chertov (in addition to all the other arguments Sonos
`
`raised in this proceeding). Implicit requests that the Board do the same with Dr.
`
`Hashmi’s testimony.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Dr. Chertov’s extensive testimony also undercuts Sonos’s claims that it was
`
`unable to respond to Implicit’s Patent Owner Response. Sonos was able to assert
`
`that the Implicit Source Code does not practice the claims—including submitting
`
`nearly 50 pages of expert testimony on solely that issue. Sonos deposed Dr. Hashmi
`
`for a full day and fully probed his opinions. Sonos was able to respond to Implicit’s
`
`Patent Owner’s Response and dispute Implicit’s positions. It was not prejudiced.
`
`Sonos seeks a procedural victory instead of addressing the evidence on the merits.
`
`In contrast, excluding Dr. Hashmi’s testimony for incorporation by reference
`
`will prejudice Implicit. Implicit has an established property right to its Patents, and
`
`Sonos seeks to nullify those property rights in these proceedings. If the Board
`
`excludes Dr. Hashmi’s testimony, Implicit will not have been provided adequate due
`
`process to defend its Patents on the merits, especially given the swear behind
`
`evidence adduced in these proceedings.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Implicit respectfully requests that the Board deny
`
`Sonos’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Dated: May 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THE DAVIS FIRM, P.C.
`
`By: /Christian Hurt Reg. No. 63,659/
`Christian Hurt
`
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`903-230-9090
`churt@bdavisfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Response to Sonos’s Motion to Exclude
`
`complies with the type-volume limitation and general format requirements pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24 and 42.6. I further certify that this response contains 15 pages
`
`or less, excluding parts exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Christian Hurt Reg. No. 63,659/
`
`Christian Hurt
`
` 13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 28, 2019, a true copy of the following
`
`document(s):
`
`PATENT OWNER IMPLICIT, LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE
`was served via electronic mail to the address and parties consenting to electronic
`
`service as follows:
`
`Rory P. Shea
`shea@ls3ip.com
`Cole B. Richter
`richter@ls3ip.com
`George I. Lee
`lee@ls3ip.com
`Michael P. Boyea
`boyea@ls3ip.com
`Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
`224 North Desplaines Street, Suite 250
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 28, 2019, at Dallas,
`
`Texas.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Christian Hurt Reg. No. 63,659/
`
`Christian Hurt
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`
`
`
`I, Edward Balassanian, hereby testify as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
`
`I provided testimony in proceedings IPR2018-00766 and IPR2018-
`
`00767. My understanding is that this testimony was submitted as Exhibit 2001 in
`
`both proceedings (“my Declaration”).
`
` This declaration supplements my
`
`Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the matters in my Declaration, including
`
`paragraphs 11–19, 23–24, 26, 28, 31–32, 34–73, 75–89, and 90–166. I have personal
`
`knowledge of how traditional systems operated in the manner I discussed in my
`
`Declaration. I have personal knowledge of how Strings (and before that Portal)
`
`operated and was designed in the manner I discussed in my Declaration, including
`
`how the system processed data and was used for different applications and how the
`
`system executed rules, invoked beads, and controlled the data flow. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the aspects of BeComm, Portal, and Strings (including the RADkit)
`
`that I discussed in my Declaration. I architected, designed, and engineered Strings
`
`(and before that Portal). I have personal knowledge of the activities, demonstrations,
`
`tests, proposals, and operations of Strings (and before that Portal) and its applications
`
`as I discussed in my Declaration, including with regard to the CES and DEMO 2000
`
`demonstrations, the demonstrations and testing of the synchronization functionality
`
`(including the Fight Club demo), the Intel Web Tablet project, the Juno project, and
`
` 1
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`proposals to Comcast, Tatung, and Philips, and projects for AMD, Intel, and
`
`Thomson Multimedia. I was involved in these projects, proposal, tests and
`
`demonstrations and have personal knowledge of facts that I recited in my
`
`Declaration. I have personal knowledge of how Strings operated to synchronize the
`
`playback of audio and video content in the manner described in my Declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge of how Strings was designed, operated, and was
`
`demonstrated in the manner discussed in my Declaration, including the beads,
`
`scripts, rules, data flows, and the code, functionality, system diagrams, user
`
`interfaces, tests and demonstrations discussed in my Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I have personal knowledge of how BeComm kept its source code and
`
`how various parts of the source code operated, as I described in my Declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge that BeComm utilized a Concurrent Version System
`
`(“CVS”) repository for source code and related files during the time period I discuss
`
`in my Declaration. I have personal knowledge of how that system tracked the files
`
`in the repository with the metadata and log information as I discussed in my
`
`Declaration. To my knowledge, the CVS repository that BeComm operated properly
`
`to provide date and time information for files stored in the repository.
`
`5.
`
`I am the records custodian for Implicit (formally BeComm, Digbee, and
`
`Implicit Networks). I have personal knowledge of how the exhibits referenced in
`
`my Declaration were stored as I discussed in my Declaration. None of the BeComm
`
` 2
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`employees during the time period that I discuss in my Declaration are affiliated with
`
`Implicit. I am the only person currently affiliated with Implicit that was affiliated
`
`with BeComm during the 1996 to 2006 time period discussed in my Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I have personal knowledge of contents of and circumstances related to
`
`Exhibits 2002, 2009, 2011, 2021, 2029, 2039, 2040, 2041, and 2042, as described in
`
`this paragraph and that I discussed in my Declaration. These Exhibits are true and
`
`accurate copies of certain internal BeComm business and technical documentation
`
`last modified on certain dates, as I discussed in my Declaration and as the Exhibits
`
`and their metadata themselves purport. Exhibit 2002 is entitled a “Technical
`
`Presentation” and it describes the technology of Strings and certain applications as
`
`well as traditional systems, subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit
`
`2009 is entitled “Juno Phase 0 Document” and it describes the initial phase of the
`
`Juno Project, which I was involved in and whose subject matter I have personal
`
`knowledge of. Exhibit 2011 is entitled “Juno: Phase 1 Investigation” and it describes
`
`the investigation phase of the Juno Project, which I was involved in and whose
`
`subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit 2021 is entitled “Using Strings
`
`to Compose Applications from Resusable Components” and it describes rules and
`
`example applications of Strings, including a Distributed Media Player, of which I
`
`was involved in and whose subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit
`
`2029 is entitled “Using BeComm’s RADkit to develop Distributed Network
`
` 3
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`Applications A Case Study – The Distributed Media Player,” and it describes an
`
`example Distributed Media Player using Strings (this time using the RADkit), which
`
`I was involved in and whose subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit
`
`2039 is entitled “Comcast Residential Services Gateway RFI Response,” and it
`
`describes a design for Comcast using Strings, which I was involved in and whose
`
`subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit 2040 is entitled “Tatung
`
`Project Proposal,” and it describes a design for Tatung using Strings, which I was
`
`involved in and whose subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit 2041
`
`is entitled “Content Management Software,” and it describes a design for Philips
`
`using Strings, which I was involved in and whose subject matter I have personal
`
`knowledge of. Exhibit 2042 is entitled “Multimedia Framework,” and it describes a
`
`design for design for Philips using Strings, which I was involved in and whose
`
`subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Each of these Exhibits is a true and
`
`accurate copy of a record of made at or near the time by, or from information
`
`transmitted by, someone with knowledge at BeComm. Each of the records was kept
`
`in the course of a regularly conducted activities of BeComm, which included
`
`creating technical documentation that described the state of BeComm’s solutions
`
`and the state of the art at a given time, creating project documents that track the steps
`
`and phase of a project or a proposal, and generating proposals and requests for
`
`information response documents that detailed BeComm’s capabilities and history in
`
` 4
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`the document. Making these records was a regular practice of those activities. I am
`
`the records custodian with respect to these Exhibits.
`
`7.
`
`I have personal knowledge of contents of and circumstances related to
`
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008 described in this paragraph and that I
`
`discussed in my Declaration. These Exhibits are true and accurate copies of certain
`
`BeComm webpages last modified on certain dates, as I discussed in my Declaration
`
`and as the Exhibits and their metadata themselves purport. Exhibit 2003 is a copy
`
`of a press release entitled “BeComm Demonstration Ushers in New Era of Media
`
`Appliances at DEMO 2000” that discusses the demonstration at DEMO 2000 that I
`
`performed whose subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit 2004 is a
`
`copy of a webpage entitled “Demo 2000 Pictures” that contains photos and text from
`
`the demonstration I performed at DEMO 2000 whose subject matter I have personal
`
`knowledge of. Exhibit 2006 is a copy of a webpage entitled “Intel Web Tablet” that
`
`describes the Intel Web Tablet project and some of the functionality of the tablet, a
`
`project I was involved in and whose subject matter I have personal knowledge of.
`
`Exhibit 2007 is a copy of the webpage entitled “BeComm Audio Solution” that
`
`describes functionality of the BeComm Audio Solution, a solution I was involved in
`
`and whose subject matter I have personal knowledge of. Exhibit 2008 is a copy of
`
`a webpage entitled “Project Juno” that reproduces a BeComm webpage relating to
`
`Project Juno, another project that I was involved in. Each of these Exhibits is a true
`
` 5
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`and accurate copy of a record of made at or near the time by, or from information
`
`transmitted by, someone with knowledge at BeComm. Each of the records was kept
`
`in the course of a regularly conducted activities of BeComm, which included
`
`creating press releases and describing company highlights and activities on
`
`webpages, including webpages to track internal projects. Making the records were
`
`a regular practice of that activity. I am the records custodian with respect to these
`
`Exhibits.
`
`8.
`
`I have personal knowledge of contents of and circumstances related to
`
`Exhibit 2005 described in this paragraph and that I discussed in my Declaration. The
`
`Exhibit is a true and accurate representation of the file “P0000542.jpg,” a true and
`
`accurate depiction of members of the BeComm team in the late 2000 timeframe that
`
`I discussed in my Declaration, as the Exhibit and its metadata purports. I am familiar
`
`with the subject matter of this image because I am familiar with the BeComm team
`
`and am also in the photograph.
`
`9.
`
`I have personal knowledge of contents of and circumstances related to
`
`Exhibits 2012 and 2038 described in this paragraph and that I discussed in my
`
`Declaration. These Exhibits are true and accurate copies of certain internal
`
`BeComm emails last modified on certain dates, as I discussed in my Declaration and
`
`as the Exhibits and their metadata themselves purport. Exhibit 2012 is entitled
`
`“Project Juno Status [02/16/00]” and reproduces an internal email relating to Project
`
` 6
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`Juno, which went on hold by the middle of February 2001 as I discussed in my
`
`Declaration. The Exhibit is a true and accurate copy of a record of made at or near
`
`the time by, or from information transmitted by, someone with knowledge at
`
`BeComm, in this case Neil Mintz who was involved with Project Juno. The record
`
`was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of BeComm, which included
`
`sending emails to track and describe the development of projects over time. Making
`
`the record was a regular practice of that activity. I am the record custodian with
`
`respect to this Exhibit. Exhibit 2038 is a reproduction of an internal email chain that
`
`I received at the time regarding the review of the “synchronization.doc” discussed
`
`in my Declaration. The Exhibit is a true and accurate copy of a record of made at or
`
`near the time by, or from information transmitted by, someone with knowledge at
`
`BeComm, in this case Scott Bradley. The record was kept in the course of a regularly
`
`conducted activity of BeComm, which included communicating via email
`
`information related to reviews of technical documents. Making the record was a
`
`regular practice of that activity. I am the record custodian with respect to this
`
`Exhibit.
`
`10.
`
`I have personal knowledge of contents of and circumstances related to
`
`Exhibit 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2034, 2035, 2036, and 2078
`
`described in this paragraph and that I discussed in my Declaration. These exhibits
`
`are true and correct copies of excerpts of the log file from the CVS repository from
`
` 7
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`Implicit Attachment A
`Sonos v. Implicit, IPR2018-0766, -0767
`
`
`
`the records of Implicit (previously BeComm and Implicit Networks) for various files
`
`in the CVS repository, as I discussed in my Declaration. These Exhibits are true
`
`and accurate copies of a record of made at or near the time by, or from information
`
`transmitted by, someone with knowledge at BeComm, specifically the user that
`
`checked in the file. The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted
`
`activity of BeComm, which included checking in source code into the CVS
`
`repository, providing comments with the check in, and having the CVS repository
`
`log that activity. Making the record was a regular practice of that activity. I am the
`
`records custodian with respect to these Exhibits.
`
`11.
`
`I have personal knowledge of contents of and circumstances related to
`
`Exhibits 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2033, 2037,
`
`2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055,
`
`2056, 2057, 2058, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2067, 2068,
`
`2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, and 2076 described in this paragraph and
`
`that I discussed in my D
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
