UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, AND HTC AMERICA,
`
`INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S. A.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01458
`
`PATENT 8,712,723
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II (CHUCK EASTTOM)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`Case No. IPR2018-0389
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,712,723
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM C. EASTTOM II (CHUCK EASTTOM)
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................3
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .....................................................................3
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................4
`
`THE ‘723 PATENT .....................................................................................................5
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................................................5
`
`GENERAL ISSUES ......................................................................................................6
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIM ELEMENTS ................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Claim 1............................................................................................................. 10
`
`B. Claim 2............................................................................................................. 11
`
`C. Claim 6............................................................................................................. 12
`
`D. Claim 10 .......................................................................................................... 13
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`IX.
`
`APPENDIX A – EASTTOM CV .................................................................................. 14
`
`A. Education ........................................................................................................ 14
`1. University Degrees ........................................................................ 14
`2.
`Industry Certifications ................................................................... 14
`3. Security and Forensics Related Certifications............................... 16
`4. Software Certifications ................................................................. 16
`5. Licenses ......................................................................................... 17
`
`B. Publications ..................................................................................................... 17
`1. Books 17
`2. Papers, presentations, & articles. ................................................. 18
`
`C. Patents ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`D. Standards and Certification Creation.............................................................. 21
`
`E. Professional Awards and Memberships ......................................................... 22
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F. Speaking Engagements ................................................................................... 23
`
`G. Litigation Support Experience ......................................................................... 25
`1. Testifying Experience .................................................................... 30
`
`H. Professional Experience .................................................................................. 32
`
`I. Continuing Professional Education ................................................................. 36
`
`J. References to my work ................................................................................... 37
`1. Media References ......................................................................... 37
`2. References to publications ........................................................... 38
`3. Universities using my books ......................................................... 43
`
`K. Training ........................................................................................................... 45
`
`L. Technical Skills ................................................................................................ 46
`
`
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Uniloc to provide my expert opinions regarding
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,712,723 (“723 Patent”). Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`provide expert opinions regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-18.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of
`
`$300 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of
`
`this work. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study or the
`
`substance of my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I have 25+ years of experience in the computer science industry including
`
`extensive experience with computer security, computer programming, and computer
`
`networking. I have authored 26 computer science books, including textbooks used at
`
`universities around the world. I hold 42 different computer industry certifications,
`
`including many in networking subjects. I am experienced with multiple programming
`
`languages. I also have extensive experience in computer networking. I have extensive
`
`experience with mobile devices, including all aspects of mobile devices (hardware and
`
`software). I am a Distinguished Speaker for the Association of Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM), and a reviewer for the IEEE Security and Privacy journal, as well as a reviewer for
`
`the International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism (IJCWT). My CV is attached as
`
`appendix A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`4.
`
`Fort the purposes of an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable meaning.
`
`5.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definitions of dominant axis as “the axis
`
`most influenced by gravity.”
`
`6.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definition of cadence window as “a window
`
`of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step.”
`
`7.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definition of a dominant axis logic to
`
`determine an orientation of a device with respect to gravity, to assign a dominant axis,
`
`and to update the dominant axis when the orientation of the device changes as
`
`“hardware, software, or both to determine an orientation of a device, to assign a
`
`dominant axis, and to update the dominant axis as the orientation of the device changes.”
`
`The petitioner seems to ignore the fact that software, by itself, cannot determine a
`
`dominant axis. Hardware with software/firmware, can.
`
`8.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definition of a counting logic to count
`
`periodic human motions by monitoring accelerations relative to the dominant axis by
`
`counting the periodic human motions when accelerations showing a motion cycle that
`
`meets motion criteria is detected within a cadence window as “hardware, software, or
`
`both to count periodic human motions by monitoring accelerations relative to the
`
`dominant axis by counting the periodic human motions when accelerations showing a
`
`motion cycle that meets motion criteria is detected within a cadence window.” The
`
`
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`petitioner seems to ignore the fact that software, by itself, cannot determine motion.
`
`Hardware with software/firmware, can.
`
`9.
`
`The petitioner has adopted the definition of a cadence logic to update the
`
`cadence window as actual cadence changes as “hardware, software, or both to update
`
`the cadence window as actual cadence changes.”
`
`10. While the petitioner has made some claims in claim construction that
`
`ignore the actual functionality of the hardware and software involved, for the purposes
`
`of this proceeding I will use the petitioners adopted definitions in performing my analysis
`
`and forming my opinions.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘723 PATENT
`
`11.
`
`The '723 patented invention is, at its core a specialized motion sensor for
`
`human activity. "A method for monitoring human activity using an inertial sensor includes
`
`continuously determining an orientation of the inertial sensor, assigning a dominant axis,
`
`updating the dominant axis as the orientation of the inertial sensor changes, and counting
`
`periodic human motions by monitoring accelerations relative to the dominant axis."
`
`12. While motion sensors did exist at the time of the invention, the specific
`
`methodologies used by the '723 patent are novel and inventive.
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`13.
`
`Patent claims must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) in November 1999 would have been
`
`one with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, or related technical area
`
`
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`with 2 years of experience related to accelerometers or similar devices. Additional
`
`experience can compensate for a lack of a degree.
`
`14.
`
`I am aware that Dr. Paradiso has a somewhat different view of a POSA.
`
`While I disagree with a few of the nuances of Dr. Paradiso’s definition of a POSA, our
`
`definitions are substantially similar. Even if one adopts his view of a POSA, it would not
`
`alter my opinions.
`
`VI.
`
`GENERAL ISSUES
`
`A.
`
`Dominant Axis
`
`15.
`
`In general, the petitioner conflates the dominant axis in the ‘723 patent with
`
`the Z axis in Fabio and Pasolini. This is incorrect for several reasons.
`
`16.
`
`In Pasolini, the only mention of orientation is
`
`“For example, the main vertical axis can be identified at each acquisition
`of a new acceleration sample, block 30 of FIG. 4, so as to take into
`account variations in the orientation of the pedometer device 1, and
`consequently of the accelerometer 2 arranged inside it.”
`
`This depends entirely on the vertical axis but tries to account for “variations
`
`17.
`
`in the orientation of the pedometer device” It should be noted that Fabio, does not even
`
`mention orientation. It is clear that Pasolini is only concerned about a single axis and
`
`assumes that axis will be the main axis. This is made clear many places in Pasolini, a
`
`sample of such data is provided here:
`
`“In use, the accelerometer 2 detects the component along the detection axis z of the
`vertical acceleration generated during the step, and produces a corresponding
`acceleration signal A.”
`
`“The accelerometer 2 could be equipped with a number of axes of
`measurement, for example three mutually orthogonal axes of measurement,
`and be built, for example, as described in “3-axis Digital Output Accelerometer
`For Future Automotive Applications”, B. Vigna et al., AMAA 2004. In this case,
`
`
`
`6
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`according to one embodiment of the present invention, the algorithm
`implemented by the processing unit 3 envisages identifying the main vertical axis
`to be used for step detection as the axis of detection that has the highest mean
`acceleration value Accm (on account of gravity). For example, the main vertical
`axis can be identified at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample, block 30
`of FIG. 4, so as to take into account variations in the orientation of the
`pedometer device 1, and consequently of the accelerometer 2 arranged inside
`it.”
`
`
`18.
`
`It is clear that Pasolini did not account for changing axis, and in fact it seems
`
`likely that was not even contemplated. That is in stark contrast to the ‘723 patent wherein
`
`any direction might become dominant, and detecting the currently dominant axis is crucial
`
`(note the emphasis are added).
`
`“Embodiments of the present invention are designed to monitor human activity
`using an inertial sensor. In one embodiment, a dominant axis is assigned after
`determining an orientation of an inertial sensor”
`
`“In one embodiment, the dominant axis setting logic 140 determines an
`orientation of the electronic device 100 and/or the inertial sensor(s) within the
`electronic device 100. The orientation may be determined based upon the
`rolling averages of accelerations created by the rolling average logic 135.”
`
`
`
`19.
`
`This is not a trivial difference. A POSA would immediately understand the
`
`significant advantages that the ‘723 patent has over Fabio or Pasolini. And in fact the ‘723
`
`patent explicitly discussed the advantages this technology presents over the prior art. In the
`
`background of the invention section, the ‘723 inventor point out the deficiencies of the
`
`prior art stating:
`
`“Steps may be accurately counted regardless of the placement and/or orientation of
`the device on a user. Steps may be accurately counted whether the electronic device
`100 maintains a fixed orientation or changes orientation during operation. The
`electronic device 100 may be carried in a backpack, pocket, purse, hand, or
`elsewhere, and accurate steps may still be counted.”
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`20.
`
`The petitioner completely ignores the fact that with the ‘723 patent, any
`
`axis can be the dominant axis, and that this provides a significant advantage over the prior
`
`art. The issue of the dominant axis is significant to the very claims the petitioner is
`
`challenging. Dominant axis is addressed three times in claim 1 alone, then again in claim
`
`2. Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Then in claim 10 dominant axis is again discussed, in this
`
`instance four times. Then again in claim 11. Claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 10.
`
`21.
`
`Claim 14 returns to explicitly discussing the dominant axis three times, and
`
`again in claim 15. Claims 16 and 17 depend on claim 14, and claim 18 depends on claim
`
`17.
`
`22.
`
`Once one understands that the dominant axis in the ‘723 patent is
`
`substantially different than the simple vertical axis in Fabio and Pasolini, and further
`
`conveys a significant advantage, then the challenged claims can be immediately seen as
`
`not being obvious nor anticipated by Fabio or Pasolini alone or in combination.
`
`B.
`
`Cadence Window
`
`23.
`
`Claim 1 recites “updating the cadence window as actual cadence changes.”
`
`Claim 5 recites “updating the cadence window as a cadence of the motion cycle changes.”
`
`Claim 10 recites “a cadence logic to update the cadence window as actual cadence
`
`changes.” Claim 12 states “the cadence logic to update a dynamic cadence window.”
`
`Claim 14 states “updating the cadence window as actual cadence changes.”
`
`24.
`
`The petitioner claims “Fabio discloses this limitation. Ex.1003, p.78. First,
`
`the limitation is substantially similar to the limitation in [1.4] and is taught by Fabio as
`
`discussed above. Second, Fabio discloses that the updating of its validation window is
`
`
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`performed by its control unit (i.e., a cadence logic): “the control unit 5 executes a first
`
`validation test” that is performed as described in [1.4]. Ex.1003, p.XX; see also Ex.1006,
`
`4:22-40.” However, what Fabio actually states is shown here (note that portion
`
`underlined in red is the portion the petitioner cited):
`
`
`
`25.
`
`The petitioner has extracted a small phrase, not even a complete sentence.
`
`And in doing so has removed the context. What is being describes is a test of the
`
`regularity of the individual step. This is the first validation test. Even if one supposes that
`
`“regularity of the individual step” to be synonymous with “cadence”, this excerpt is not
`
`describing updating the “regularity of the individual step”. This in no way describes
`
`updating anything even analogous to the cadence window. It must also be noted that
`
`Fabio only discusses updating with respect to updating the number of steps, not anything
`
`even analogous to the cadence window.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`VII.
`
`SPECIFIC CLAIM ELEMENTS
`
`26.
`
`Several claims discussed in the petitioner’s brief and Dr. Pasadino’s
`
`declaration stand out as requiring specific commentary. Those claims are discussed in this
`
`section
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1
`
`27.
`
`Claim 1 includes the following segment “assigning a dominant axis with
`
`respect to gravity based on an orientation of the inertial sensor:” The petitioner has
`
`claimed that monitoring human activity is the equivalent of “selecting the acceleration
`
`signal corresponding to the detection axis nearest to the vertical” of Fabio. However,
`
`what the petitioner ignores is that the ‘723 patent has much broader applications than
`
`Fabio or Pasolini. Both prior art patents cited by the petitioner explicitly state they are
`
`pedometers, and are for measuring walking or running. The ‘723 patent states ‘may be
`
`used to count steps or other periodic human motions.’ (emphasis added) The nature of
`
`the ‘723 patent is such that it is not limited to steps, but rather any human motion. If one
`
`assumes only a limited range of activity, walking or running, then one might assume that
`
`vertical means gravity. However, the ‘723 patent does is not limited to only walking or
`
`running. As will be seen in the next section of claim 1, the ‘721 patent very clearly
`
`anticipated an unlimited range of orientation, that would not be present in a simple
`
`pedometer. It is also noteworthy that both the two prior art patents the petitioner cites
`
`are by the same inventor, Fabio Pasolini. Therefore, it is abundantly clear what the
`
`inventor meant. And in both patents, he was merely concerned with a pedometer.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`28.
`
`Claim 1 also has a segment “detecting a change in the orientation of the
`
`inertial sensor and updating the dominant axis based on the change”. It should be first
`
`noted that this language plainly anticipates scenarios in which the vertical axis will not be
`
`the dominant axis, contrary to Fabio or Pasolini.
`
`29.
`
`The petitioner has claimed that the ‘723 patent claim language is
`
`equivalent to “the main vertical axis can be identified at each acquisition of a new
`
`acceleration sample” in the Pasolini patent. However, the complete passage from Pasolini
`
`is “For example, the main vertical axis can be identified at each acquisition of a new
`
`acceleration sample, block 30 of FIG. 4, so as to take into account variations in the
`
`orientation of the pedometer device 1, and consequently of the accelerometer 2 arranged
`
`inside it.” It is clear that Pasolini was only attempting to accommodate minor variations
`
`in the main vertical axis, not a change in the dominant axis. This is a significant difference
`
`and illustrates one of the many advantages of the ‘723 patent over Pasolini.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 2
`
`30.
`
`Claim 2 states “The method of claim 1, further comprising: using
`
`acceleration measurements along only the dominant axis to count steps.” The petitioner
`
`has stated that:
`
`“The combination of Fabio and Pasolini renders this limitation obvious.
`
`Ex.1003, p.51. First, as discussed above in [1.3.0], Fabio teaches using an
`
`acceleration signal produced on the “axis nearest to the vertical” or the
`
`“detection axis Z” to count steps. Ex.1003, p.51. Fabio also teaches that
`
`
`
`11
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`the “acceleration signal AZ[] is correlated to the accelerations undergone
`
`by the inertial sensor 3 itself along the detection axis Z.”
`
`31. What the petitioner is ignoring is that both cited prior art patents
`
`specifically state the Z axis. This is not surprising since both are explicitly limited to walking
`
`or running. One would therefore assume that the person was upright, and the Z axis
`
`would always be the dominant axis. However, the ‘723 patent is a significant
`
`improvement over that. The ‘723 patent does not assume that any particular axis is
`
`dominant, but rather measures to determine the dominant axis. This allows the ‘723
`
`patented invention to be applied to a wide range of human activities. This is one of the
`
`novel advantages of the ‘723 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 6
`
`32.
`
`Claim 6 states “The method of claim 5, further comprising: switching the
`
`device from the active mode to the non-active mode when a number of expected periodic
`
`human motions are not identified in the appropriate cadence windows.”
`
`33.
`
`The petitioner claims that this is anticipated by Fabio citing “[W]hen an
`
`interruption in the locomotion is detected, the second counting procedure is terminated,
`
`and execution of the first counting procedure resumes (block 110).”
`
`34.
`
`However, Fabio does not teach the device going to a non-active mode.
`
`Rather Fabio teaches the second counting procedure ceasing and the first counting
`
`procedure resuming. The first counting procedure is not a non-active mode, but rather a
`
`temporary pause. This is demonstrated by the following quote from Fabio “When a
`
`sequence of steps corresponding to a regular gait of the user is recognized, the first
`
`
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`counting procedure is interrupted. Alternatively, the first counting procedure terminates
`
`when a time interval TC that has elapsed from the last step recognized is longer than a
`
`first time threshold TS1, for example 10 s. On exit from the first calculation procedure, the
`
`control unit 5 sets a state flag FST to a first value C, if a sequence of steps that satisfies the
`
`conditions of regularity has been recognized, and to a second value PD, if the first time
`
`threshold TS1 has been exceeded.”
`
`D.
`
`Claim 10
`
`35.
`
`Claim 10 contains the following “a dominant axis logic to determine an
`
`orientation of a device with respect to gravity”. The petitioner has claimed that this is
`
`obvious in light of Pasolini and Fabio. However, both Pasolini and Fabio both assume the
`
`Z-axis is always the dominant axis with respect to gravity. There is no indication that the
`
`inventors ever contemplated the possibility of the dominant axis being anything other
`
`than the Z axis, or measuring to determine the dominant axis as required by the claims of
`
`the ’723 patent.
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`36.
`
`For the reasons discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that there are
`
`specific and important differences between the ‘723 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`Including the use of a dominant axis that is not limited to the Z-Axis.
`
`37.
`
`Fabio and Pasolini both teach a very static, inflexible vertical axis. The ‘723
`
`patent teaches a dynamic and flexible dominant axis that can be readily changed do to
`
`position and motion. This is a novel difference in the ‘723 patent and conveys a significant
`
`
`
`13
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`advantage. Therefore, it is my opinion that none of the challenged claims are rendered
`
`obvious nor anticipated by either Fabio or Pasolini alone or in combination.
`
`
`
`_______________________
`William C. Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) 22 March 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`APPENDIX A – EASTTOM CV
`
`A.
`
`Education
`
`1.
`
`University Degrees
`
`• B.A. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Major Communications with
`Minors in Chemistry and Psychology. Extensive coursework in science (chemistry,
`physics, and biology) as well as neuroscience (neurobiology of memory, cognitive
`science, etc.). Also, additional coursework in computer science including
`programming and database courses.
`• M.Ed. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Coursework included technology
`related courses such as digital video editing, multimedia presentations, and
`computer graphics. A statistics course was also part of the coursework.
`• M.B.A. Northcentral University Emphasis in Applied Computer Science. Extensive
`course work in graduate computer science including graduate courses in: C++
`programming, C# programming, Computer Graphics, Web Programming,
`Network communication, Complex Database Management Systems, and
`Artificial Intelligence. Approximately 30 graduate hours of graduate computer
`science courses. Additionally, a doctoral level statistics course was included. A
`semester research project in medical software was also part of the curriculum. I
`also took several research courses beyond the requirements for the degree.
`• Doctor of Science (In progress) Capitol Technology University. Majoring in
`cybersecurity, dissertation topic is a study of post quantum computing
`asymmetric cryptographic algorithms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Industry Certifications
`
`The following is a list of computer industry certifications I have earned.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Hardware and Networking Related Certifications
`
`1. CompTIA (Computer Technology Industry Associations) A+ Certified
`
`2. CompTIA Network + Certified
`
`3. CompTIA Server+ Certified
`
`4. CompTIA I-Net+ Certified
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Operating System Related Certifications
`
`5. CompTIA Linux + Certified
`
`6. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Windows Server 2000 Professional
`Certification Number: A527-9546
`
`7. Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator (MCSA) Windows Server 2000
`Certification Number: A527-9556
`
`8. Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) Windows Server 2000 Certification
`Number: A527-9552
`
`9. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Windows Server 2008 Active
`Directory Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`10. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Windows 7 Microsoft Certification
`ID: 1483483
`
`11. Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) Windows 7 Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`12. Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate Windows 7 Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`13. National Computer Science Academy Windows 8 Certification Certificate #: 4787829
`
`
`
`Programming and Web Development Related
`c.
`Certifications
`
`14. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Visual Basic 6.0 Desktop Applications
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`15. Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) – Visual Basic 6.0 Distributed Applications
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`16. Microsoft Certified Application Developer (MCAD) - C# Microsoft Certification ID:
`1483483
`
`17. Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT 2005-2012) Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`18. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Visual Studio 2010 Windows
`Application Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`
`
`15
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`19. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Visual Studio 2010 Data Access
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`20. National Computer Science Academy HTML 5.0 Certification Certificate #: 4788000.
`
`21. National Computer Science Academy ASP.Net Certification Certificate #: 4788342
`
`22. Certified Internet Webmaster (CIW) Associate CIW0163791
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Database Related Certifications
`
`23. Microsoft Certified Database Administrator (MCDBA) SQL Server 2000 Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`24. Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) Implementing SQL Server 2008
`Microsoft Certification ID: 1483483
`
`25. Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) SQL Server Administration Microsoft
`Certification ID: 1483483
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Security and Forensics Related Certifications
`
`26. CIW Certified Security Analyst CIW0163791
`
`27. EC Council Certified Ethical Hacker v5 (CEH) ECC942445
`
`28. EC Council Certified Hacking Forensics Investigator v4 (CHFI) ECC945708
`
`29. EC Council Certified Security Administrator (ECSA) ECC947248
`
`30. EC Council Certified Encryption Specialist (ECES)
`
`31. EC Council Certified Instructor
`
`32. CISSP – Certified Information Systems Professional #387731
`
`33. ISSAP – Certified Information Systems Architect #387731
`
`34. CCFP – Certified Cyber Forensics Professional #387731
`
`35. Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI)
`
`36. Forensic Examination of CCTV Digital VTR Surveillance Recording Equipment
`
`37. Oxygen Phone Forensics Certified
`
`38. Access Data Certified Examiner (ACE) 2014-2017
`
`39. OSForensics Certified Examiner (OSFCE)
`
`40. Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC)
`
`4.
`
`Software Certifications
`
`41. National Computer Science Academy Microsoft Word 2013 Certification Certificate
`#: 5078016
`
`
`
`16
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`42. National Computer Science Academy Microsoft Word 2000 Certification Certificate
`#: 5078187
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Licenses
`
`Texas State Licensed Private Investigator. Registration Number 827827. Associated with
`Allegiant Investigations & Security License Number: A18596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Publications
`
`1.
`
`Books
`
`Easttom, C. (2003). Moving from Windows to Linux. Newton Center, MA:
`1.
`Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`Easttom, C., Hoff, B. (2006). Moving from Windows to Linux, 2nd Ed.
`2.
`Newton Center, MA: Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`
`Easttom, C. (2003). Programming Fundamentals in C++. Newton Center,
`3.
`MA: Charles River Learning. 1st Edition, Charles River Media.
`
` Easttom C. (2002). JFC and Swing with JBuilder 8.0. Plano, Texas:
`4.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2002). JBuilder 7.0 EJB Programming. Plano, Texas:
`5.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2001). Beginning JavaScript, 1st Edition. Plano, Texas:
`6.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2002). Beginning VB.Net. Plano, Texas: WordWare
`7.
`Publishing.
`Easttom, C. (2001). Advanced JavaScript, 2nd Edition. Plano, Texas:
`8.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C. (2005). Introduction to Computer Security. New York City,
`9.
`New York: Pearson Press.
`
`Easttom, C. (2006). Network Defense and Countermeasures. New York
`10.
`City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2005). Advanced JavaScript, 3rd Edition. Plano, Texas:
`11.
`WordWare Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C., Taylor, J. (2010). Computer Crime, Investigation, and the
`12.
`Law. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
`
`Easttom, C. (2013). Essential Linux Administration: A Comprehensive
`13.
`Guide for Beginners. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
`
`17
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-0389
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Easttom, C. (2011). Introduction to Computer Security, 2nd Edition. New
`14.
`York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2012). Network Defense and Countermeasures, 2nd Edition.
`15.
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2013). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 2nd
`16.
`Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`Easttom, C. (2014). CCFP Certified Cyber Forensics Professional All-in-One
`17.
`Exam Guide. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
`
`Easttom, C., Dulaney, E. (2015). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: SY0-401.
`18.
`Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`Easttom, C. (2015). Modern Cryptography: Applied Mathematics for
`19.
`Encryption and Information Security. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill
`Publishing.
`Easttom, C. (2016). Computer Security Fundamentals, 3rd Edition. New
`20.
`York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`Easttom, C. (2017). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 3rd
`21.
`Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`Easttom, C., Dulaney, E. (2017). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide: SY0-501.
`22.
`Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`Easttom, C. (2018). Penetration Testing Fundamentals: A Hands On Guide
`23.
`to Reliable Security Audits. New York City, New York: Pearson Press. Writing
`complete, will be published in early 2018.
`
`Easttom, C., Christy, R. (2017). CompTIA Security+ Review Guide: SY0-
`24.
`501. Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`Easttom, C., Roberts, R. (2018). Networking Fundamentals, 3rd Edition.
`25.
`Goodheart-Wilcox Publishing. Writing complete, will be published in early 2018.
`
`26. Easttom, C. (2