throbber
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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket