UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`)
`)
`Petitioner, )
`) IPR 2018-01594
`)
`) Patent 6,434,687
`)
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, )
`)
`Patent Owner. )
`-----------------------------x
`
`vs.
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`Bellevue, Washington
`Thursday, May 30, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`Connie Recob, CCR 2631, RMR, CRR
`JOB NO. 160990
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` SIDLEY AUSTIN
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: JOSEPH MICALLEF, ESQ.
` SCOTT BORDER, ESQ.
`
` JANIK VINNAKOTA
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 8111 LBJ Freeway
` Dallas, Texas 75251
` BY: SEAN HSU, ESQ.
` DONALD PUCKETT, ESQ.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` CRAIG MITCHELL - CLVS - VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`Page 5
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` Scott Border with Sidley Austin for the
` petitioner and the witness.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
` Will the court reporter please swear
` in the witness.
`HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.,
` called as a witness, having been duly sworn
` by a Notary Public, was examined and
` testified as follows:
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
` Please proceed.
`EXAMINATION
`BY MR. HSU:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Stone. Is it okay
`if I call you Dr. Stone for the deposition?
` A. By all means, yeah.
` Q. Okay. Okay. So I'm -- I'm going to
`start -- I guess we'll go over some basic
`ground rules.
` My understanding is you've been in a
`deposition before?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And about how long ago was that?
` A. The most recent one was in 2018,
`
`12
`
`345
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` May 30, 2019
` 9:04 a.m.
`
` Deposition of HAROLD S. STONE,
`Ph.D., held at the offices of Perkins Coie,
`10885 Northeast Fourth Street, Suite 700,
`Bellevue, Washington, before Connie Recob,
`CCR 2631, RMR, CRR, a Notary Public of the
`State of Washington.
`
`12
`
`3
`
`456
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
`Here is the start of media labeled No. 1 of
`the video-recorded deposition of Harold S.
`Stone in the matter of Microsoft, Microsoft
`versus Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in the
`United States Patent Trademark Office
`before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`No. IPR 2018-01594.
` This deposition is being held at
`Perkins Coie Bellevue at 10885 Northeast
`4th Street, Suite 700, in Bellevue,
`Washington, at approximately 9:04 a.m.
` My name is Craig F. Mitchell, CLVS,
`CDVS. I am the legal videographer from TSG
`Reporting headquartered at 747 Third Avenue
`in New York, New York. The court reporter
`is Connie Recob in association with TSG
`Reporting.
` Counsel, please introduce yourself.
` MR. HSU: This is Sean Hsu and
`Donald Puckett with the law firm Janik
`Vinnakota, LLP in Dallas, Texas, on behalf
`of the patent owner.
` MR. MICALLEF: Joe Micallef and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 2
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`over a year ago.
` Q. Okay. All right. So just kind of a
`quick refresher. We're going to basically go
`through a bunch of questions. I'll be asking
`them to you and give the best answer that you
`can.
` I don't want this to be kind of a
`marathon session, so we're going to try to take
`regular breaks. I'm going to aim for like
`about one every hour. If you need to take a
`break earlier than that, just let -- let me
`know. The only thing I do ask is that if we're
`in kind of the middle of a line of questioning,
`I would like to try to get through to kind of a
`stopping point, if that's all right.
` A. That's -- that's fine.
` Q. Okay. And then if there's anything
`I ask that's, you know, unclear or you need me
`to repeat it, feel free to ask. I'm more than
`happy to.
` So starting off, I'll just run
`through some basics. So is there anything that
`you're aware of right now that would prevent
`you from testifying truthfully at this
`
`Page 8
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`just avoid talking about the testimony.
` Is that all right?
` A. That's fine. I understand that.
` Q. Okay. All right. So jumping into,
`I guess, this IPR process. My understanding is
`you've been involved in some IPRs before; is
`that right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Do you know about how many?
` A. It could be over 10, but on that
`order.
` Q. And kind of, do you have a
`recollection of about how many of those you
`went through a deposition?
` A. All of them.
` Q. All of them, okay. And then about
`how many of them did you kind of see all the
`way through to like a trial on the merits so to
`speak?
` A. Let me back off on that -- that last
`one, because there are three patents in- --
`in- -- involved in this, and the next two I
`will be deposed in two weeks. Apart from
`those --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`deposition?
` A. There is nothing I'm aware of.
` Q. Okay. And is there anything that
`would prevent you from testifying competently?
` A. There is nothing.
` Q. Okay. And -- oh, one other kind of
`bookkeeping matter. For depositions in front
`of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, there's a
`special regulation governing depositions, sort
`of the, kind of the flow of the deposition.
`This part that we're in is considered the
`cross-examination. And so we've started that
`and until essentially that we pass the witness
`to the other side, this is -- the entirety of
`it is considered the cross-examination of you.
` And so one of the kind of
`bookkeeping matters in case counsel hasn't
`discussed this with you, there is a regulation
`prohibiting counsel from talking with witnesses
`about the substance of their testimony until
`the cross-examination period has ended.
` So I just wanted to make that clear,
`make you aware of that so that on breaks and
`stuff, if there's, you know, a need to discuss,
`
`Page 9
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` Q. Right.
` A. -- all the others I have been
`deposed on, and they have all gone through
`their whole process although few are still
`waiting -- awaiting the final decision.
` Q. Okay. Okay. So it sounds like you
`have a -- a fair bit of knowledge about the IPR
`process, but just to kind of back up a little
`bit: Do you understand kind of what an IPR is?
` A. I believe I do. I'm not a lawyer,
`but I believe I understand.
` Q. Yeah. And so what is kind of your
`understanding of the purpose of an IPR?
` A. The purpose of the IPR is to listen
`to petitions regarding the validity of patents
`that have issued.
` Q. Okay. And what's your understanding
`of why we are in this IPR proceeding here
`today?
` A. I believe that a patent, or actually
`there are three involved in this family. The
`patents are believed to be invalid and the IPR
`is listening to petitions about their validity.
` Q. And do you have an understanding of
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 3
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`Microsoft's role in this IPR?
` A. Not exactly. I -- I believe that a
`Microsoft product is accused, but I don't have
`much understanding of that.
` Q. Okay. And do you have an
`understanding of what the patent owner's role
`is going to be in this IPR?
` A. Other than being patent owners, I --
`I -- I don't know what they do.
` Q. Okay. That's fair enough. So that
`actually answers maybe a couple of these
`follow-ups, but I'll kind of drill into that a
`little bit.
` Are you familiar with an entity
`called the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe?
` A. I am not.
` Q. How about an entity called SRC Labs?
` A. I am familiar with the name and they
`are named on patents that I have reviewed;
`otherwise, I don't know much about SRC Labs.
` Q. Okay. And then what about an entity
`called DirectStream? Have you heard of them?
` A. I know nothing about that.
` Q. Okay. So for today's deposition, do
`
`Page 12
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` Do you have an understanding that
`that constitutes sworn testimony in front of
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board?
` A. I do.
` Q. And so this deposition, as I
`mentioned before, is the cross-examination
`based on that deposition -- or the declaration
`testimony.
` Do you understand that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. So as you recall, you were
`sworn in at the beginning of this deposition,
`right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And so this deposition will also
`constitute sworn testimony before the Board.
`Do you have that understanding?
` A. I do.
` Q. And just to clarify one other, I
`guess, sort of procedural matter: Do you have
`an understanding that both the declaration and
`this deposition are considered public in terms
`of the testimony, it's publicly available?
` A. I do.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 11
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`you have an -- a rough understanding of kind of
`what the purpose of this deposition is within
`this IPR proceeding?
` A. I do.
` Q. And what is that understanding?
` A. My understanding is the deposition
`is to ask me about my declaration which took a
`position regarding the validity of a patent.
` Q. And do you understand that this is
`part of, I guess, what we would call a
`discovery process within the IPR proceeding?
`Do you have that understanding?
` MR. MICALLEF: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure of the
` legal term "discovery." I -- I --
` otherwise, I understand it's part of the
` proceeding.
`BY MR. HSU:
` Q. Okay. Sure. Actually, let me back
`up then.
` So you testified, or you just
`testified that you have an understanding this
`is in connection with the declaration that you
`provided.
`
`Page 13
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` Q. And so just as a -- a clarification
`that if, for whatever reason, one of the lines
`of questioning goes into something that you
`consider maybe is confidential or should not be
`made public, I guess let us all know. We'll
`flag that and we can have a discussion on how
`best to kind of seal or -- or treat that part
`of the transcript.
` Is that all right?
` A. That's fine. I understand.
` Q. Okay. All right. So in terms of
`the current status of this IPR, do you have an
`understanding of where we are in that process?
` A. I don't know the whole process. I'm
`not familiar with the whole process. My
`understanding is as you described. I'm
`testifying in regard to my declaration.
` Q. Okay. And are you aware that an
`institution decision has been made by the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board already?
` A. Yes, counsel has informed me of
`that.
` Q. Okay. And have you had a chance to
`review that decision?
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 4
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 14
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` A. I have not seen it.
` Q. Okay. Are you aware that the
`institution decision does cite to and discuss
`portions of your declaration?
` A. That's my understanding.
` Q. All right. So I want to get into a
`little bit of discussion about sort of your
`role here.
` So what is your understanding of the
`role that you've been asked to -- to take part
`in in this IPR?
` A. I've been asked to review the patent
`in -- that's in this case, that's the '687
`patent, and to form an opinion with respect to
`its validity based on prior art.
` Q. And do you have an understanding
`that you're undertaking that role as what we
`call an expert witness?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And do you have an understanding of
`what it means to be an expert witness?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And can you provide me just a --
`kind of a short summary of what your
`
`Page 16
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`sorry, let me rephrase that.
` Do you have an understanding that as
`an expert witness you're being called to
`provide opinions based on your expertise, sort
`of your knowledge and experience within a
`certain technical field?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And that -- do you have an
`understanding that that opinion needs to be
`based on some sort of fact or data that you're
`considering?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And do you have an understanding
`that your opinions need to have sufficient
`basis in facts and data?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Do you also have an understanding
`that these opinions need to be the product of
`reliable principles and methods?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And one of those I guess approaches
`for technical matters may be, for example, the
`scientific method. Do you have that
`understanding?
`
`Page 15
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`understanding is.
` A. My understanding is I am supposed to
`review the patent in consideration -- from the
`point of view of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the -- of the priority
`date of the patent and to determine, as viewed
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, if the
`prior art would have been known in the art to
`that person.
` Q. And as part of your role as an
`expert witness, have you -- has someone
`explained to you sort of the -- I guess what we
`call the federal rules of evidence framework
`for what an expert witness is supposed to
`provide in terms of testimony?
` A. I'm not sure about that. I -- I
`do -- I could refer to my report where I have
`been informed of the standards, legal
`standards, if that's what you're referring to.
` Q. Not specifically. So I guess let me
`step back a little bit then on that.
` So do you have an understanding
`that -- as an expert witness, that you're
`called to provide testimony relying or --
`
`Page 17
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` A. I do.
` Q. And so talking about the scientific
`method kind of briefly, what's your
`understanding of what that is?
` A. You said scientific method?
` Q. Yes, scientific method.
` A. The scientific method, as I've
`practiced and I've been taught, is to conduct
`research, identify the facts, come to
`conclusions, publish those conclusions and let
`the peer re- -- I -- I'm sorry, submit for peer
`review, respond to peer review, and after
`satisfactory review, to publish openly so that
`it can be reviewed by the scientific community.
` Q. Okay. And I seem to recall from
`your CV that you are very well published. So
`is it fair to say that you're pretty familiar
`with this sort of publication, academic
`publication and peer-review process?
` A. Yes, I am.
` Q. And have you supervised others who
`are kind of going through that same publication
`process as well?
` A. Yes, I have.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 5
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` Q. So in that kind of role of preparing
`academic papers or supervising people who are
`preparing academic papers, what is it that you
`are looking for in terms of a well prepared
`academic paper?
` A. The -- I'll answer as a -- as a
`reviewer of such an academic paper.
` Q. Sure.
` A. First of all, I look to see if it
`has claimed results. It -- it should be a
`contribution to knowledge. Then I look at the
`method applied, at the data obtained, if
`there's data, and supporting evidence, and how
`the contributions of knowledge was reached
`based on what has been presented in the paper.
` Q. And if the -- the data that's been
`provided -- sorry. Let me -- let me phrase it
`this way instead.
` For the academic paper, is one of
`the purposes of providing the data and
`conclusions to allow the scientific community
`to review the underlying analysis and either
`repeat it or verify it or perhaps find
`criticisms of that analysis; is that right?
`
`Page 20
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` A. That's a -- a very broad question,
`and I -- I can't answer over the whole breadth
`of the question. I can -- I can give a
`specific example.
` Q. Sure.
` A. Okay. And the -- in the '90s,
`people were publishing papers regarding
`performance of cache memories, and the
`performance was usually based on feeding sample
`runtime series of memory references to a cache
`and analyzing performance.
` If I had such a paper, I would
`question in my mind whether the data that was
`input to the studies was representative. That
`would be typical.
` Q. And -- and can you elaborate what do
`you mean by "representative"?
` A. Well, if you're going to build a
`machine for business and you submit a -- a
`series of references, memory references made
`for a climate change, I don't think that would
`be the appropriate data to analyze that
`machine. So I would look at the data and I
`would look at the machine or the purpose and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` A. That's right.
` Q. So there's a concept of I guess
`repeatability of the -- of the analysis, for
`lack of a better word. I don't know if --
`"experiment" is probably maybe not the
`appropriate term, but there's sort of an idea
`that a third party could pick up the academic
`paper and try to duplicate the analysis,
`whatever is being presented as the conclusion;
`is that right?
` A. Yeah, that would be for experimental
`papers particularly. There are some papers
`that are, theoretical papers where you don't
`repeat the experiment, but you examine the
`argument. So what you've described is partial
`of the scientific method, but not complete.
` Q. Okay. And so how would -- if --
`if -- let's say you were picking up an academic
`paper that someone else had prepared. What are
`sort of the benchmarks that you would look for
`to determine if you can repeat that sort of
`analysis and conclusion either to verify its,
`you know, accuracy or to identify areas of
`potential error?
`
`Page 21
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`try to make a decision or an assessment of
`whether these were relevant.
` Q. Okay. And so in that assessment
`process, you find that, let's say the data is
`not representative, then would you consider
`that a -- a paper that is of sufficient
`academic quality?
` A. It -- there are many dependencies on
`this, but as I've outlined the situation with
`climate change for a business processor, I
`would question it and I would send back a -- a
`comment to the editor about that. And then
`there may be further discussions between the
`editor and the author and the editor and the
`reviewer to see if something different can be
`developed.
` Q. Okay. And in part of that process,
`is there a -- I guess a need to sometimes
`obtain or request additional data? Let's say
`the author provides some data, and maybe in
`their mind, they're thinking that that's
`sufficient, but a third party looking at it --
`for example, you are looking at the paper, and
`you find that there's significant gaps in the
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 6
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 22
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`data that's been presented, is there an
`opportunity to sort of request for that to be
`completed?
` A. The answer is yes, you can request
`more as a reviewer, and also as an author, I
`have received such requests and provided
`additional data.
` Q. And what's your understanding of, I
`guess, the purpose of that, that iterative
`process on collecting or providing more data?
` A. Well, that's trying to make the
`paper more correct or more -- it's trying to
`resolve issues where the paper could lead to
`wrong conclusions. It's trying to improve the
`results of the research, and it's -- it's all
`part of the scientific method that has helped
`create science.
` Q. Have you ever been in a situation
`where data that's been requested is not
`provided by the author?
` A. It may have happened. I -- it
`doesn't come to mind right now.
` Q. Okay. What would be your
`expectation of the result of that? If, say, an
`
`Page 24
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`because the underlying data is incomplete?
` A. I --
` Q. Have you ever seen those situations?
` A. I have to speculate. I suspect
`there are, but I -- I can't name any.
` Q. Okay. So you haven't seen any in
`particular in kind of your personal experience?
` A. It may have come up. I just don't
`have it on the tip of my tongue. I don't know.
` Q. So stepping back a little, say a
`paper is published, and a third party picks it
`up and they see the data that's presented, the
`analysis, the discussion of the procedure to
`analyze the data.
` If they follow that same process
`using the same data set, would it be your
`expectation that, assuming the premise is
`correct of the paper, that they should be able
`to replicate the same conclusions?
` MR. MICALLEF: Objection.
` Incomplete hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: It was a complicated
` question.
`BY MR. HSU:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 23
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`author submits a paper for academic
`publication, there's a -- a determination that
`additional data is needed to be disclosed and
`that data is not provided, how would that paper
`normally be treated?
` A. There -- there's no normal result.
`There's several possible results, and this is
`due to the editor, the author and the reviewer
`all deciding to negotiate. You know, maybe
`the -- there's a reason why the additional data
`can't be provided and it's a reasonable reason,
`but there's an alternative way to proceed.
`I -- there are too many different possible
`answers. I -- I can't comment on that.
` Q. Okay. So you mention that there's
`sort of a negotiation process. I guess, is
`there ever a point where an academic paper is,
`I guess, blocked from publication because that
`negotiation process does not resolve in a
`compromise of sorts?
` A. Yeah. There are situations where
`papers aren't published, yes.
` Q. Well, specifically are there
`situations where papers aren't published
`
`Page 25
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` Q. Sure. Yeah.
` A. I'm trying to follow.
` Q. Yeah. Sorry. Let me see if I can
`reframe that into a slightly different
`formulation.
` So let's start with an academic
`paper's been submitted and it has data analysis
`and conclusions.
` Are you with me there?
` A. I'm with you there.
` Q. Okay. So a third party picks up
`that academic paper. So now they have the
`disclosed data, whatever the procedure that's
`discussed and the analysis that the original
`author provided, right?
` A. I'm there.
` Q. Okay. And the third party, using
`that disclosure of the data and what was done,
`basically performs the same procedure or
`analysis on that same data set.
` Are you following me there?
` A. I'm following you there.
` Q. Okay. Would it be reasonable then
`to expect that that third party should come to
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 7
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 26
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`the same conclusions that the original author
`did?
` MR. MICALLEF: Objection.
` Incomplete hypothetical. Irrelevant.
` THE WITNESS: There's a gap in my
` understanding, and the reason is that
` the -- I don't know how the original author
` formed the conclusions based on the data.
` I believe that if the data in the
` experiment is provided in detail, that
` somebody should be able to repeat that.
` Whether or not they come to the same
` conclusions, I -- I have no idea.
`BY MR. HSU:
` Q. Okay. That is fair.
` So I guess if the analysis leads
`directly to the conclusion, would that be a
`situation where you would expect that the same
`analysis should result in the same conclusions?
` MR. MICALLEF: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think so
` because scientists often see the same data
` and can repeat it, but come to different
` conclusions because there are multiple ways
`
`Page 28
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` analysis. I was asked to do a -- an
` analysis of the prior art and compare it to
` the patent. I -- I don't know if that's
` scientific. I -- I just don't know how to
` relate it to your question.
`BY MR. HSU:
` Q. Okay. Sure. So, I guess, what
`would be different between what your
`understanding of the scientific analysis is
`compared to what you did in this case?
` A. I -- I need some time to think about
`that. I -- it's just -- it's -- it's a
`difficult question for me. I don't know.
` Q. So do you have an understanding
`that -- under the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`regulations, that your testimony as an expert
`witness requires you disclose all of your
`underlying facts and data?
` A. I have that, yes.
` Q. Okay. And as you're sitting here
`right now, do you feel that you have
`sufficiently done that in your declaration?
` A. Yes, I have done that.
` Q. All right. So turning to your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` to explain the data. And it would be
` perfectly reasonable to come to one
` conclusion under one explanation and to
` come to another conclusion under another
` explanation, and since the explanations are
` being investigated, we don't really know
` which one is the correct one or if either
` of them are correct.
`BY MR. HSU:
` Q. Okay. So as a, I guess a scientist,
`how would you evaluate between two competing
`conclusions on the same data set in the same
`analysis?
` A. I would conduct more experiments. I
`would get more data and find other ways to try
`to figure out which explanation, if either, are
`correct or come up with another one.
` Q. Okay. So would you agree with me
`that what you've been asked to do in this IPR
`is a scientific analysis of the patent in suit?
` MR. MICALLEF: Objection.
` Irrelevant.
` THE WITNESS: I -- I don't recall
` ever being asked to do a scientific
`
`Page 29
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`declaration, we'll start off with some, I
`guess, logistics.
` So do you recall about when you were
`first retained as an expert witness for this
`case?
` A. I can give a rough estimate, but I
`don't have the -- I don't know the date
`exactly.
` Q. Yeah, a rough estimate's fine.
` A. It was early in 2018.
` Q. Okay. And do you think kind of
`first quarter of 2018?
` A. Could be. Could be second quarter,
`but around in that -- in that time frame.
` Q. Okay. And do you recall about when
`you first began working on a declaration for
`this case?
` A. You know, it -- it was shortly after
`retention. I -- I -- first or second quarter.
` Q. Okay. And do you know approximately
`how long you spent working on your declaration?
`Just a very rough ballpark is fine.
` A. I -- I don't know. It was perhaps
`10 days, something like that. There were three
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2065, p. 8
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`declarations and they're related, so I haven't
`broken down in my mind how much on each. And I
`don't know if 10 is the correct number for this
`one. I -- it's -- it's very vague in my mind.
` Q. Okay. Well, I guess the -- let me
`see if we can approach it from a different way.
` I guess collectively, across all
`three declarations, do you have kind of a rough
`approximation of how -- how long you spent
`collectively on all three?
` A. I -- I'd have to speculate. I -- I
`don't -- I don't have a good recollection. It
`was several days a month over a period of
`several months.
` Q. Okay. So you mentioned about
`ten days.
` Do you think 30 days total across
`all three is about right?
` A. It -- that sounds high to me. That
`sounds very high.
` Q. Okay. And I guess among the three
`declarations, do you think that you spent more
`or less time on this one compared to the other
`two?
`
`Page 32
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`conversations with counsel, can you think of
`anyone else that you would have conversed with
`about the declaration?
` A. No one.
` Q. So kind of reframing that maybe from
`a different direction, is it -- is it correct
`then to say that you did not speak with anyone
`else other than counsel in preparing your
`declaration?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In the process of preparing your
`declaration, did you keep one draft or did you
`have multiple drafts? Kind of how was that
`process done?
` A. I -- I personally had my -- my
`draft. I can't speak for the counsel.
` Q. And that -- that's really all I'm
`asking is for you, you essentially -- it sounds
`like you had one working draft and you kept
`making edits and improvements to it?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. Then -- actually, let's try
`this really quick. I'm going to present to you
`an exhibit. This one's already been premarked
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 31
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
` A. It -- I would group the other two
`as -- as -- as one because of the similarity.
` Q. Okay. That's fair.
` A. And the -- the amount of time spent
`on this versus that is approximately the same.
`I just don't know. I don't know.
` Q. Okay. So getting into sort of the
`process of how you were preparing your
`declaration, do you recall if anyone else was
`involved in that preparation process?
` A. I had no assistant or anything else
`like that. During the preparation process,
`there was discussions with counsel.
` Q. Okay. So you mentioned assistants,
`so did you have anyone assist with typing?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Were there any other
`researchers, people that you tasked with
`finding documents?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you perform all the research
`yourself?
` A. I did.
` Q. Okay. And so other than
`
`Page 33
`
` HAROLD S. STONE, Ph.D.
`in the case.
` This is your declaration,