STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`__________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`--------------------
`
`Case IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`
`Case IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110)
`
`--------------------
`
` VIDEO DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Friday, June 7, 2019, 9:00 a.m.
`
`Job Number 161500
`
`Reported by: Laurie Donovan, RPR, CRR, CSR
`
`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. 2075, p. 1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` Sidley Austin
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` By: Scott Border, Esq.
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
` Janik Vinnakota
` 8111 LBJ Freeway
` Dallas, Texas 75251
` By: Donald Puckett, Esq.
` Sean Hsu, Esq.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` David Chroniger, videographer
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` Video Deposition of
` Stephen M. Trimberger, Ph.D.
`
`Held at the offices of:
` Sidley Austin, LLP
` 1501 K Street, NW
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` Taken pursuant to notice, before
` Laurie Donovan, Registered Professional
` Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
` notary public in and for the District of
` Columbia.
`
`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
`
`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 5
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`(Exhibits continued)
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 2066 Article titled "The Roles of
` FPGAs in Reprogrammable
` Systems" . . . . . . . . . . . 109
`Exhibit 2067 Book entitled Reconfigurable
` Computing: The Theory and
` Practice of FPGA-based
` Computation . . . . . . . . . . 112
`Exhibit 2068 Article entitled "Examining
` the Viability of FPGA
` Supercomputing" . . . . . . . . 135
`Exhibit 2069 Book entitled High Performance
` Computing, Modern Systems and
` Practices . . . . . . . . . . . 146
`Exhibit 2070 U.S. Patent 6,339,819 B1 . . . 204
`Exhibit 2071 Article entitled "Programming
` the Hawaii Parallel Computer" . 228
`Exhibit 2072 Article on Wikipedia regarding
` Sun4D computer architecture . . 240
`Exhibit 2073 Article on Wikipedia regarding
` SPARCstation . . . . . . . . . 241
`Exhibit 2074 Book entitled SPARCstation 2
` Field Service Manual . . . . . 243
`
`Page 4
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` EXAMINATION INDEX
` PAGE
`EXAMINATION BY MS. PUCKETT. . . . . . . . . . 8
`
` E X H I B I T S
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 2062 Article entitled "Three Ages of
` FPGAs: A Retrospective on the
` First Thirty Years of FPGA
` Technology" . . . . . . . . . . 83
`Exhibit 2063 Book by Trimberger et al
` entitled Field-Programmable
` Gate Array Technology . . . . . 101
`Exhibit 2064 Article entitled "Architectural
` Tradeoffs in Field-Programmable
` Device-Based Computing
` Systems" . . . . . . . . . . . 106
`Exhibit 2065 Article entitled "On the
` Viability of FPGA-Based
` Integrated Coprocessors" . . . 107
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 2
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 7
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`(Exhibits continued)
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 2075 Book entitled SPARCcenter
` 2000/2000E Service Manual . . . 244
`Exhibit 2076 Chapter from book entitled
` Memory Systems, Cache, DRAM,
` Disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
`
`Page 8
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`
` MR. BORDER: Scott Border. I'm
`
` with Sidley Austin, LLP. I'm here on behalf
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
`start of tape labeled number 1 of the
`videotaped deposition of Stephen Trimberger
`in the matter of Microsoft Corporation versus
`DigitalStream LLP, Patent Owner, in the court
`United States Patent & Trademark Office,
`IPR 2018-01599, Patent 6,247,152; also IPR
`2018-01600, Patent 6,247,110.
` This deposition is being held at
`1501 K Street, Suite 600, Northwest,
`Washington, D.C., on June 7, 2019, at
`approximately 9:06. My name is David
`Chroniger from TSG Reporting, Inc., and I am
`the legal video specialist. The court
`reporter is Laurie Donovan in association
`with TSG Reporting.
` Will counsel please introduce
`yourselves.
` MR. PUCKETT: Good morning. This
`is Donald Puckett, the law firm Janik
`Vinnakota. I'm here with Sean Hsu, also of
`Janik Vinnakota, and we represent Patent
`Owner is these proceedings.
`
`Page 9
`
`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
`
` of the witness and Microsoft Corporation.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the court
`
` reporter please swear in the witness.
`
` * * * * *
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.,
`
` having been first duly sworn, testified
`
` upon his oath as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`BY MR. PUCKETT:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Trimberger. Before I
`
`begin my questioning, if you'll allow me to put a
`
`couple of housekeeping things on the record.
`
` As the videographer announced, we're
`
`taking this deposition for purposes of two
`
`separate IPR cases. The first is Case IPR
`
`2018-01599. The second one is IPR 2018-01600.
`
` For purposes of the exhibits during this
`
`deposition, I'm going to be using the exhibit
`
`numbers for the 1600 case. Across the two cases
`
`at least for the, the Petitioner exhibits, 1004 on
`
`up I think are identical across the cases.
`
` For the documents that are unique to the
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`1599 case, Exhibits 1001 through 1003, I have
`designated those three documents with a "dash A"
`designation for this deposition. So Exhibit
`1001-A will actually correspond to Exhibit 1001 in
`the 1599 IPR, and the same thing for Exhibit
`1002-A and 1003-A. So I just wanted to get that
`on the record before we get started.
` Anything else, Scott, that we need to
`put on the record?
` MR. BORDER: I don't think so.
`BY MR. PUCKETT:
` Q Okay. Dr. Trimberger, good morning.
` A Good morning.
` Q Could you start by introducing yourself,
`by just stating your full name for the record,
`please.
` A My name is Stephen Trimberger.
` Q And Dr. Trimberger, have you had any
`previous experience, either in depositions or in
`court or otherwise, in giving testimony and being
`a witness in a legal proceeding?
` A Yes.
` Q And so in your previous experience, have
`you, have you previously testified in, in a court
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 3
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 11
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`of law?
` A Yes.
` Q Was that at a trial or a hearing of some
`sort?
` A At a trial.
` Q Okay, and then have you previously sat
`for a deposition?
` A Yes, I did.
` Q Approximately how many times on each of
`those? How many times have you testified in court
`or at trial?
` A Once in court at a trial.
` Q And then --
` A And depositions, I'm not sure. Three or
`four, something like that.
` Q So of the depositions that, that you've
`been involved in, were any of those in an inter
`partes review proceeding in the patent office?
` A No.
` Q So this is the first time you've given
`an IPR deposition?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q Okay.
` So when you previously sat for
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`depositions, those were in connection with some
`sort of district court civil litigation?
` A Yes.
` Q And so those are what we refer to in
`legal practice as "discovery depositions," so the
`lawyers are trying to discover facts before you go
`and later potentially testify at a trial, right?
` Do you understand that?
` A That's my understanding, yes.
` Q And so I want to make sure that, that
`you understand for -- an IPR is a little bit
`different in one, I think, important respect.
` In an IPR, right now we're in trial,
`okay, so you submitted a declaration in both of
`these IPR cases, the 1599 and the 1600.
` You provided a declaration in each case,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And so do you understand that that, that
`declaration constitutes the, the direct
`examination portion of your trial testimony?
` Do you understand that?
` A Yes, I understand that.
` Q And so this deposition here, this is
`
`Page 13
`
`Page 12
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`considered cross-examination, okay? So in
`essence, to compare it to a civil jury trial, your
`declaration was you getting on the stand and your
`lawyer or a lawyer asking you questions that you
`would give your direct testimony to, and then at
`the conclusion of that portion, the lawyer would
`pass the witness, and then the opposing lawyer,
`which would be me, would stand up and do a
`cross-examination in court, right?
` So do you understand that that's where
`we're at in this proceeding right now? This isn't
`a discovery deposition. Do you understand the
`difference?
` A I understand that.
` Q Okay.
` Now, the declaration that you've
`submitted in this case contains your opinions on
`various matters as an expert witness in this case,
`right?
` A That is correct.
` Q Have you ever been an expert witness in
`any of your other previous cases that you've been
`involved in, either your trial testimony or your
`depositions? Have you ever been an expert
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`offering opinions about anything?
` A I haven't had the title of "expert
`witness," but I have, of course, given opinions
`about, about actions and, and technology.
` Q So there's a couple of things that I
`want to go through just to make sure that, that
`you and I are communicating correctly over the
`course of the day, and it has to do with this
`capacity that you're in today, serving as an
`expert witness to provide opinions about certain
`things.
` And what I want to make sure that you
`and I have an understanding about is sort of the
`difference between things that you know through
`your own personal experience versus things that
`you are providing opinion testimony about as an
`expert, okay?
` So the first thing is: You understand
`what it means to know about something through your
`own personal knowledge, right? Do you understand
`that concept?
` A Yes.
` Q And so, for example, if you, if you
`perceived an event with your own eyes, you know,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 4
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`if you saw someone walk into a room or something,
`right, like you would, you would have personal
`knowledge of that because you are perceiving it
`with, with your own senses.
` Do you understand that?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay, and so ordinarily -- I'm going
`to -- I want to give you an exhibit on your
`screen, and we won't spend time on this, but if
`you'll indulge me just for a moment or two.
` So ordinarily, for any witness to
`testify in a court of law, provide competent
`testimony, that witness needs to have personal
`knowledge of the matters that they are testifying
`to. This is for lay, you know, lay fact
`witnesses, okay?
` Do you understand that?
` A All right, yeah, I understand.
` Q So ordinarily, you would not be allowed
`to come to court and testify about things that you
`didn't personally have some sort of actual
`personal knowledge of yourself, okay?
` So, for example -- so, for example, you
`hear this notion of, of hearsay. Somebody told
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`you something. You know, my spouse told me about
`something that happened between her and some
`friends over there, right? So when you have
`hearsay knowledge of something, you might know
`that someone said something, but you don't have
`personal knowledge of the thing that they are
`talking about.
` You kind of understand that, right?
` A I understand that.
` Q Okay. Now, here is kind of the
`important concept for, for purposes of this, this
`deposition. A lot of times people differentiate
`between facts and opinion, right? Okay, and, and
`we don't sort of make that distinction in the
`rules of evidence. They can be a little bit
`confusing. This is why I want to talk about this.
` In the rules of evidence, we make a
`distinction between what you have personal
`knowledge of and then what you're providing
`opinions about, okay, and so let me just give you
`a quick example to kind of illustrate this.
` So if I were to ask you whether you know
`who was the first president of the United States,
`I'm sure that you do, right? You know who was the
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 16
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`first president of the United States?
` A Yes.
` Q Who was it?
` A So I, I have been told it's George
`Washington.
` Q Right, and that you don't have personal
`knowledge of that, right?
` A Never met him.
` Q Okay, and so, so you would not --
`frankly, nobody alive today would be competent to
`go to court and testify based on personal
`knowledge that George Washington was the first
`president of the United States, right; but if this
`were an important fact in a lawsuit, we could get
`an expert, a historian, let's say, to come in and
`testify based upon their special skills and
`knowledge and based upon a methodology, a
`historical methodology that they applied in terms
`of doing research or something, and could testify
`as an expert that George Washington was the first
`president of the United States, but when
`someone -- when an expert did that, that would be
`considered their opinion.
` Do you understand that?
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` A I understand.
` Q Okay. So let me show you -- I'll be
`very brief on this, but under Evidence Rule 702,
`someone can only give opinion testimony in court
`if they are qualified as an expert with knowledge,
`skill or experience, training or education, okay,
`and that training has to be helpful to the trier
`of fact, and then the testimony has to be based on
`sufficient facts or data, the testimony has to be
`either a product of reliable principles and
`methods, and then you have to have applied those
`principles and methods correctly to the facts of
`the case. That's what the rule says.
` Do you sort of understand that?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay, and so -- and you, and you believe
`that you have special knowledge and skills
`regarding some areas that are useful to the trier
`of fact in this case, the PTAB, such that you're
`qualified to bring opinion testimony into this
`case; is that fair?
` A I believe I qualify here under evidence
`rule 702 as stated.
` Q Now, there's one more important
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 5
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`difference between testifying at trial and
`testifying at the PTAB, so I want to show you
`this, okay?
` So in court, rule 705 says that an
`expert can show up in court and state your opinion
`without having to give the underlying facts and
`data; but then on cross-examination, if you're
`asked to disclose those, then you have to disclose
`those, okay? That's in court, okay?
` And the reason for this is because, as
`we talked about before, you have these discovery
`depositions in court where, before you get to
`trial, the other lawyer gets to ask you things
`like, hey, what are your facts and data, and you
`provide a report and all that sort of thing.
` So at trial, as an expert, you can show
`up and just state your opinion about things. You
`don't even have to disclose at trial your
`underlying facts and data unless you are asked,
`okay, but I want to make sure that you understand
`the rule for PTAB proceedings.
` So if I can show you on your iPad screen
`there PTAB Trial Rule 42.65, and so here if you
`look at the A paragraph of that rule, it says,
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`"Expert testimony that does not disclose the
`underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`based is entitled to little or no weight."
` Do you see that?
` A Yes, I see that.
` Q Okay, and so this here is reflecting
`the, this difference, the fact that your, your
`declaration that you've already provided, that was
`your direct testimony in court. That was, that
`was your testimony, and since I don't have a
`discovery deposition, I don't have a report, that
`sort of thing, the PTAB rules say that when you
`provide your declaration and you provide your
`opinions, at that time you have to disclose the
`underlying facts or data on which those opinions
`are based.
` Do you understand that?
` A I understand that.
` Q Okay, and then one last page here. This
`is an excerpt of Rule 42.51(b)(1)(iii). Basically
`it says that a party, at the time that they make
`testimony or take a position, if they have
`relevant information that is inconsistent with a
`position being advanced by the party, that they're
`
`Page 21
`
`Page 20
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`required to provide that, that -- those facts and
`data even if it's inconsistent with the position
`or the opinion that you are stating.
` Do you understand that obligation?
` A Yes, I understand.
` Q And the last sentence of that says that
`"This requirement extends to inventors, corporate
`officers, and persons involved in the preparation
`or filing of the documents or things."
` Do you see that?
` A I see that.
` Q And it's fair to say that you
`participated in the preparation or filing of your
`declaration at least, right?
` A That is correct.
` Q And so under this rule, you, you
`haven't -- under the first rule, you saw an
`obligation to disclose all your facts and data
`that you relied upon, and then also any knowledge
`or information in your possession that might even
`be contrary to your opinions.
` Do you understand that?
` A I understand.
` Q Okay.
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` The rules I've just taken you through
`that I would kind of loosely characterize those
`as, as sort of the foundation, if you will, of the
`way that we engage in the scientific method in
`maybe legal proceedings generally, but
`specifically within the context of, of inter
`partes review proceedings, and I want to take you
`through a little bit why I would say that.
` So we'll get into your precise expert
`qualifications in a moment, but you're certainly a
`scientist, correct?
` A I'm an engineer, but we'll -- from some
`perspective, they're close enough.
` Q You've taken a lot of science classes in
`school, of course?
` A Yes.
` Q And I imagine that you're very familiar
`with the scientific method as applied in, in
`scientific and technical fields?
` A Yes, I am.
` Q And without going through all of the
`steps of the scientific method, you would agree
`with me that one of the important aspects of the
`scientific method is the -- is publication and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 6
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`peer review; is that fair?
` Those are important parts of the
`scientific method?
` A Well, I'd say the important part of a
`scientific method is conclusions based on
`evidence.
` Q I was going to get to that, but very
`good. I certainly agree with you, okay, and so
`conclusions based on evidence, so the, the step
`for a scientist and the scientific method of, of
`gathering the, the evidence, the facts and the
`data, that's an important part, right, making sure
`that you gather the relevant information and, to
`the extent possible, all of the relevant
`information; fair enough?
` A Fair enough.
` Q And then you want to apply reliable,
`scientific methods and principles in terms of
`evaluating the evidence and drawing conclusions;
`is that fair?
` A That's correct.
` Q But then for your conclusions to achieve
`the status of scientific knowledge, let's say, you
`have to go through these steps of publication 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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`and peer review, correct?
` A That's typically the process, yes.
` Q And so let's talk about the publication
`aspect of that. So in the scientific method, if
`someone were publishing a paper that, for example,
`disclosed some sort of experiment that they had
`conducted, it would be important for them to
`disclose the assumptions in the setup of the
`experiment, right?
` Disclosure is important?
` A That's correct.
` Q And similarly, they would want to -- it
`would be important to disclose all of the, the
`facts and data that sort of underlie the
`experiment or that were produced by the
`experiment; like the disclosure of all those facts
`and data, that's important in, in the scientific
`method, correct?
` A Disclosing the assumptions and data is
`important, yes.
` Q And so that's how that overlaps with
`that PTAB rule that I showed you. Just in the
`same way that it's important for a scientist who
`is engaged in, in publication to disclose all of
`
`Page 25
`
`Page 24
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`the relevant facts and data, similarly, for your
`testimony, PTAB says it's important that you
`disclose the facts and data that underlie your
`opinions; fair enough?
` A Understood.
` Q And then in the scientific method, this
`idea of peer review, the notion there is that once
`that you've published your facts and your data and
`your protocol and your conclusions, that your
`peers can take that publication and they can
`replicate your experiment and, and -- right?
`Replication -- the ability to replicate the
`experiment based upon the disclosures is an
`important notion in the scientific method; agree?
` A I would agree. Replication is
`important.
` Q And through that process of replication,
`the, the peers in the scientific community can
`either confirm the validity of the experiment or,
`or perhaps be unable to confirm the validity of
`the experiment; is that right?
` A That's the typical process.
` Q And, and so this notion of disclosing
`facts and data to allow others to potentially
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`replicate the experiment and the underlying
`science and to attest to conclusions, that's all
`important for allowing someone's hypothesis that's
`tested through testing and experiments and then
`published to ultimately achieve the status of
`scientific knowledge, if you will; is that fair?
` A That's basically the way the scientific
`method works.
` Q And you've published a fair number of,
`of technical publications and journal articles and
`what-have-you, correct?
` A Dozens, perhaps.
` Q And, and so, so you're familiar with the
`notion of disclosing your facts and data so that
`other people can check your work, basically?
` A Yes, I'm familiar with that.
` Q Okay. So just to kind of, in summary
`fashion, and then we'll move on to a different
`topic, but do you feel like that for -- well,
`let's just go back very quickly. Let me withdraw
`the question.
` So we looked at Rule 42.65(a). It says
`that unless you disclose the underlying facts or
`data on which the opinion is based, the opinion is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 7
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`entitled to little or no weight, and my question
`for you simply is: Do you feel that when you
`submitted your declaration for purposes of these
`IPR cases, that you sufficiently complied with
`this rule by disclosing your underlying facts or
`data?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q And similarly, with respect to what we
`looked at in 42.51(b)(1)(iii), do you feel like
`there was any information in your possession that
`ran contrary to any opinion or statement that you
`made in the declaration that perhaps should have
`been disclosed?
` A No.
` Q Don't feel like you have anything
`additional to disclose here?
` A I have nothing additional to disclose.
` Q Okay.
` So the next thing I want to ask you is
`just -- and I'm not asking for specifics, but just
`sort of in, in general terms, I want to get a
`sense of how much time that you spent learning
`about the case and doing all the research and
`everything that went into your declaration. So
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`let's take the, the date that your declaration was
`filed as kind of a demarcation point, okay?
` A Okay.
` Q If we need to look at the specific date
`on it, we can.
` 5th day of September, 2018, okay?
` So first, if you could give me a sense
`of the total number of hours that you, as best you
`can recall, that you put into your work on these
`matters prior to the date that -- prior to the
`time that you signed your name to the declaration.
` A I don't know what the exact number is,
`but it's in the range of about 100 hours or
`something like that.
` Q Okay, and so would there -- like did you
`at some point, either then or shortly thereafter,
`something, send some time records that -- invoices
`or whatever that would document that number, you
`could go look up the exact number if you wanted
`to?
` A Yes, it's possible to look up the exact
`numbers, but I don't, I don't have them with me.
` Q No, I understand, I understand, but
`ballpark, 100 hours?
`
`Page 29
`
`Page 28
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` A That's what I'm estimating, yeah.
` Q And then again the best estimate, from
`that date until today, ballpark, how many hours of
`work did you put into this case from the time that
`you signed your declaration up to now?
` A Again, I don't know the exact number,
`but it's probably about 20 hours.
` Q And I would imagine most of those 20
`hours have been over the last few days or week or
`something in preparation for this deposition?
` A That would be a correct assumption, yes.
` Q Now, when you were preparing for this
`deposition today, I imagine you spent some of
`those 20 or so hours reading back through your
`declarations?
` A Yes.
` Q Of the 20 or so hours, like what
`percentage of that time do you think was spent
`like just, just reading the declarations?
` A Oh, it's almost impossible to, to say.
`75 percent.
` Q So you had a chance to go through them
`pretty carefully?
` A That was my intent, yes.
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` Q And -- okay. Let me withdraw that.
` Let's -- I have your deposition -- I
`mean -- I'm sorry -- your declaration on the
`screen, and we'll see if it's easier for you to
`look on it there or in the paper copy that you
`have in front of you, but let me take you to a
`page here.
` Do you have -- it should be page 3 of
`your declaration. It's toward the top of the
`page, Section D for "Information Considered" is
`there.
` Do you have that in front of you?
` A I see that, yes.
` Q Okay. So in this paragraph 6, you
`state, "In forming my opinions I have considered
`the materials I identify in this report and those
`listed in Attachment B to my declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A No, actually, I don't see that.
` Q Looking at paragraph 6 of your --
` A Six?
` Q Of Exhibit 1003.
` A Okay, I see that now, yes.
` Q So it's the second sentence of that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC
`EX. 2075, p. 8
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
`paragraph. "In forming my opinions, I have
`considered the materials identified in this report
`and those listed in Attachment B to my
`declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A I see that.
` Q So correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
`think there is an Attachment B to your
`declaration, is there?
` A I don't recall seeing Attachment B.
` Q I don't think there's an Attachment A
`either; is that right?
` A I haven't seen an Attachment A either.
` Q And I don't think that I saw that you
`provided a list of materials that you considered
`for purposes of putting together your declaration.
` Am I mistaken about that?
` A My declaration is the only document I've
`got here that I recall, so there's no separate
`list of those, of those documents.
` Q Was, was a list kept at any time prior
`to the time that you signed and submitted this
`declaration?
` A I don't recall.
`
`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
`
` STEPHEN M. TRIMBERGER, Ph.D.
` Q So you don't have any recollection that
`one was kept?
` A That is correct.
` Q So prior to the time that you signed
`this declaration, I mean did you read this
`paragraph and think to yourself, hey, I'm saying
`here that I'm providing a list of all the things
`that I've considered, maybe I should make sure
`that list is correct or updated or --
` MR. BORDER: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I, I don't recall any
` sort of -- any that, any that -- any
` conversation along thos