`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`IPR2018-01605, IPR2018-01606 and IPR2018-01607
`U. S. Patent 7,620,800 B2
`__________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s Motion to Compel and Strike (“Motion”).
`
`The Motion is premised upon flat mischaracterizations of the deposition—Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel never instructed the witness not to answer solely on the basis of
`
`“form” objections.1 The Motion fails because Microsoft does not demonstrate the
`
`relevance of the testimony it seeks to compel, and because the proposed deposition
`
`questions are far outside the scope of Mr. Huppenthal’s declaration testimony.
`
`Microsoft has not met its burden and is not entitled to any relief on this Motion.
`
`A. Huppenthal’s Declaration Testimony is Limited to Personal Knowledge
`Regarding Background Technology and Related Facts.
`
`
`
`Huppenthal’s declaration is limited to his personal knowledge and
`
`background facts—providing a general technological context of the inventions
`
`claimed in each of the challenged patents. See EX2101 (“Decl.”) ¶¶32-37, ¶¶48-69,
`
`¶¶80-86. He provides no expert opinions. Id. ¶2. His declaration does not discuss
`
`(i) any legal issues, (ii) the specification of the patents in any substantial manner,
`
`(iii) the scope of any patent claims, (iv) the legal meaning of any claim terms, or (v)
`
`any comparison of the patents or patent claims to any prior art references. EX1073
`
`(“DepoTr.”) 7:4-10:24, 48:20-50:3, 106:14-22.
`
`
`1 Compare Mot. at 1-3 with Depo.Tr. 57:21-60:4; 99:8-100:9; 116:20-117:9
`
`(outside the scope objections); 100:23-24 (classified national security objections).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Microsoft’s cross examination must be limited to the scope of Huppenthal’s
`
`declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §42.53(d)(5)(D)(ii). If Microsoft intends to take
`
`discovery beyond the scope of the declaration, it must move for additional discovery
`
`and meet its burden of proof under the “Garmin factors.” See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.51(b)(2); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper 26 at 6-16 (precedential). But, Microsoft has not done so.
`
`B. Microsoft’s Questions Regarding the “Memory Interconnect Fabric” Are
`Outside the Scope of Huppenthal’s Declaration.
`
`
`
`The Huppenthal declaration provides technical background regarding the use
`
`of a “crossbar switch” in the CRAY-3 computer and modifications to the crossbar
`
`switch required to build the SRC-6 computer that underlies each of the patents
`
`challenged. See Decl. ¶¶19, 30, 32-35. Microsoft questioned Huppenthal on the
`
`crossbar switch, and Huppenthal answered all of these questions. See, e.g., Depo.Tr.
`
`12:9-36:7, 51:20-57:7. Microsoft was not denied full and fair cross-examination
`
`regarding Huppenthal’s testimony regarding the crossbar switch and related
`
`hardware structures.
`
`Microsoft, however, went outside the scope of Huppenthal’s declaration by
`
`asking questions about the meaning of “memory interconnect fabric” as that phrase
`
`is used in certain challenged patents. Depo.Tr. 57:21-59:11. Yet, the Huppenthal
`
`declaration does not mention “memory interconnect fabric” and does not connect
`
`the crossbar switch testimony to the “memory interconnect fabric” of the challenged
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`patents. Tellingly, Petitioner’s counsel tacitly acknowledged that Huppenthal’s
`
`declaration testimony does not relate to the patent claims or claim construction when
`
`he stipulated during the deposition that “I won’t ask him about the claims.” Depo.Tr.
`
`59:7-8.
`
`Yet, Petitioner now moves to compel the same testimony on the basis that
`
`ostensibly it is relevant to claim construction for a means-plus-function claim term
`
`found only in the’152 and ’110 Patents. See Mot. at 1-2. Thus, this portion of the
`
`Motion has no conceivable relevance outside IPR2018-01599 and -01600.
`
`Moreover, Microsoft’s only support for its assertion that the testimony is relevant to
`
`claim construction is one sentence of attorney speculation that the crossbar switch
`
`described in the declaration “bears striking resemblance” to the memory
`
`interconnect fabric disclosed in the patents. Mot. at 1. During the deposition,
`
`Microsoft made no attempt to ask questions that might lay an evidentiary foundation
`
`for this assertion, but instead merely asked: “And so what is a memory interconnect
`
`fabric?” Depo.Tr. 57:21.
`
`Even if there were some connection between the two, the proposed testimony
`
`is irrelevant to claim construction for the ’152 and ’110 Patents. Neither patent uses
`
`the term “crossbar switch” in the specification or claims. And, claim construction
`
`of a means-plus-function claim term is limited to the corresponding structure
`
`disclosed in the patent specification. See, e.g., IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corp.,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`861 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Inventor testimony regarding claim
`
`construction typically is irrelevant to any claim construction; and, it is particularly
`
`irrelevant to a means-plus-function claim construction when the testimony relates to
`
`matters outside the patent specification. See, e.g., Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`
`216 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, even the “memory interconnect
`
`fabric” itself is not directly related to the “means coupling” claim term. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2018-01599, Paper 37 at 48-53; 51 (yellow lines corresponding to the proposed
`
`claim construction structure for “means coupling” does not touch the “memory
`
`interconnect fabric” of Figure 1).
`
`D. Microsoft’s Questions Regarding Classified National Security
`Applications of the SRC-6 are Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of
`Huppenthal’s Declaration.
`
`
`
`The Huppenthal declaration provided high-level, general testimony regarding
`
`the customers who purchased SRC-6 computers and the features of interest to those
`
`customers. Decl. ¶¶80-87. His declaration did not touch upon the applications any
`
`customers ran on the SRC-6. Microsoft conducted a full cross-examination on this
`
`testimony, and the witness was permitted to answer all questions. Depo.Tr. 100:11-
`
`103:5, 104:5-106:22.
`
`Microsoft wandered outside the scope of the declaration by asking questions
`
`regarding the classified applications that Department of Defense (“DoD”) ran on the
`
`SRC-6. Depo.Tr. 101:10-15, 16-18, 19, 102:3-103:13. Microsoft’s Motion does not
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`address why such questions regarding DoD applications are relevant to any issue in
`
`these cases or show such testimony is within the declaration scope. Mot. at 4.
`
`Indeed, when asked about systems sold to customers, Huppenthal provided
`
`answers about the features and functionality of those systems. Huppenthal only
`
`refused to answer portions of questions based on his legal obligation not to disclose
`
`classified national security information. See 37 U.S.C. §798; see also Exec. Order
`
`No. 13526, 75 F.R. 705 (2010). Microsoft is wrong to assert Huppenthal “refused
`
`to answer in almost every case.” The transcript demonstrates the opposite.
`
`
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`Microsoft received a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine Huppenthal
`
`regarding his declaration. Microsoft’s Motion seeks to take irrelevant discovery
`
`outside the scope of his declaration without abiding by 37 C.F.R. §42.51(b)(2).
`
`Microsoft has not met its burden of proof on this Motion, and it is not entitled to any
`
`relief. Alternatively, Patent Owner seeks a protective order from the Board pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. §42.54 to preclude the discovery Microsoft requests in this Motion. A
`
`protective order is appropriate here given the national security concerns regarding
`
`the classified information and the irrelevance of the information Microsoft seeks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Date: October 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan, Reg. No. 45, 964
`achan@shorechan.com
`Joseph F. DePumpo, Reg. No. 38,124
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`Christopher Evans*
`cevans@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 330
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Sean Hsu, Reg. No. 69,477
`shsu@jvllp.com
`Rajkumar Vinnakota *
`kvinnakota@jvllp.com
`G. Donald Puckett *
`dpuckett@jvllp.com
`JANIK VINNAKOTA LLP
`8111 Lyndon B. Johnson Fwy #790
`Dallas, TX 75251
`Telephone: (214) 390-9999
`Fax: (214) 888-0219
`* Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`DirectStream, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies that
`
`on October 25, 2019, a complete copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s PTABE2E System and
`
`provided, via electronic service, to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence
`
`address of record as follows:
`
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Scott M. Border
`sborder@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Jason P. Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`
`/Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan
`Reg. No. 45,964
`Phone: 214-593-9118
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Dated: October 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`