Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB, CANON INC.,
`AND CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`Case No.: IPR2018-00138
`Case No.: IPR2018-00140
`Patent 8,564,661
`
`Deposition of JOHN R. GRINDON, D.SC., a
`witness herein, called for examination by counsel for
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation in the above-entitled
`matter, pursuant to notice, the witness being duly
`sworn by KAREN YOUNG, a Notary Public in and for the
`District of Columbia, taken at the offices of Mintz,
`Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 701
`Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 900,
`Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August
`15, 2018, and the proceedings being taken down by
`stenotype and transcribed by KAREN YOUNG.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Axis, et al. v. Avigilon
`
`IPR2018-00138
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009
`Page 1 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 1 of 56
`
`
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB, CANON INC.,
`AND CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`Case No.: IPR2018-00138
`Case No.: IPR2018-00140
`Patent 8,564,661
`
`Deposition of JOHN R. GRINDON, D.SC., a
`witness herein, called for examination by counsel for
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation in the above-entitled
`matter, pursuant to notice, the witness being duly
`sworn by KAREN YOUNG, a Notary Public in and for the
`District of Columbia, taken at the offices of Mintz,
`Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 701
`Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 900,
`Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August
`15, 2018, and the proceedings being taken down by
`stenotype and transcribed by KAREN YOUNG.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Axis, et al. v. Avigilon
`
`IPR2018-00138
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009
`Page 1 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 1 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
` On Behalf of Axis Communications AB:
`JESSICA L.A. MARKS, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
`JESSICA.MARKS@FINNEGAN.COM
`(571) 203-2700
`
` On Behalf of Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc.:
`(by telephone)
`RICHARD F. MARTINELLI, ESQUIRE
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, New York 10019-6142
`rmartinelli@orrick.com
`(212) 506-5151
`
` On Behalf of Avigilon Fortress Corporation:
`DANIEL B. WEINGER, ESQ.
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
`Glovsky & Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`dbweinger@mintz.com
`(617) 348-1629
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
`Sean Casey, Mintz Levin, by telephone
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 2 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 2 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`C O N T E N T S
`
`THE WITNESS:
`JOHN R. GRINDON, D.SC.
` By Mr. Weinger............................. 4
`
`3
`
`(NO NEW EXHIBITS WERE MARKED)
`
`- - -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 3 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 3 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Whereupon,
`
`JOHN R. GRINDON, D.SC.,
`called for examination by counsel for
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation and having
`been duly sworn by the Notary Public, was
`examined and testified as follows:
`- - -
`EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION
`BY MR. WEINGER:
`Good morning, Dr. Grindon.
`Q.
`Good morning.
`A.
`Have you ever been deposed before?
`Q.
`I have.
`A.
`How many times?
`Q.
`I don't know the exact number. Fifteen
`A.
`perhaps or more.
`Q.
`Have any of those depositions been in the
`context of an inter partes review?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`How many times does that happen?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 4 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 4 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Oh, I don't have count. Several times.
`A.
`So you're aware that -- familiar with the
`Q.
`inter partes review deposition proceeding as opposed
`to the District Court deposition proceeding.
`A.
`If you want to review the differences, I'd
`be happy to listen.
`Q.
`Fair enough. I don't know if we're going
`to go through all of them, but you understand that
`I'm going to ask you a series of questions today that
`I'm going to expect you to answer, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`When I ask you a question, I'm expecting an
`answer to the question that I asked you, not some
`other question. You understand that?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`If you try to testify outside of what the
`questions I asked you were, you understand that
`that's improper and you should just answer the
`questions that I asked you. Do you understand that?
`A.
`I understand what you're saying. I can't
`verify that these are all the rules, but --
`Q.
`Sure.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 5 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 5 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I hear what you're saying.
`A.
`Dr. Grindon, you have been engaged in this
`Q.
`matter to render opinions regarding the validity or
`patentability of the U.S. patent 8,564,661; is that
`right?
`I have.
`A.
`And in that process, you reviewed several
`Q.
`prior art references?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`Which references did you look at?
`A.
`Well, they're listed in my report. You can
`go to that if you'd like.
`Q.
`Sure. Well, you've got a couple of
`reports, right, so -- you brought your own copies?
`A.
`Yes. Which report --
`MS. MARKS: We'll use the copy that you're
`going to --
`MR. WEINGER: Yeah.
`MS. MARKS: -- provide him?
`THE WITNESS: Which report did you want me
`
`to --
`
`BY MR. WEINGER:
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 6 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 6 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Well, I'm going to hand you both, but
`Q.
`they're named the same and they don't have an IPR
`number on them, so the one -- they're both Exhibit
`1005. The one that has 242 pages is from
`IPR2018-00138 regarding Kellogg, and the one that's
`marked 257 pages is from IPR2018-00140 regarding
`Dimitrova. You can write on it 138 and 140 if you
`want to help clear it up. Do you want a copy or are
`you okay?
`All right, so between these two reports,
`A.
`there are listed materials considered. Looking first
`at the Kellogg, on page 7, that will be the 242-page
`report, if you have that, between pages 7 and 9,
`there are listed the prior art references. I can go
`through those for the record if you'd like.
`Q.
`Sure. Please identify on those pages what
`the prior art that you considered for the 138 IPR.
`A.
`On page 9 of that report, there are two
`references listed. One is called "Visual Memory" by
`Christopher James Kellogg, which is Exhibit 1003.
`Another is "Event Recognition and Reliability
`Improvements for the Autonomous Video Surveillance
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 7 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 7 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`System," by Frank Brill, Exhibit 1004 of that report.
`Q.
`You didn't list any other prior art in your
`materials considered for the 138 IPR, correct?
`A.
`The list that I just went through is not
`exclusive. There are also throughout the report
`itself references here and there to other pieces of
`art for various purposes.
`Q.
`So this is one of those examples, I didn't
`ask you that question. I asked you you didn't list
`any other prior art in your materials considered for
`the 138 IPR, correct?
`A.
`I don't think so. Let me review it to be
`sure. There are other patents that are listed in the
`family of this patent that could be considered prior
`art, and those are listed here. There are other
`documents associated with this patent, the
`prosecution history, which I would not normally label
`under the term "prior art," although you may. I
`don't know. There are reexaminations associated with
`some of these other patents in the family. I don't
`know if you term that as prior art or not, but these
`are listed in the materials considered.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 8 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 8 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`So other than documents that are in the
`Q.
`file history, the only prior art that you listed in
`the 138 materials considered is the Kellogg paper and
`the Brill paper. Isn't that right?
`A.
`In that section, let me look again. That's
`right, as I started to answer earlier and you
`objected, but on page 8 at paragraph 21, it said,
`"I've reviewed and considered the following
`documents, among those identified" -- "among others
`identified herein," so that's what I was referring to
`a moment ago. That is, this statement I just read is
`within the materials considered statement, so I would
`consider those documents as well listed throughout to
`be part of the materials considered statement.
`Q.
`But you didn't write the names of any other
`documents in your materials considered list, true?
`A.
`When you say write the names, it says among
`others identified herein, so --
`Q.
`All I'm asking you is --
`A.
`-- a reference --
`Q.
`-- if you literally listed other documents
`in this list that are prior art other than Kellogg
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 9 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 9 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and Brill. It's yes or no. You did or you didn't do
`it.
`
`MS. MARKS: Objection, asked and answered.
`So do you need additional response than
`A.
`what I just said?
`Q.
`You can please just answer yes or no to the
`question I asked you, which was did you list any
`other prior art in this list of materials considered
`other than Kellogg and Brill.
`MS. MARKS: Objection.
`Again, paragraph 21, I said other art as
`A.
`identified herein, and that statement is within the
`materials considered.
`Q.
`So your answer is yes, you did.
`A.
`I listed it in that respect that I just
`said.
`Same thing for the 138 -- I mean, sorry,
`Q.
`the 140 report?
`A.
`Let's take a look.
`Q.
`Please identify the -- the prior art
`references which you listed in your materials
`considered list in the 140 declaration.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 10 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 10 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`This is again on page 7 of this document, 7
`A.
`through 9. Again, at paragraph 21 of that document,
`it says, "I have reviewed and considered the
`following documents, among others identified herein."
`So that statement includes other documents other than
`the listing in this section. The listing explicitly
`in this section includes this document called "Motion
`Recovery for Video Content Classification" by Nevenka
`Dimitrova, Exhibit 1003 to this paper, and also
`"Event Recognition and Reliability Improvements for
`the Autonomous Video Surveillance System" by Frank
`Brill, Exhibit 1004, the same as the reference in the
`other report.
`Q.
`And just to be clear, your list in the 140
`report that's contained in your materials considered
`list does not include any prior art identified other
`than the Dimitrova paper and the Brill paper; is that
`right?
`No, I just said in paragraph 21, I have
`A.
`reference to other documents in this declaration,
`which are included also, and that is -- that
`statement is in the materials considered list, so I
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 11 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 11 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`consider those included as well.
`Q.
`Dr. Grindon, do you agree that Kellogg's
`visual memory system stores static information?
`A.
`Okay, when you say the Kellogg system,
`we're back to the other report?
`Q.
`Yeah, Kellogg is 138 and Dimitrova is 140,
`so that's why you might want to write on the front
`that -- which one's which to be easier.
`A.
`Okay. All right. May I have the question
`again please?
`MR. WEINGER: Can you read the question?
`THE REPORTER: Question: "Dr. Grindon, do
`you agree that Kellogg's visual memory system stores
`static information?"
`A.
`And can you tell me what you mean by static
`information?
`Q.
`I'm sorry, you're the one that used the
`term "static information," so please, what --
`A.
`All right.
`Q.
`-- do you mean by static information?
`A.
`All right. May I have a copy of the
`Kellogg report please?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 12 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 12 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`You can also turn to paragraph 260 of your
`Q.
`declaration. This is also Kellogg if you feel like
`you need it.
`A.
`Okay, it might be helpful. Thank you.
`MR. WEINGER: Jess, you want it?
`MS. MARKS: You said page 260 of his report
`or paragraph?
`MR. WEINGER: Paragraph 260. I don't think
`there are 260 pages.
`THE WITNESS: In paragraph 260, I'm really
`quoting from Kellogg where he discusses visual memory
`serves as a repository for static information, such
`as object descriptions.
`BY MR. WEINGER:
`So do you understand the phrase "static
`Q.
`information"?
`A.
`This would be information that persists.
`Q.
`Does Kellogg provide any examples of what
`static information is?
`A.
`Well, he has a lot of examples in his
`report about the various kinds of information that's
`stored.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 13 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 13 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`One of those -- one of those examples is a
`Q.
`map. Isn't that right?
`A.
`Did you say map?
`Q.
`Map, yeah.
`A.
`All right. You want to point me to the
`page where he talks about that?
`Q.
`Page 9.
`A.
`All right, he's talking about some of the
`various kinds of things that visual memory can serve
`as, including static information and maps.
`Q.
`Static information and maps, or static
`information such as a map?
`A.
`Such as maps.
`Q.
`So a map is an example of static
`information that is stored in visual memory database
`in Kellogg?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`And isn't it true that this static
`information does not change during the life of the
`information?
`A.
`He also mentions object descriptions, so
`this would be -- they would be static during
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 14 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 14 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`executions, he says here. Not necessarily static
`forever.
`Do you agree that the purpose of the
`Q.
`Kellogg paper is to provide a visual memory
`architecture for applications?
`A.
`When you say the purpose, a focus of the
`paper is to provide a visual memory for static or
`dynamic information in association with -- with
`applications such as that. It also describes the use
`of such a system that expands beyond just the visual
`memory itself.
`Q.
`What is visual memory?
`A.
`Let's look at what Kellogg himself says on
`page 9. Shall I read that? In the introduction --
`Q.
`Sure.
`A.
`-- it says, quote, "Visual memory supports
`computer vision applications by efficiently storing
`and retrieving spatiotemporal information. It is a
`unique combination of databases, spatial
`representation and indexing and temporal
`representation and indexing." It goes on to say,
`"Visual memory provides representational flexibility
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 15 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 15 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and high-performance information access to meet the
`requirements of a variety of computer vision."
`Q.
`Do you have -- is Kellogg's explanation of
`visual memory in line with what your understanding of
`visual memory is?
`A.
`This is a brief statement in the
`introduction. As he goes through this paper, he also
`mentions various applications in some detail so --
`Q.
`So my question was is Kellogg's explanation
`of visual memory in line with what your understanding
`of visual memory is.
`A.
`This is in line as far as it goes.
`Q.
`Right, thank you. Do you agree that
`Kellogg indexes information related to where in space
`an object is located?
`A.
`Kellogg provides indexes as an aid to
`faster querying, and that would include those things.
`Q.
`And those indexes that Kellogg provides for
`spatial information is stored alongside those records
`in the visual memory database, correct?
`A.
`When you say stored alongside, I'm not sure
`exactly what you mean there.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 16 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 16 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Kellogg also indexes information related to
`Q.
`the temporal characteristics of an object; is that
`right?
`As I mentioned, he has indexing to aid
`A.
`faster queries, not to impact the -- the end result.
`Q.
`And the purpose of those indexes is to
`allow a user to efficiently return preknown
`attributes and events; is that right?
`A.
`The purpose of the indices is to support
`the querying of attributes to return more quickly the
`attributes than would be done without using the
`indexes.
`Do you also agree that Kellogg uses these
`Q.
`indices, spatial and temporal indices, to determine
`where an object has been at certain times?
`A.
`The indices are used for supporting the
`query to find attributes that will be needed to
`satisfy the query. If that's what you're asking,
`then it does. Again, the indexing is simply a manner
`of more efficiently accessing attributes that would
`be accessed anyway through an exhaustive search or
`otherwise.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 17 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 17 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Do you agree with the statement that
`Kellogg's system allows for queries that can search
`the database for past events?
` A. The purpose -- as I mentioned, I just
`answered that, is that the queries in searching the
`database for attributes.
` Q. So is the answer no to my question I'll ask
`again, which is do you agree with the statement that
`Kellogg's system allows for queries that can search
`the database for past events?
` A. When you say allows for queries can search
`the database, I am not sure what you mean by the
`database. The database of what?
` Q. Do you agree with the statement that
`Kellogg allows queries to search the visual memory
`database for past events?
` A. Again, my reading of Kellogg is that it
`allows for queries of the attribute database in order
`to determine that's -- determine whether or not
`events have occurred, and I don't understand, when
`you say past events, if you can point me to something
`in Kellogg that helps me understand what you're
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 18 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 18 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`asking, I'd appreciate it.
` Q. If you could turn to paragraph 191 of your
`declaration, and I'll point you to four lines down,
`the sentence that starts with, "Kellogg explains."
`Can you read that sentence for me please?
` A. If I have where you're asking, it says,
`"Kellogg explains that the rules," quote, "are
`implemented as part of the query language to allow
`the query language to optimize object retrieval,"
`closed quote.
` Q. Okay. So please turn to page 54 of Kellogg
`to the second full paragraph that starts with, "A
`query mechanism."
` A. Yes, read that into the record?
` Q. No, I'll tell you what to read in a second.
`The quote that you read from paragraph 191 comes from
`the last sentence of that second full paragraph,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you read that full sentence for me,
`the last sentence of the second full paragraph?
` A. "A number of the query constructs outlined
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 19 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 19 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`below could easily be performed in memory but are
`implemented as part of the query language to allow
`the query language to optimize object retrieval."
` Q. That sentence doesn't say anything about
`rules, does it?
` A. It does. It talks about a query language.
` Q. So is a query and a rule the same thing?
` A. A rule is described in Kellogg and in the
`patent, a query and a rule would be pretty much the
`same thing. Query's perhaps broader than rule. A
`rule is implemented through a query.
` Q. Do you agree that the '661 patent used both
`terms "rule" and "query"?
` A. Show me the patent please.
` Q. This is Exhibit 1001 in both IPRs.
` A. The patent uses the term "rule" throughout
`the claims. It uses the term "event discriminator"
`in the text of the patent. If you could point me to
`where it uses the term "query," I'd appreciate it.
` Q. Have you read the '661 patent, Dr. Grindon?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. When was the last time you read it?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 20 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 20 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Couple of days ago.
` Q. You can't remember if the patent uses the
`term "rule" or "query"? Sorry, can't remember if the
`patent uses the term "query"?
` A. I believe it does, but I would like to see
`it in the patent.
` Q. Figure 19 and figure 20, column 5 line 19,
`column 5 line 16, column 5 line 19, column 21 line
`29, column 21 line 33. There's some examples.
` A. All right. Yes, "query's" used.
` Q. Do you agree that the rules described by
`the '661 patent can trigger alarms and events -- I
`mean and alerts? I'm just going to withdraw that
`question and ask it -- do you agree that the rules
`described by the '661 patent can trigger alarms and
`alerts?
` A. That sounds right.
` Q. Do you agree that the '661 patent does not
`discuss visual memory?
` A. When you say discuss visual memory, the
`term "visual memory"? I don't recall the patent
`using that very term, "visual memory."
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 21 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 21 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Would a person of ordinary skill in the art
`understand that the '661 discusses visual memory,
`even if it doesn't use the term "visual memory"?
` A. And that would be visual memory as defined
`by Kellogg?
` Q. It's defined how you as a person of skill
`understand the term.
` A. We -- the term is fairly descriptive. It's
`memory, it's to do with visual data, and that is what
`the '661 patent is all about, so the answer is yes.
` Q. I think I asked that question vaguely so
`that your yes doesn't make sense, or it's not clear
`what you're answering, so I'm going to try to ask it
`again just so that we're clear. Is it your opinion
`that the '661 discusses memory that's visual memory?
` A. In -- I didn't catch the word. Discusses
`memory that what?
` Q. Discusses memory that's visual memory.
` A. That is --
` Q. Yeah.
` A. -- visual memory? Now, earlier we
`discussed the term "visual memory" in the context of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 22 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 22 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Kellogg. Is that the context that you're using the
`term now?
` Q. Would you understand the term "visual
`memory" differently in a different context?
` A. Certainly Kellogg is using that as the
`title to his paper, and his paper has certain
`explicit disclosures regarding his concept of visual
`memory. As I mentioned a moment ago, the term is
`fairly self-descriptive. Even in the absence of
`Kellogg, one might surmise in a vacuum that it is a
`memory that has to do with -- with visual data of
`some sort. As I also mentioned, the '661 patent has
`to do with that.
` Q. Right, so you're saying that the memory
`discussed in the '661 must be visual memory. Is that
`what you're saying?
` A. No, I didn't say that at all.
` Q. Okay. So it doesn't have to be -- the
`memory discussed in the '661 does not have to be
`visual memory.
` A. I didn't say that either.
` Q. Okay. Do you agree that the '661 patent
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 23 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 23 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`does not disclose indexing of information to be put
`in a database?
` A. As I sit here now, my recollection is that
`it doesn't really discuss the efficiency of retrieval
`of indexing. If I have a memory lapse on that,
`please advise me.
` Q. You can take a second to look through it if
`you want, but you're not going to find indexes I
`don't think. Are you looking through it or --
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Grindon, when an event is
`detected in the Kellogg system and inserted into the
`database, is that a past event?
` MS. MARKS: Objection, form.
` MR. WEINGER: What's wrong with the form?
` MS. MARKS: It presumes a premise.
` BY MR. WEINGER:
` Q. Please go ahead and answer.
` A. When you say past event, can you tell me
`what you mean by past event?
` Q. What do you understand past event to be in
`that context?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 24 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 24 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Well, the reason I question your question
`is that Kellogg is careful to point out different
`timings with regard to events, historical versus the
`time of insertion of the data into the database, and
`he's primarily concerned with what he called the
`historical or valid times for events, which is when
`they actually happen, so when he detects an event, it
`would be from attributes where he has applied a query
`to those attributes, those attributes having been
`detected from the video, so that would have to be a
`temporal sequential process. The attributes would
`have to be detected first before the events are then
`queried of the attributes.
` Q. So your confusion is regarding whether the
`phrase "past event" refers to something in -- event
`in time or an event that had already been inserted in
`the database?
` A. It's not my confusion. I'm just telling
`you the way that Kellogg is using the terms. You're
`bringing in another term, past event. I'll ask you
`then, do you mean that to be the historical or the
`valid event corresponds to the terms as used by
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Avigilon Exhibit 2009, Page 25 of 56
`
`AVIGILON EX. 2010
`IPR2019-00311
`Page 25 of 56
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140
`Grindon, D.SC, John R.
`August 15, 2018
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Kellogg when you say past event?
` Q. Let's take them one at a time. If an event
`is detected by Kellogg and inserted into the
`database, is that a historical event?
` A. It is if the valid time is stored with it.
`The historical event is one that has, as he calls it,
`a valid time. That is the time that the event
`actually occurred. So if an event is stored in the
`database along with the valid time, that would
`certainly be a past event. If it's not st
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
