`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