IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`Issued: September 27, 2016
`Application No.: 12/910,706
`Filing Date: October 22, 2010
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`For: System and Method for Data Management
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`DECLARATION OF KENDYL A. ROMÁN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 9,454,748
`
`Starbucks Corporation, et al. – Ex. 1005
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
`Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 5
`Background and Qualifications ........................................................................................ 7
`Relevant Technical Experience .................................................................................... 8
`(i)
`Patent Experience ....................................................................................................... 16
`(ii)
`(iii) Technical Expert ......................................................................................................... 18
`(iv) Testifying Engagements ............................................................................................. 18
`Compensation ................................................................................................................. 22
`C.
`Information Considered .................................................................................................. 23
`D.
`II. Legal Standards Related to Patentability .............................................................................. 24
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction ..................................................................... 24
`B. My Understanding of Anticipation/Novelty .................................................................. 25
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness ................................................................................ 26
`III.
`The ’748 PATENT ............................................................................................................. 33
`A.
`Background of Subject Matter Related to the Subject Matter Disclosed in the ’748
`Specification ............................................................................................................................. 33
`(i)
`Computer Hardware, Software, and Firmware ........................................................... 33
`(ii) Graphic Images and Graphical User Interfaces .......................................................... 34
`(iii) Computer-Based Questionnaires ................................................................................ 35
`(iv) Tokens and Tokenizing .............................................................................................. 35
`(v) Global Positioning System (GPS) and Location Identification .................................. 36
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ’748 Patent ................................................... 37
`B.
`’748 Prosecution History ................................................................................................ 39
`C.
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ............................................................ 40
`D.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 41
`IV.
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 41
`A.
`“GPS integral thereto” .................................................................................................... 42
`B.
`“token” ........................................................................................................................... 43
`C.
`“questionnaire” ............................................................................................................... 45
`D.
`“loosely networked” ....................................................................................................... 46
`E.
`“originating computer” / “recipient computer” / “central computer” ............................ 46
`VI.
`Prior Art References .......................................................................................................... 47
`A.
`Barbosa ........................................................................................................................... 47
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Hancock .......................................................................................................................... 48
`B.
`Bandera ........................................................................................................................... 49
`C.
`Falls ................................................................................................................................ 50
`D.
`VII. Patentability Analysis of the Challenged Claims of the ’748 Patent ................................. 50
`A.
`Comparison of Barbosa in View of the Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art to Claims 1 and 19-22 ......................................................................................................... 51
`(i)
`Claim 19 ..................................................................................................................... 51
`(ii)
`Claim 20 ..................................................................................................................... 66
`(iii)
`Independent Claim 21 ................................................................................................. 66
`(iv) Claim 22 ..................................................................................................................... 73
`(v)
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 73
`Comparison of Barbosa In View of Bandera to Claims 1 and 19-22 ............................. 76
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Barbosa With
`(i)
`Bandera ................................................................................................................................. 76
`(ii)
`Claims 1 and 19-22 ..................................................................................................... 78
`Comparison of Barbosa In View of Falls to Claim 7 ..................................................... 79
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Barbosa With
`(i)
`Falls 79
`(ii)
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 80
`Comparison of Hancock in View of the Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`D.
`Art to Claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22 ................................................................................................ 86
`(i)
`Independent Claim 19 ................................................................................................. 86
`(ii)
`Claim 20 ..................................................................................................................... 99
`(iii)
`Independent Claim 21 ................................................................................................. 99
`(iv) Claim 22 ................................................................................................................... 110
`(v)
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................................. 110
`(vi) Claim 2 ..................................................................................................................... 114
`(vii)
`Claim 5 .................................................................................................................. 115
`Comparison of Hancock in View of Bandera to Claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22 ................. 115
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Bandera With
`(i)
`Hancock .............................................................................................................................. 116
`(ii)
`Claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22 .......................................................................................... 117
`F. Comparison of Hancock in View of Falls to Claim 7 ...................................................... 118
`(i)
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Hancock With
`Falls 118
`(ii)
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................................................. 120
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`

`

`VIII.
`IX.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 124
`Appendix A: Materials considered by Kendyl Román ................................................... 127
`
`

`

`I, Kendyl A. Román, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been engaged by counsel for Petitioners American Multi-
`
`Cinema, Inc. (“AMC”); McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s USA, LLC
`
`(collectively “McDonald’s”); Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”); Boston Market
`
`Corporation (“Boston Market”); Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda Express,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Panda”); Papa John’s International, Inc. and Star Papa, LP
`
`(collectively, “Papa John’s”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) as an expert witness for
`
`the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. I have been asked to
`
`provide my opinions about the state of the art of the technology described in
`
`United States Patent No. 9,454,748, entitled “System and method for data
`
`management,” by J. David Payne, filed October 22, 2010, and issued September
`
`22, 2016 (the “’748 Patent”). I also have been asked to provide my opinions on the
`
`patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 19-22 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’748
`
`Patent. The following is my written report on these topics.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the ’748 Patent has been provided as Ex.
`
`1001. I understand that the ’748 Patent claims priority to provisional application
`
`No. 60/404,491, filed August 19, 2002. For the purposes of this review, I assume
`
`the earliest possible priority date of the ’748 Patent is the August 19, 2002 filing
`
`5
`
`

`

`date to which the ’748 Patent claims priority. I understand that the ’748 Patent is
`
`currently assigned to Fall Line Patents, LLC. (“Patent Owner,” “P.O.,” or “Fall
`
`Line”).
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the
`
`’748 Patent. I will cite to the specification using the following format (’748 Patent,
`
`1:1-10). This example citation points to the ’748 Patent specification at column 1,
`
`lines 1-10.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the
`
`’748 Patent. I understand that excerpts of the file history have been provided as Ex.
`
`1007.
`
`5.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following prior
`
`art used in the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’748 Patent:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 to Frank A. Barbosa et al. (“Barbosa”),
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 to S. Lee Hancock et al. (“Hancock”),
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,332,127 to Bandera et al. (“Bandera”), Exhibit
`
`1004.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,381,535 to Durocher (“Durocher”), Exhibit 1014.
`
`6
`
`

`

`• International Patent Application Publication No. WO 00/49530 to
`
`Parasnis (“Parasnis”), Exhibit 1015.
`
`• U.S. Patent 5,991,771 to Falls et al. (“Falls”), Exhibit 1017.
`
`A complete listing of additional materials considered and relied upon in
`
`preparation of my declaration is provided as Ex. A. I have relied on these
`
`materials to varying degrees. Citations to these materials that appear below are
`
`meant to be exemplary but not exhaustive.
`
`6.
`
`The ’748 Patent describes a system and method for data
`
`management, in particular data collected from a remote computing device. (’748
`
`Patent, Title, Abstract.) I am familiar with the subject matter described in the ’748
`
`Patent as of the earliest possible priority date of the ’748 Patent (August 19, 2002).
`
`7.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis,
`
`insights and opinions regarding the ’748 Patent and the above-noted references that
`
`form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’748 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`8.
`
`My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Ex. 1006, which
`
`provides a listing of my qualifications. This includes a list of publications for the
`
`past 10 years or more.
`
`7
`
`

`

`9.
`
`My expertise qualifies me to do the type of analysis required in
`
`this case. Specifically, I have been involved in the design, implementation, testing,
`
`and analysis of computer software, firmware, and hardware for over thirty-five
`
`years, including software and hardware architecture, user interfaces, handheld
`
`devices, Global Positioning Systems (“GPS”), Internet-based questionnaires, and
`
`other networked, data-driven, client-server systems. My work has included
`
`analysis of handheld devices and Internet questionnaires including source code and
`
`user interfaces. In addition, I have practical experience in the design and
`
`programming of a variety of computer systems ranging from handheld devices, to
`
`laptops and desktop computers, to large multi-layer networked database systems.
`
`(i)
`
`Relevant Technical Experience
`
`10. As a freshman at Brigham Young University (“BYU”) in 1976,
`
`I started writing programs for IBM computers.
`
`11.
`
`In 1980, I worked with Apple II computers and wrote computer
`
`programs having graphic user interfaces.
`
`12.
`
`In the late 1960’s and 1970’s the University of Utah was known
`
`for its pioneering work in computer graphics and the Internet1. At BYU, I got
`
`involved with computer graphics and wrote graphics programs. Many of my BYU
`
`professors had been at the University of Utah during its computer science
`
`1 In 1969, the University of Utah was one of the first four nodes on the Internet.
`
`8
`
`

`

`pioneering years. One of my BYU professors, Alan Ashton, and a fellow computer
`
`science student, Bruce Bastian, worked together on word processing software with
`
`graphical display. Later, Professor Ashton and Bruce Bastian founded
`
`WordPerfect.
`
`13.
`
`I graduated with High Honors from BYU where I received a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science. My formal studies included
`
`computer architecture, computer programming, programming languages,
`
`algorithms, operating systems, database systems, and digital logic design.
`
`14.
`
`In 1981, I worked at International Business Machines (“IBM”)
`
`in San Jose, CA. At IBM, I had a graphics display on my desk and wrote programs
`
`that displayed custom graphics. During my employment at IBM, the IBM Personal
`
`Computer (“PC”) was released. The IBM PC also supported graphical user
`
`interfaces.
`
`15.
`
`In 1982, at Dialogic, I improved the performance of the
`
`Computer Aided Design (“CAD”) software.2 The CAD software used a graphical
`
`user interface.
`
`2 The software, the Lucas Drawing System, had been developed by Lucas Films to
`
`aid in the production of Star Wars.
`
`9
`
`

`

`16.
`
`In this timeframe, I had experience with Tandy computers,
`
`including the TRS-80, and with Commodore VIC 20 computers, which supported
`
`graphical user interfaces.
`
`17.
`
`In 1984, I started writing programs for the Apple Lisa and
`
`Macintosh, which had a sophisticated graphical user interface built into the
`
`firmware and operating system.
`
`18.
`
`I developed a Macintosh program that drew graphical icons (or
`
`polygons) on the display.3
`
`19. Next in 1986, I started consulting at Hewlett Packard (“HP”)
`
`where I became familiar with standard printer description languages and graphic
`
`command languages. During this time I used X-Windows.
`
`20.
`
`Later, from 1988 through 1990, at Tandem (later Compaq, now
`
`HP), I worked with CAD systems and hardware simulators, which used graphical
`
`user interfaces and included pop-up windows that provided textual representations
`
`of values related to graphical displays.
`
`3 An article regarding the software was published in MacWorld Magazine around
`
`February 1987. A review was published in 1990 by the Boston Computer Society,
`
`which also showed various features of the user interface. See
`
`http://www.wolfpup.org/misc/MacBaby_Math_review.pdf.
`
`10
`
`

`

`21.
`
`In 1990, I authored portions of the Macintosh Programming
`
`Fundamentals: Self-paced Training course interactive CD-ROM and lab book.
`
`22.
`
`I returned to HP in 1991 where I worked with diagnostic tools,
`
`including exercises and verifiers. During this period, I was involved in testing
`
`various graphics adapters and display devices throughout the HP product line. I
`
`worked with an X-Windows based diagnostic tool that displayed an icon for every
`
`component of the system. The number, type, and locations of the icons were based
`
`on the components actually found in the system. The icons were dynamically
`
`changed to represent the status of the testing.
`
`23.
`
`In 1991 and 1992, at Slate and Apple, I worked with the pen-
`
`based tablets and handheld computers, including the NCR tablet and Newton PDA.
`
`24.
`
`In 1993 and 1994, I taught classes for Mentor Graphics to
`
`hardware designers regarding hardware simulation and design verification
`
`software. Mentor Graphics’ CAD system had the features discussed above
`
`regarding CAD software. In addition, I taught users how to customize CAD
`
`software to perform complex custom operations based on a single action with a
`
`user input device.
`
`25.
`
`In 1993 and 1994, at Apple I worked with the Apple Media
`
`Tool team and the SK8 team, which included working with state-of-the-art graphic
`
`display systems.
`
`11
`
`

`

`26.
`
`In the early 1990s, before the World Wide Web became
`
`commercialized, multimedia technology was becoming state-of-the art. During this
`
`time, interactive CD-ROMs, early commercial Internet sites, high-resolution color
`
`animation, and digital video were state-of-the-art technologies. While at The Carl
`
`Group, I formed the Multimedia Lab whose projects included porting a program to
`
`automate layout of ball grid assemblies (BGA), updating automatic test equipment
`
`software to use state-of-the-art graphical user interfaces, developing graphic
`
`animations, developing multimedia authoring tools, and various interactive CD-
`
`ROM titles. My work with multimedia authoring tools included developing low-
`
`level graphics software for both the Macintosh and IBM PC platforms.
`
`27. We sold our multimedia authoring tools to the public and I
`
`developed an interactive user interface, which allowed users to enter and confirm
`
`information including prices and quantities, which resulted in an order being sent
`
`to our server. Part of the data collected from remote users was their location.
`
`28. Also in the mid-1990s, we developed a database driven, on-
`
`demand catalog publish system for Sun, which allowed users to configure and
`
`order products via a graphical user interface. At Sun, I used workstations using
`
`Open Look, which was a graphical user interface based on pioneering work at
`
`Xerox PARC, and which was competitive with X-Windows which was being used
`
`by HP.
`
`12
`
`

`

`29. During this time period, we developed a data driven
`
`questionnaire system for Sun regarding Java. The system would present a question
`
`to a remote user and collect an answer. Then based on the answer given, a
`
`subsequent question would be presented, until all the information that was desired
`
`was collected. The data collected from the remote users were stored in a database
`
`and we provided various reports from this data.
`
`30.
`
`In the mid-1990s, I developed a medical communications
`
`device that could transmit medical quality video images over the Internet in real
`
`time. This work included developing various graphical user interfaces. I have
`
`patents on some of this technology as discussed below.
`
`31. During this time, I was familiar with the graphical user
`
`interfaces in various medical devices. These included EKG, ultrasound, and
`
`medical records systems.
`
`32.
`
`Prior to Nov. 2001, I was a promoter of a startup company
`
`called Research Runner. Research Runner was an expansion of a business called
`
`Retail Runner, Inc. Retail Runner used map and location data to determine the
`
`best route for a merchandizer, for example Lloyd’s BBQ, to use to visit multiple
`
`stores in multiple cities. Location information would be used to determine the best
`
`route and would generate a set of instructions including a map. A questionnaire
`
`would be provided for each location. While taking the assessment of each
`
`13
`
`

`

`location, a series of questions would be answered. The results of the questionnaire
`
`would be interpreted by a computer and stored in a database.
`
`33. Research Runner designed a data driven Internet questionnaire
`
`system that could be used for the Retail Runner business but also expanded to
`
`collect a broad range of data for many applications including market research,
`
`online test taking, customer service questionnaires, in addition to the
`
`merchandizing and mystery-shopper-type applications.
`
`34. As part of designing the Research Runner platform, I met with
`
`a market research firm in San Francisco and reviewed their computerized
`
`questionnaire design and deployment system.
`
`35. As part of developing the Research Runner business plan, I
`
`reviewed information regarding any potential competitors and thus did a review of
`
`the types of Internet based survey systems available prior to 2001.
`
`36. Retail Runner, Inc. filed two provisional patent applications on
`
`May 8, 2000, and two patent applications on May 8, 2001, all of which have been
`
`assigned to me. See U.S. Patent Applications 09/851,624 and 09/852,257.
`
`37.
`
`I am also familiar with the concept of a mystery shopper as
`
`discussed in the ‘748 Patent. In the 1980s, my wife and I were mystery shoppers.
`
`One of the restaurants we assessed and for which we reported data was Chick-fil-
`
`A®.
`
`14
`
`

`

`38.
`
`Prior to December 26, 2001, I designed and developed the
`
`BoomerangIt.com system, a data driven Internet based system for collecting data
`
`from remote users. The BoomerangIt.com system allowed tracking of assets, and
`
`if those assets were lost or stolen, provided a means for law enforcement or other
`
`finders to report information regarding the found items and their locations,
`
`facilitating the return of the found items to their owners. On December 26, 2001, I
`
`filed U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/344,740. The resulting U.S. Patent
`
`7,424,473 (“BoomerangIt Patent”) states, “the user provides information regarding
`
`the lost (or found) incident, such as location, date and time.” The BoomerangIt
`
`Patent also described providing the user with a series of questions with tokenized
`
`answers for describing the attributes of an item, and using a token as a “universal
`
`code” for describing an attribute of an item, such as a code for the a color which
`
`would be displayed as “rojo,” “rouge,” or “red” based on the location, such as
`
`Peru, France, or England.
`
`39.
`
`In many of these professional assignments, I analyzed the
`
`architecture, function, and operation of software with graphical user interfaces.
`
`40.
`
`Prior to being retained in this matter, I acquired and performed
`
`forensic analysis of several computer systems. From 1999 to 2002, I performed the
`
`technical analysis of both copyright and trade secrets in the Tradescape.com, Inc.,
`
`et al. v. Shivaram, et al. cases. In those cases, I reviewed the source code and
`
`15
`
`

`

`operations of market-leading day trading systems and illicit copies. This is one
`
`example of a complex system with networked-based client server architectures,
`
`including graphical user interfaces and data collection from multiple remote users
`
`and sources.
`
`41.
`
`In 2007, I performed the technical analysis of database systems
`
`that used GPS to determine locations in APS Technology Group, Inc. v. Paceco
`
`Corporation.
`
`42.
`
`I am familiar with handheld devices including the electronic
`
`components and source code for using 6-axis and 9-axis sensors and GPS for
`
`determining locations and positions.
`
`43.
`
`Further, I have extensive experience in designing, developing
`
`and analyzing database, networked systems and their user interfaces. As a result, I
`
`have had access to the type of components and information at issue in this case and
`
`have contemporaneous knowledge of what was publicly known.
`
`(ii)
`
`Patent Experience
`
`44. My Curriculum Vitae, which is provided as Ex. 1006, identifies
`
`over 85 issued patents and over 85 published patent applications for which I am
`
`listed as an inventor or assignee. Several of my inventions include graphical user
`
`interfaces, networked client-server systems, and the use of handheld devices
`
`including GPS and accelerometers, to determine locations and positions, including:
`
`16
`
`

`

`• U.S. Pat. No. 8,795,109, Arrow construction system having tip canister
`
`electronics
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 8,590,777, Space equipment recognition and control using
`
`handheld devices
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 8,500,563, Display, device, method, and computer program for
`
`indicating a clear shot
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 8,282,493, Display, device, method, and computer program for
`
`indicating a clear shot
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,698,653, Graphical user interface including zoom control
`
`box representing image and magnification of displayed image
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,424,473, System and method for asset tracking with
`
`organization-property-individual model
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,257,158, System for transmitting video images over a
`
`computer network to a remote receiver
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,191,462, System for transmitting video images over a
`
`computer network to a remote receiver
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,803,931, Graphical user interface including zoom control
`
`box representing image and magnification of displayed image
`
`45.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed numerous patents and prior art
`
`systems through my work in litigation support, including patents and prior art
`
`17
`
`

`

`related to the architecture and operation of computer systems including graphics. I
`
`have taken a number of courses offered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”) and the Sunnyvale Center for Innovation, Inventions, and Ideas (Sc[i]3).
`
`(iii) Technical Expert
`
`46. Both Federal and State Courts have recognized me as an expert
`
`in computer systems including computer software, graphical user interfaces,
`
`computer architecture, computer hardware, database systems, networks, and
`
`computer forensic science.
`
`47.
`
`In addition, I served as a Special Master in a Federal District
`
`Court in Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Richison and Period Financial, which involved
`
`financial systems with graphical user interfaces. I have served as a court-appointed
`
`expert in San Jose, CA in Aspect Communications Corporation v. eConvergent,
`
`Inc. et al., which involved financial systems with graphical user interfaces, and in
`
`Ribeiro v. Weichselbaumer, which involved financial and graphical analysis.
`
`(iv) Testifying Engagements
`
`48.
`
`I have testified as an expert witness at trial or in a deposition in
`
`the following cases:
`
`• Datatek, Inc v. NTT Data, Inc., American Arbitration Association
`
`(Durham, North Carolina);
`
`18
`
`

`

`• Davis and Carlos v. HireVue, Inc. et al., No. 140900780 (Utah State 3rd
`
`District Court, Salt Lake County);
`
`• Embry v. Acer America Corp., No. 5:09-cv-01808 (N.D. Cal.);
`
`• Hickok, Inc. v. SysTech International, LLC, No. 1:7-cv-03565 (N.D.
`
`Ohio);
`
`• IBG LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., CBM2015-00179,
`
`CBM2015-00181, CBM2015-00182, CBM2016-00009, CBM2016-
`
`00032, CBM2016-00051, CBM2016-00054, CBM2016-00087, and
`
`CBM2016-00090 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`• Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, Almawave, et al., No. 15-cv-798 (N.D. Cal.);
`
`• M&G Jewelers, Inc. v. Zale Delaware, Inc. and TXDC, L.P, No. DC-14-
`
`12666 (Dallas County, Texas, 116th Judicial District);
`
`• Miller v. Fuhu, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-6119-CAS(ASx) (C.D. Cal.);
`
`• MyKey Technology Inc. Patent Litigation, No. 2:13-ml-02461 (C.D.
`
`Cal.);
`
`• Parallel Networks, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1943 (D.
`
`Del.);
`
`• Parallel Networks, LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-2001(D. Del.);
`
`• Reporting Technologies, Inc. v. Emma, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01203 (E.D.
`
`Va.);
`
`19
`
`

`

`• Sanford L.P. v. Esselte AB, No. 1:14-cv-07616 (S.D.N.Y.);
`
`• SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Limited, No. 5:10-CV-25-FL
`
`(E.D.N.C.);
`
`• T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc. v. Secure Axcess, LLC, No
`
`CBM2015-00027 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`• TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., Nos.
`
`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, and CBM2014-
`
`00137 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.,
`
`IPR2017-01467 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`• Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture LLP, 3:08-cv-119 (S.D. Tex.);
`
`• Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-1511 (S.D. Tex.); and
`
`• WonderWorks Pte. Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., No. 2014-1-CV-
`
`273632 (Santa Clara County, Superior Court of California).
`
`49.
`
`In the following cases, I provided recent reports or declarations
`
`but did not testify:
`
`• CyWee Group Ltd., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al., No. 2:17-CV-
`
`00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Texas);
`
`• GoPro, Inc. v. Contour, LLC , Nos. IPR2015-01078 and IPR2015-01080
`
`(U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`20
`
`

`

`• Innersvingen AS v. Sports Hoop, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-05257 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`• Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. v. uCool, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-01267
`
`(N.D. Cal.);
`
`• Malanche v. Eisenhower Medical Center, No. INC1108128 (Superior
`
`Court of California, Riverside County);
`
`• Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Richison, No. 5:09-CV-00488-W (W.D. Okla.);
`
`• RealZoom LLC v. L Brands, Inc. and Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, No.
`
`2:17-CV-00118-RWS (E.D. Texas);
`
`• Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-06247-PGG
`
`(S.D.N.Y.);
`
`• TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.,
`
`CBM2016-00031, CBM2016-00085, and CBM2016-00086 (U.S. Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`• Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. v. FPT Software, No. 0:12-cv-1357 (D.
`
`Minn.);
`
`• Uber Technologies, Inc. and Choice Hotels International, Inc, v. Fall
`
`Line Patents, LLC, No. IPR2018-00535 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board) ; and
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. Epic IP LLC, No. IPR2019-00339 (U.S. Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board).
`
`21
`
`

`

`50. Other cases I have worked on which involved software
`
`interfaces, graphics, and, patent analysis include: Konrad v. General Motors, et al.;
`
`ACTV, Inc. and HyperTV Networks, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., ABC, Inc. and
`
`ESPN, Inc.; and APS Technology Group, Inc. v. Paceco Corporation.
`
`51.
`
`In Konrad v. General Motors, et al., I analyzed the source code
`
`and operation of data-driven web sites for many of the largest companies in
`
`America. The graphical user interfaces displayed current quantity and pricing and
`
`allowed order placement as well as confirmation for airline seats, rental cars, and
`
`hotel rooms. Many of these systems allowed for available commodities to be
`
`displayed in order of price or other values.
`
`52.
`
`In ACTV v. Disney, I analyzed the Disney (ABC and ESPN)
`
`interactive television system that included an interactive graphical user interface.
`
`53.
`
`In APS Technology Group, Inc. v. Paceco Corporation, I
`
`performed the technical analysis of database systems that used GPS to determine
`
`locations.
`
`54. My Curriculum Vitae is included as Ex. 1006, which contains
`
`further details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifications
`
`to render an expert opinion.
`
`C.
`
`Compensation
`
`22
`
`

`

`55. My work on this case is being compensated at my standard
`
`hourly rate for my study and testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed
`
`for reasonable and customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in
`
`this investigation. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this
`
`Inter Partes Review, the litigation involving the ’748 Patent, or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`56. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I have identified in this report and
`
`those listed in Appendix A.
`
`57.
`
`I may rely upon these identified materials and/or additi