`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`APPLE INC.,
`: IPR2019-00819
`:
`: Patent No.
`v.
`: 7,620,810
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner. :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Deposition of
`GEORGE N. ROUSKAS, Ph.D.
`Conducted Virtually
`Thursday, May 7, 2020
`9:05 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 297422
`Pages 1 - 184
`Reported by: Debra A. Whitehead
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`EX1023
`Apple v. MPH
`IPR2019-00823
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`2
`
` Deposition of GEORGE N. ROUSKAS, Ph.D., conducted
`virtually.
`
` Pursuant to notice, before Debra Ann Whitehead,
`E-Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
`Virginia.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` DANIEL S. BLOCK, ESQUIRE
` JASON D. EISENBERG, ESQUIRE
` STEVEN M. PAPPAS, ESQUIRE
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202) 371-2600
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
` STEPHEN T. SCHREINER, ESQUIRE
` JAMES T. CARMICHAEL, ESQUIRE
` CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
` 8000 Towers Crescent Drive
` 13th Floor
` Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
` (703) 646-9250
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` AUSTIN COSTELLO, AV Tech
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`EXAMINATION OF GEORGE N. ROUSKAS, Ph.D. PAGE
` By Mr. Block 5
` By Mr. Schreiner 179
` By Mr. Block 180
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (Attached to the transcript)
`ROUSKAS DEPOSITION EXHIBIT PAGE
` Exhibit 1 Declaration of Professor George 8
` N. Rouskas, Ph.D., IPR2019-823
` Exhibit 2 Decision, IPR2019-00823 12
` Exhibit 3 Declaration of Professor George 25
` N. Rouskas, Ph.D., IPR2019-00824
` Exhibit 4 Declaration of Professor George 64
` N. Rouskas, Ph.D., IPR2019-00826
` Exhibit 5 RSIP Support for End-to-End IPSec 77
` Exhibit 6 Realm Specific IP: Protocol 109
` Specification
` Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent No. 7,032,242 131
` Exhibit 8 U.S. Patent No. 9,712,494 157
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` GEORGE N. ROUSKAS, Ph.D.,
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` MR. BLOCK: This is Dan Block from the
`law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, on
`behalf of Apple. With me today is Steve Pappas,
`also of the law firm Sterne, Kessler.
` MR. SCHREINER: This is Stephen Schreiner
`on behalf of MPH Technologies, and I'm with
`Carmichael IP, PLLC.
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`BY MR. BLOCK:
` Q Good morning, Dr. Rouskas.
` A Good morning.
` Q I appreciate you joining this, with us
`today and accommodating a remote deposition in
`these certainly new and interesting times.
` What I'm going to do, I know you've had
`your deposition taken a number of times before.
`In fact, I've taken it. But I think it's probably
`helpful and probably more important than ever that
`we go over some of the basic ground rules of this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`6
`
`deposition so that we're all on the same page and
`so that we can make this process run as smoothly
`as possible.
` So first, since this is a remote
`deposition, I think it's more important than ever
`that you let me ask my questions, and then you
`wait until I'm complete and then you answer.
`Because if we're talking past, over each other,
`it's going to be I think literally impossible for
`the court reporter to take everything down. And
`so I ask that you wait for me to finish my
`questions, and I will do the same so that we can
`get a clean record. Okay?
` A I understand, yes.
` Q And along those same lines, you
`understand that you have to give verbal answers,
`otherwise the court reporter won't be able to take
`down what you're saying?
` A I understand that as well, yes.
` Q And so my job today is to ask questions,
`and your job is of course to answer those
`questions to the best you can.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`7
`
` If you don't understand one of my
`questions, will you let me know?
` A I will.
` Q Otherwise I'm going to assume that if you
`do answer my question, that you understood it.
` Sound fair?
` A Yes.
` Q So, like a normal deposition, we'll try
`to take some breaks during this time. I like to
`take breaks about every hour or so. If you need a
`break before that, just let me know or let your
`counsel know, and we'll try to accommodate that.
`I only ask that if there is a question pending,
`that you answer that question before we take the
`break.
` Sound fair?
` A Yes. Thank you.
` Q And you understand today that you're
`under oath?
` A I understand, yes.
` Q And that means you need to give true and
`complete testimony to the best of your ability?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`8
`
` A Yes, I understand that.
` Q Is there any reason you can't do that
`today?
` A Not that I can think of, no.
` Q Well, then let's get started.
` What I'm going to do is, we might as well
`start with the '494 proceeding. And if you could
`maybe pull out your declaration from the '494
`patent proceeding?
` MR. BLOCK: And just so we know, that is
`Exhibit 1002 from IPR2019-00823.
` Austin, if we can mark that as Exhibit 1
`to the Rouskas deposition.
` A So I'm going to take it down as well,
`write this down. So this is Exhibit 1.
` (Rouskas Deposition Exhibit 1 marked for
`identification and is attached to the transcript.)
` (A discussion was held off the record.)
` Q All right. So, Dr. Rouskas, you've I
`guess not been handed per se, but I've asked you
`to pull out what has now been marked as Exhibit 1
`to your deposition. This is a -- I'm sorry, you
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`9
`
`know what? This is not the --
` MR. SCHREINER: This is not the right
`one. Right?
` MR. BLOCK: This is not the right one.
` (A discussion was held off the record.)
`BY MR. BLOCK:
` Q So, Dr. Rouskas, you've taken out what
`has been marked as Exhibit 1 to your deposition.
`And the exhibit number of this is Exhibit 2002,
`and it is from the IPR proceeding, IPR2019-00823.
` Do you recognize this exhibit?
` A I do.
` Q And what is this exhibit?
` A This is my declaration with regards to
`the 9,712,494 patents in this case.
` Q Thank you, Dr. Rouskas.
` And as you can see there, the patent
`number is 9,712,494. If I refer to that patent as
`the '494 patent, you'll understand that I'm
`referring to 9,712,494?
` A I will, yes.
` Q And if I refer to this proceeding as the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`10
`
`'823 proceeding, you'll understand that I'm
`talking about the proceeding related to the '494
`patent?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. I'm going to try to refer to the
`proceedings by their patent numbers since I think
`that's likely how we all refer to them as. So if
`you ever get confused as to which proceeding I'm
`talking about, just let me know. Okay?
` A Yes, I will.
` MR. SCHREINER: This is Steve. I have a
`question for the tech.
` (A discussion was held off the record.)
`BY MR. BLOCK:
` Q So, Dr. Rouskas, just bringing us back to
`where we were before the break. You had just been
`looking at your '494 declaration.
` Is that right?
` A Yes, that's correct.
` Q If you could turn to, it's Page 40,
`Paragraph 78.
` A Yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`11
`
` Q So here you set forth in Paragraph 78 of
`your '494 declaration your construction for the
`term "mobile computer."
` Is that right?
` A That is correct, yes.
` Q And sitting here today right now, do you
`still agree with your opinions that you've set
`forth in Paragraph 78 with respect to the
`construction of mobile computer?
` A Yes, I do agree.
` Q And in this paragraph, I think it's the
`second sentence, it refers to the institution
`decision.
` Do you see that?
` A I see that, yes.
` Q Okay. Did you read the institution
`decision in forming your opinions in this case?
` A I did read, I did read the institution
`decision, yes.
` Q Let's pull out the institution decision
`for the '494 case, if you wouldn't mind.
` A Okay.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`12
`
` (A discussion was held off the record.)
` (Rouskas Deposition Exhibit 2 marked for
`identification and is attached to the transcript.)
`BY MR. BLOCK:
` Q So, Dr. Rouskas, you've been handed a
`document that's been marked Exhibit 2 to your
`deposition. The title of this document is
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes
`Review, and it relates to a Patent Number
`9,712,494.
` Do you recognize this document?
` A Yes, I recognize it.
` Q This is the institution decision that you
`were referring to in Paragraph 78 of your '494
`declaration?
` A Yes, that is the one.
` Q And if we could go to, I think it's right
`around Page 9 of this document.
` MR. BLOCK: And Austin, you can unshare
`your screen.
` Q Now, it says right in the -- under the
`section labeled Mobile Computer, first paragraph,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`13
`
`it says, "The term 'mobile computer,' as recited
`in the claims, should be construed to require a
`computer that is capable of moving from one
`network to another while maintaining a
`connection."
` And that's what the institution says
`patent owner argued in its preliminary patent
`owner response. Correct?
` A Yes, that's what it says in that
`paragraph.
` Q And is that what you understood patent
`owner to have argued the term "mobile computer"
`meant in its patent owner preliminary response?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Outside the
`scope of his declaration.
` A So by reading this passage, yes, that is
`what I understood.
` Q And in fact, you reviewed the patent
`owner preliminary response as part of forming your
`opinions in this case.
` Isn't that right?
` A Yes, I did.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`14
`
` Q And so is there any reason for you to
`doubt that that is in fact what patent owner
`argued in the patent owner preliminary response
`with respect to the term "mobile computer"?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Vague and
`ambiguous.
` A I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
` Q Right. Do you have any reason to doubt
`that the board, when it characterized what patent
`owner said in its patent owner preliminary
`response with respect to the term "mobile
`computer," was wrong?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Vague and
`ambiguous.
` A Well --
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for --
`calls for testimony outside the scope of his
`declaration.
` A So I -- so reading these statements in
`Page 9 of the -- of this decision document, Paper
`7, the -- the board, yeah, provides the
`construction that the patent owner provided. So I
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`15
`
`don't have any doubt that that was what was argued
`at that time.
` Q Is the construction that the patent owner
`set forth in their patent owner preliminary
`response for the term "mobile computer" the same
`construction as what you have now set forth in
`your declaration for the '494 patent?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Outside the
`scope of the testimony given in his declaration.
` A So the construction that I provided, you
`know, in my declaration, is -- is actually
`explained in Paragraph 78 of my declaration. And
`as that paragraph reads, I -- "In my opinion, the
`term 'mobile computer' means a computer that moves
`from one network to another, as opposed to a
`network that is only capable of a static secure
`connection."
` Q Right. So I guess what I'm asking you,
`is the construction that you've set forth in your
`declaration for the '494 patent the same
`construction as what patent owner set forth in
`their patent owner preliminary response?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`16
`
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Objection.
`Asking for opinion testimony. Outside the scope
`of that given in his direct -- in his declaration.
` A So I did not provide an opinion on, you
`know, the construction that the patent owner
`argued during the preliminary response.
` Q Right. I understand that. But that's
`not what I'm asking. I'm asking you, is the
`construction that you set forth in your
`declaration the same construction as what patent
`owner preliminary response -- I'm sorry. Strike
`that.
` What I'm asking you is, is the
`construction you set forth in your declaration for
`the '494 patent the same construction that patent
`owner set forth in their preliminary patent owner
`response for the term "mobile computer"?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Seeking
`testimony for opinions outside the scope of that
`given in his declaration in this matter.
` A The only thing I can say is that my
`construction is not the same. It's not worded in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`17
`
`the same manner as the construction that is --
`appears in the passage that you pointed me to in
`the decision paper.
` Q Okay. So why don't we maybe break this
`down.
` If we take a look at the patent owner
`preliminary response construction, it says that
`the term "mobile computer" should be construed to
`require a computer that is capable of moving from
`one network to another.
` Does your construction for the term
`"mobile computer" only require the capability of a
`computer moving from one network to the other?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for
`opinion outside the scope of that given in his
`declaration.
` A Right. So I'm not sure what you mean by
`this.
` I mean, my construction is shown on
`Paragraph 78 of my declaration. So I'm not sure
`what -- you know, what you mean with this
`question.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`18
`
` Q Okay. Well, then, why don't we take a
`look at the construction you asked -- you've set
`forth on Page -- on Paragraph 78.
` So it says, "A computer that moves from
`one network to another, as opposed to a computer
`that is only capable of a static secure
`connection."
` If I have a computer that is capable of
`moving from one network to another, as opposed to
`a computer that is only capable of a static secure
`connection, have I met the definition of your
`construction for the term "mobile computer"?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for
`testimony outside of scope of his declaration.
`Objection, vague and ambiguous.
` A So this is -- so this is something that I
`have not formed an opinion on. And this is
`something that I would have to really think
`carefully about. I'm not in a position to, you
`know, answer your question other than, you know,
`what is in Paragraph 78, as far as the
`construction of the term "mobile computer" that I
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`19
`
`have provided.
` Q So let me make sure I have that right.
` So you don't know right now whether a
`computer that is capable of moving from one
`network to another, as opposed to a computer that
`is only capable of a static secure connection,
`would meet your construction that you've set forth
`for the term "mobile computer." Right?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for
`testimony outside the scope of his declaration.
`Incomplete hypothetical. Vague and ambiguous.
`Asked and answered.
` A Right. As I said, I do not have an
`opinion at this point, at this point in time.
` Q So it may be possible.
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection.
`Mischaracterizes prior testimony, vague and
`ambiguous.
` A I did not say that. All I said is that I
`do not have an opinion at this time.
` Q So you don't know whether it's possible
`or not that that situation would be covered under
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`20
`
`your construction?
` A All I'm saying is I have not formed an
`opinion on this particular matter.
` Q So why is it that having reviewed the
`patent owner preliminary response, as you stated
`you did, that you came up with a different
`construction for the term "mobile computer" as you
`set forth in your declaration?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for
`testimony outside the scope of his declaration.
` MR. BLOCK: Steve, I think this is
`squarely within the scope of his declaration. I'm
`simply asking him, after having reviewed the
`patent owner preliminary response, which he said
`he's done, why he chose a different construction
`for the term. That is within the scope of his
`declaration.
` MR. SCHREINER: There's been no testimony
`that he chose a construction different from
`something else. And you're comparing it to the --
`comparing it to the definition in the institution
`decision, and he hasn't given an opinion on that.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`21
`
`This is a -- you're squarely outside the scope of
`his declaration.
` Q Dr. Rouskas --
` MR. SCHREINER: His declaration explains
`his construction starting at Paragraph 78, and all
`the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting
`it.
` You're asking him questions outside the
`scope of that.
`BY MR. BLOCK:
` Q Dr. Rouskas, you agree with me that the
`wording of the construction in Paragraph 78 is
`different than the wording that patent owner chose
`in the patent owner preliminary response. Right?
` A Yes. As I said, I agree that my
`construction is different than the wording that
`appears in the institution decision.
` Q And you reviewed the patent owner
`preliminary response when you were forming your
`opinions in this case. Right?
` A I did, yes.
` Q So I'm just simply asking you why you
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`22
`
`chose different wording for your construction for
`mobile computer than what was in the patent owner
`preliminary response?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for
`testimony outside the scope of his declaration.
` A So I --
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection, foundation.
` A My response is that I did not choose a
`wording that is different. I chose a wording that
`I believe is, in my opinion, should be how the
`term "mobile computer" would be constructed in the
`context of the '494 patent.
` So it's not a matter of choosing a
`different wording; it's a matter of what my
`opinion is on that matter.
` Q I see. So am I right, then, that you
`don't have an opinion, then, whether or not the
`construction set forth in the patent owner
`preliminary response is also a correct
`construction for the term "mobile computer"?
` Is that right?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Vague and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`23
`
`ambiguous.
` A I -- I did not analyze the construction
`in the preliminary response, and I don't have an
`opinion on that matter, no.
` Q Why didn't you analyze the construction
`in the patent owner preliminary response,
`considering you reviewed it?
` A So I reviewed a lot of documents. And I,
`you know, took into account a lot of information
`in forming my opinions.
` And so, you know, at the end, after
`reviewing all this material and information, I --
`you know, my opinion was that the construction is
`as it appears in Paragraph 78. I did not
`necessarily analyze any particular construction,
`previous construction.
` Q Let's turn to Page 35 of your
`declaration. This would be to the '494
`proceeding.
` A Page 35 of the -- my declaration for the
`'494?
` Q Yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`24
`
` A Yes.
` Q And in particular there's a footnote at
`the bottom there.
` Do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q So do I have it right that it's your
`opinion that petitioner is trying to import
`security associations into the meaning of the term
`"unique identity"?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection.
`Mischaracterizes the declaration.
` A So as it says in that -- as I say in that
`particular footnote, "In my opinion this is an
`unsupported attempt to import security
`associations into the meaning of this term." And
`this term is "secure connection," yes.
` Q Isn't this term "unique identity"?
` A Unique identity, sorry. Yes.
` Q Okay.
` MR. BLOCK: Austin, if we could pull out,
`and Dr. Rouskas, if we could pull out your '502
`declaration.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`25
`
` (A discussion was held off the record.)
` (Rouskas Deposition Exhibit 3 marked for
`identification and is attached to the transcript.)
` Q So, Dr. Rouskas, you've just pulled out
`what's been marked Exhibit 3 to your deposition.
`It's a document titled Exhibit 2003, Declaration
`of Professor George N. Rouskas, Ph.D. And it is
`for the case IPR2019-00824, which relates to
`Patent Number 9,712,502.
` Do you recognize this document?
` A I do.
` Q And this is the declaration that you
`submitted in the IPR2019-824 proceeding?
` A Yes, it is.
` Q And just as a matter of housekeeping, if
`I refer to the term "'502 patent," you'll
`understand that I'm referring to U.S. Patent
`Number 9,712,502?
` A Yes, I would.
` Q And if I refer to this proceeding as the
`'502 patent proceeding or proceeding '824, you'll
`know that I'm referring to the proceeding related
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`26
`
`to Exhibit 3?
` A Yes, I would.
` Q Okay. And like I said the last time,
`I'll try to refer to this as the '502 proceeding
`so that we're talking about patent numbers. Okay?
` A Okay.
` Q So if we could turn to Paragraph --
` MR. BLOCK: Austin, if you could unshare
`your screen.
` Q Dr. Rouskas, if we could turn to
`Paragraph 92.
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And here you say that petitioner's
`construction for the term "secure connection" is
`incorrect.
` Is that right?
` A That is what the first sentence of
`Paragraph 92 says, yes.
` Q And you go on to explain that the reason
`why it's incorrect is because a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would not construe the term
`"secure connection" to mean one or more security
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`27
`
`associations.
` Is that right?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Foundation.
`Mischaracterizes, Dan, what the declaration
`actually says.
` A So as I say in that paragraph, that a
`POSITA, a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`would not construe secure connection to mean one
`or more security associations.
` Q And just so we're clear, that's why you
`believe petitioner's construction is incorrect.
` Am I right?
` A That, and, you know, the rest of the
`justification that I provide in later paragraphs.
` Q Sitting here today right now, do you
`still believe petitioner's construction is
`incorrect because a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would not construe the term "secure
`connection" to mean one or more security
`associations?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Objection,
`vague and ambiguous. Mischaracterizing what the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`28
`
`declaration states.
` A So I --
` MR. SCHREINER: Just to explain my
`objection, so that we don't waste time, is you're
`using the term "means security associations." But
`the passage in the declaration says it's not
`limited to security associations. So that's my
`objection.
` MR. BLOCK: Okay. Sure. Look, Steve,
`you know, your speaking objections, as we talked
`about before, are way beyond the pale here.
` I would tell you once again that you
`cannot have speaking objections on the record.
`Please limit your objections to what are proper
`under the rules. Objections like "form."
` Your speaking objections are completely
`outside the scope of the rules here.
` MR. SCHREINER: Dan --
` Q Dr. Rouskas, I'll ask my question --
` MR. SCHREINER: Let me respond. We had
`this discussion the very first deposition. And
`you've made the same types of objections. Okay?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`29
`
` I just made a clarifying point in the
`last statement I made so that I could avoid making
`some additional objections. And that was the
`point.
` MR. BLOCK: Okay. I don't think that was
`the point. I think it was a speaking objection,
`but I'm going to move on.
`BY MR. BLOCK:
` Q So, Dr. Rouskas, I'm going to ask my
`question again.
` The reason why you believe petitioner's
`construction is incorrect is because you believe
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`not construe the term "security connection" to
`mean that it is limited to one or more security
`associations.
` Is that right?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Vague and
`ambiguous.
` A I mean, I stand by, you know, the
`sentence that is -- the second sentence in
`Paragraph 92 that it is my opinion that a person
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`30
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not construe
`secure connection to mean one or more security
`associations.
` Q Right. In other words, that the reason
`why petitioner's construction is incorrect is
`because, according to you, it's limited to a
`secure connection being security associations.
` Fair?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection.
`Mischaracterizes prior testimony. Vague and
`ambiguous.
` A You know, I think that the -- for at
`least that reason, yes.
` Q Okay. What I'd like you to do is, let's
`take a look at Paragraph 91.
` A Yes.
` Q Here you set forth what the construction
`for petitioner's "secure connection" term is.
` Isn't that right?
` A Yes. The first sentence says, "The
`petitioner asserts that the term 'secure
`connection' should be construed to encompass one
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`31
`
`or more security associations."
` Q Okay. Do you know what the word
`"encompass" means?
` A It means to include.
` Q Okay. And so, would something that
`includes one or more security associations mean
`that it is limited to one or more security
`associations?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Calls for
`testimony outside the scope of his declaration.
` A So my understanding is that, you know,
`the term "secure connection" should not be limited
`to one or more security associations. And the --
`the term "encompass" and "includes" can, in
`certain occasions, just exclude other
`possibilities.
` Q In what situations would the word
`"include" exclude other possibilities?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical.
` A So I do that all the time in my exam
`questions, for instance. I tell students that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`32
`
`they have to include something in order to get
`full credit. And if you do not include that, then
`they do not get full credit, because that part is
`missing.
` Q Right. But I guess here's my point: If
`they include that, and they include other things,
`would they still get full credit?
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection, vague and
`ambiguous. Objection, incomplete hypothetical.
` A So, actually, my students may actually
`get points taken off for including things that are
`not supposed to include.
` Q Right. But if they included things that
`were otherwise not incorrect, would you take off
`points?
` A That they were otherwise incorrect?
` Q That were not incorrect. Not incorrect.
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Please let
`him answer the question.
` Q Well, I'll ask my question again, because
`you may have misunderstood it or maybe I said it
`wrong.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`Transcript of George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`Conducted on May 7, 2020
`
`33
`
` If the student includes things that would
`otherwise not be incorrect, would you take off
`points?
` A I would certainly. Because --
` MR. SCHREINER: Objection. Vague and
`ambiguous.
` A Right. So I would take off point