throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket