` FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`
`Page 1
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT
`MANAGEMENT, LLC,
` Plaintiff,
` vs. CASE NO. 6:18-cv-00207-ADA
`DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.,
` Defendant.
`__________________________/
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOEL WILLIAMS
` Palo Alto, California
` April 12, 2019
`
`Job No.: 159002
`Pages 1 - 102
`Reported by: Jenny L. Griffin, RMR, CSR, CRR, CCRR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0001
`
`
`
` Deposition of JOEL WILLIAMS, held at the
`offices of:
`
`Page 2
`
` Baker Botts
` 1001 Page Mill Road
` Building One, Suite 200
` Palo Alto, California 94304
`
` Pursuant to Notice, before Jenny L. Griffin,
`California Certified Shorthand Reporter #3969,
`Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`California Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified
`Realtime Captioner.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4 5 6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0002
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
` TOLER LAW GROUP
` 8500 Bluffstone Cove
` Austin, Texas 78759
` BY: BENJAMIN JOHNSON, ESQ.
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
` BAKER BOTTS
` 1001 Page Mill Road
` Building One
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` BY: G. HOPKINS GUY III, ESQ.
`
` BAKER BOTTS
` One Shell Plaza
` 910 Louisiana Street
` Houston, Texas 77002
` BY: ALI DHANANI, ESQ.
`
`VIDEOGRAPHER:
` Joshua Headrick
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0003
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
` JOEL WILLIAMS
` PAGE
` BY MR. GUY 6
` BY MR. JOHNSON 91
` FURTHER BY MR. GUY 94
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0004
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`Palo Alto, California April 12, 2019
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the start of
`media labeled Number 1 of the video-recorded
`deposition of Joel Williams in the matter Multimedia
`Content Management LLC vs. DISH Network, L.L.C., in
`the United States District Court, Western District
`of Texas, Waco Division, Number 6:18-cv-00207-ADA.
` This deposition is being held at 1001 Page
`Mill Road, Building 1, Suite 200, Palo Alto,
`California, on April 12th, 2019, at approximately
`9:09 a.m.
` My name is Joshua Headrick. I am the legal
`video specialist from TSG Reporting, Inc.,
`headquartered at 747 Third Avenue, New York,
`New York.
` The court reporter is Jenny Griffin, in
`association with TSG Reporting.
` Counsel, please introduce yourselves.
` MR. GUY: Hopkins Guy with Baker Botts on
`behalf of defendant DISH.
` MR. DHANANI: Ali Dhanani, Baker Botts, on
`behalf of DISH as well.
` MR. JOHNSON: Ben Johnson with Toler Law
`Group, on behalf of plaintiff MCM.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0005
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`please swear in the witness.
` JOEL WILLIAMS
`being first duly sworn and/or affirmed by the
`Certified Shorthand Reporter tell the truth, the whole
`truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. Mr. Williams, state your full name for the
`record, please.
` A. Joel Robert Williams.
` Q. And where do you currently reside?
` A. San Jose, California.
` Q. What's your address there?
` A. 1240 McKendrie Street, San Jose.
` Q. And do you own or work for a consulting
`group?
` A. I am a sole -- sole practitioner.
` Q. Sole proprietor?
` A. Sole proprietor.
` Q. Of Williams Consulting?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And do you maintain a website at
`www.williams-consulting.com?
` A. I do.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0006
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. And that is -- is that a description of
`your consulting operation for business?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Are you represented by counsel today?
` A. I'm here with Ben Johnson.
` Q. Is he acting as your counsel?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you understand you're under oath?
` A. I do.
` Q. Okay. And you understand the ground rules
`of a deposition under the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure?
` A. I think I do. I'm not sure I understand
`all the rules.
` Q. How many times have you been deposed?
` A. Oh, probably 10.
` Q. Ten? Just 10 times?
` A. Probably. I don't know offhand.
` Q. How many times -- how many years have you
`been a consultant?
` A. I've been a consultant for probably 40
`years.
` Q. And during that time, what percentage of
`your business has been involved in working as an
`expert witness in patent cases versus other work?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0007
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 8
` A. For the total time -- gee, that would be --
`I don't have a number. I started doing a few patent
`cases, and as time grew, I did more and more of them
`until that's all I did. So it's a changing slope.
`I don't have an idea of my total time. It would be
`speculation.
` Q. Now, are you being offered as an expert
`witness in this case?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Have you signed any retention agreement
`with anyone regarding offering expert testimony in
`the case of Multimedia Content Management LLC vs.
`DISH Network L.L.C.?
` A. Not yet. That's this case? Not the IPR?
` Q. Right.
` A. Correct.
` Q. The IPR was involved against Unified
`Patents; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Do you even have a draft agreement or any
`understanding with respect to your engagement in
`this case?
` A. I do.
` Q. What's your understanding?
` A. I have a draft agreement.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0008
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. What are the terms of that draft
`agreement?
` A. I'm not sure that I need to say that.
` Q. What's that?
` A. I'm not sure I want to disclose that. Is
`there something specific about it you want to know?
` Q. Well, I want to know the general terms. I
`mean, Number 1, have you been either -- do you have
`an oral understanding or any other writing that you
`have been retained as an expert witness in this
`case?
` A. Right, yeah. We have a -- I guess an email
`understanding or an oral understanding. I have
`yet -- I have not signed the actual agreement, but
`there is a draft agreement that we've agreed to that
`we would sign. I just haven't executed the
`signature yet.
` Q. All right. And is it your intent today to
`testify as an expert witness on behalf of MCM?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you're not being called here as a fact
`witness; is that correct? Is that your
`understanding?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. What is your billing rate for your time on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0009
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`this case, MCM vs. DISH?
` A. 450 an hour.
` Q. And when were you retained for this case?
` A. For this case? It would be last week.
` Q. What time was that?
` A. I'm not sure I know.
` Q. A week ago? Literally? The 7th?
` A. I'd have to look at the calendar. It was
`late last week sometime.
` Q. It was in April?
` A. Yeah, I guess it was, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
` Q. Had you been contacted before that time?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And what was the substance of that
`communication?
` A. I was contacted probably about a month ago
`to find out if I was available for a deposition
`regarding my IPR.
` Q. Okay. Have you given a deposition in that
`IPR?
` A. I don't believe I have, no.
` Q. Is it your understanding the IPR was not
`instituted?
` A. That's what I was told.
` Q. So there was no longer any need for
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0010
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`deposition. Is that your understanding?
` A. I don't know.
` (Brief discussion held off the
` stenographic record.)
` MR. GUY: Let me hand you what I will mark
`as your -- it was Exhibit A. I believe it's
`identified as a curriculum vitae of Joel R.
`Williams. And if -- it was submitted in a prior MCM
`IPR as Exhibit 2001.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. And I'll ask you if you can identify that.
` Do you have a copy for Counsel?
` MR. DHANANI: I gave him a copy.
` MR. GUY: Okay. Great.
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for
` identification and is attached to the
` transcript.)
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, it appears to be my --
`yes.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. Your CV?
` A. It appears to be my CV. Yes.
` Q. Okay. As of what date?
` A. It would have been as of that date. It's
`12/13/2017.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0011
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Was there anything in it that you have
`since discovered since 12/13/17 that's incorrect or
`wrong?
` A. Not that I'm aware of.
` Q. All right. Since 12/13/17, is there any
`additions to your CV?
` A. Well, the IPR in this case is not there.
` Q. Any other cases?
` A. I don't think so. I have been retained in
`a case for -- representing Apple -- that's not on
`here, but I have not as yet done any -- what I would
`say real work on it.
` Q. Who is the case for Apple against?
` A. Oh, it's bunch of people. It was a bunch
`of -- it was -- I don't remember.
` Q. Was Apple the plaintiff or the defendant?
` A. I'm sorry. Apple was the defendant. And
`there's a number of defendants. And I don't
`remember who the -- who the plaintiff is.
` Q. You don't recall?
` A. I don't.
` Q. What law firm hired you?
` A. I'm not even sure I went through -- that's
`a good question. I don't remember. As I say, I've
`been retained, but I haven't done any work on the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0012
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`case. I don't have that information with me.
` Q. Okay. Now, you understand the testimony
`you're giving today is under oath?
` A. I do.
` Q. And you'll do the best you can to answer my
`questions truthfully; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And what did you do to prepare for today's
`deposition?
` A. I reviewed the -- my declaration from the
`IPR, the parts relating to the claim construction.
`And I was given a copy of, I guess, your proposed
`claim construction document, which I kind of skimmed
`through.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. I did take a look -- a little bit of a look
`at the actual patent.
` Q. Which actual patent?
` A. The '468 patent. The one that's --
` Q. Did you look at any other patents?
` A. Not in preparation for this.
` Q. Did you look at the '924 patent?
` A. I did not.
` MR. JOHNSON: Just for clarification, I
`think it's the 925.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0013
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. So what did I say?
` MR. JOHNSON: 924.
` MR. GUY: I'm sorry. 925.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. I meant to say did you look at the '925
`patent?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Okay.
` A. That's the other one at issue in this case,
`I understand. Yeah, I did not look at it.
` Q. Did you look at any of the other documents
`filed in the Unified Patent IPR?
` A. Not in preparation for today.
` Q. When is the last time you looked at those
`documents?
` A. It would have been when I was preparing
`the -- my declaration.
` Q. So, as I understand it, say, in the last
`six months, with reference to any sort of MCM work,
`you have looked at your declaration, and you skimmed
`DISH's claim construction brief, and you looked at
`the '468 patent; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Anything else?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0014
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. I believe you stated this in your
`declaration. Have you ever met the inventors of the
`'468 or the '925 patent?
` A. I don't believe I have.
` Q. Okay. Are prior to this engagement, had
`you ever heard of them?
` A. Can I see the patent just to refresh my
`memory on their names?
` Q. I'll just read them on the record. They
`are Robert M. Burke, II, of Los Gatos, and David
`Carman, C-A-R-M-A-N, of San Jose.
` A. I may have run into Burke. That name
`sounds vaguely familiar. I may have met him at a
`meeting. I don't remember him at all. I certainly
`have not worked with him in any capacity or spoken
`with him about this case.
` Q. All right. If you'll turn to -- well, I'll
`just ask you generally.
` My firm is the Baker Botts firm. Have you
`ever done any work for any client of Baker Botts?
` A. Yeah, I have.
` Q. All right. And what was that?
` A. If you turn to page 9 of my CV, there is
`Intellectual Ventures vs. AT&T. I believe I was
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0015
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`representing AT&T.
` Q. All right. Do you know what Baker Botts
`attorney you worked with?
` A. I was afraid you were going to ask me that.
`I don't remember her name. It was out of the
`New York office.
` Q. Was there any other Baker Botts matter that
`you've ever worked on for a Baker Botts attorney or
`against a Baker Botts attorney that you recall?
` A. Actually, let me correct that. The
`attorney I'm thinking of was at Ropes Gray. I don't
`remember the attorney at Baker Botts off the top of
`my head. And I don't remember if I was opposed to
`them or in another case or not.
` Q. All right. Now, if I understand your
`nomenclature used in Exhibit 1 to your deposition,
`the date there is the date you were retained by
`Baker Botts?
` A. I don't know if it was the date -- it was
`the date I did most of the work. It was just the
`year. I don't remember exactly when I was retained.
` Q. All right. So you were -- you did work for
`Baker Botts in approximately 2015?
` A. Yes.
` Q. On behalf of their client AT&T?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0016
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And it was a patent infringement matter?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you were disclosed as an expert in that
`case?
` A. I believe I was.
` Q. And you prepared an expert report?
` A. I believe I did.
` Q. And you gave an expert deposition; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you ever testify at trial?
` A. Not in this case.
` Q. Did the case settle?
` A. I believe that it did. I don't know.
` Q. When was the last time you had any contact
`with either AT&T or Baker Botts regarding the
`matter?
` A. I don't recall. It was probably 2016, but
`I don't -- I couldn't be sure.
` Q. As far as you know, is the matter over?
` A. Yeah, at least my part in it is over. I
`mean, I don't know if there's appeals going on or
`something.
` Q. Okay. Is there anything about that case,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0017
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`the Intellectual Ventures vs. AT&T, or your
`involvement with Baker Botts, that has any relevance
`to this case that you can think of?
` A. Not that I know of.
` Q. Is that a Wi-Fi case, as best you recall?
` A. No.
` Q. What was it?
` A. Telecommunications. Telecom.
` Q. Telecom.
` Did it have to do with DSL?
` A. I don't think it did.
` Q. It just had to do with telephone
`communications?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Okay. It was not a broadcast carrier case;
`is that correct?
` A. I don't believe it was.
` Q. All right.
` (Exhibit 2 was marked for
` identification and is attached to the
` transcript.)
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. All right. Let me hand you your next
`exhibit, Exhibit 2 to your deposition. It's a
`document -- at the top it indicates page 1 of 110,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0018
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
`and it is approximately 110 pages. On the cover it
`indicates Exhibit 2001. And it appears to have been
`a declaration of Joel R. Williams, submitted in the
`Unified Patents vs. MCM IPR. Is that correct?
` A. It appears to be, yes.
` Q. Okay. Now, let me go through this, and
`I'll ask you to look through it.
` Do you recognize the document?
` A. I recognize the document.
` Q. All right. Do you recognize --
` A. I'm not sure I recognize the little header
`at the top. It says "Document 49-1." I think
`somebody added that.
` Q. Okay. All right. With the exception of
`the header, is this a document that you recognize
`was filed in the Unified Patent vs. MCM IPR?
` A. I understand it was filed.
` Q. Okay. If you'll turn to the very back.
`You see that this is page 92 of 110?
` A. No. I only have 91.
` Q. At the top.
` A. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the
`bottom of the page. Okay.
` Q. At the top it says 92; at the bottom it
`says 91.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0019
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Correct.
` Q. Okay. So I'll make a representation. I
`believe the top line is the electronic header that
`is added to the documents if they're filed in this
`case, meaning MCM vs. DISH.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Okay. And the case number up there is
`actually the MCM vs. DISH case number.
` A. I understand.
` Q. Okay. So since that is the page number of
`record in this case, let's use that number at the
`top right-hand corner, shall we?
` A. Okay.
` Q. Okay. All right. And if you'll turn back
`to Exhibit 1, you'll see that that page number picks
`up at 93 and goes to 110?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And so originally this was filed together,
`even though we have them as separate documents here.
`Okay?
` A. I understand.
` Q. All right. All right. Let's go back to
`page 92 of Exhibit 2 to your deposition.
` Now, as of December 13, 2017, you signed
`this document; is that correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0020
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Affirmative. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And you certified and declared that
`all the statements made herein were of your own
`knowledge are true; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And all statements made on information and
`belief are believed to be true; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And further, these statements were made
`with the knowledge that willful and false statements
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`imprisonment or both; is that correct?
` A. That's my understanding.
` Q. Okay. Now, your signature there at page 92
`of Exhibit 2, is that an electronic signature? Was
`that your actual signature?
` A. Well, it's both. It's my actual signature
`that is -- I made into a -- an image file. And I
`pasted that image file into this document. And I
`routinely use that same one in other legal
`documents. So it is my signature, it's just
`represented as a --
` Q. All right.
` A. Mechanically as a file.
` Q. But as of December 13, 2017, you have no
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0021
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 22
`doubt that whether or not you supplied an electronic
`signature or whether you actually signed something
`and then had it scanned in as of that day, your
`intent was to sign the document as of December 13,
`2017; is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. All right. And -- now, did you re-review
`this document in March of this year? 2019?
` A. I think -- no, it was April.
` Q. You didn't look at it until April?
` A. Correct.
` Q. All right. So as of the date that this
`document was filed on March 15, 2019, you had not
`re-reviewed the document; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Now, as of today, is everything in this
`document still true and correct?
` A. To the best of my knowledge, it is, yeah.
` Q. All right.
` A. Again, I reviewed the -- I specifically
`looked at the claim construction issues. I didn't
`look at everything in here. But I have no reason to
`change anything at this point.
` Q. So it's your testimony today that this
`declaration was true and correct as of the day it
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0022
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`was submitted, March 15, 2019; correct?
` A. That's correct. And I know of no new
`information that would change my opinions --
` Q. All right. Now --
` A. -- as of today.
` Q. But as of March 15, 2019, you had not been
`contacted by MCM, had you?
` A. I don't remember the date I was originally
`contacted. They contacted me to find out if I would
`be available. We didn't discuss any of the issues
`or anything, just my availability for deposition.
` Q. Did you tell anyone on or before
`March 15th, 2019, that you still believed everything
`in your declaration to be true and correct?
` A. That was not discussed.
` Q. Did you advise them that anything was wrong
`with anything in your declaration, Exhibit 2, on or
`before March 15, 2019?
` A. No.
` Q. But as you sit here today, you're not aware
`of anything being wrong with it; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay.
` (Discussion off the record between the
` deponent and Mr. Johnson.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0023
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. At what point in time did you learn that
`MCM or counsel for MCM had submitted your Unified
`Patent declaration in this case?
` A. I don't know I learned what the case was
`until -- I don't know -- maybe three weeks ago, two
`weeks ago. I knew there was a case, but I didn't
`know who was involved in it.
` Q. All right. Let me ask you that question
`again.
` At what point in time can you testify today
`that you knew that this declaration, Exhibit 2, had
`been submitted in the MCM vs. DISH case?
` A. I don't know the exact date. It would be
`approximately two weeks ago.
` Q. Okay. It would have been after March 15,
`2019?
` A. Yes. After.
` Q. Now, if you'll go to the table of contents,
`please.
` All right. And looking through the table
`of contents -- as we've already established, this
`declaration is approximately 92 pages long; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And a portion of this document that has
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0024
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 25
`been submitted that deals with claim construction,
`is listed as approximately pages 30 through -- or up
`47; correct?
` A. Yeah. And possibly 46, I don't know.
` Q. Okay. And the rest of it was a response or
`a validity analysis; is that correct?
` A. No.
` Q. What was it?
` A. There's other things in here. There's
`legal understanding, there's skill in the art,
`overview of the patent.
` Q. All right. Is your understanding that from
`pages 47 to the end, it was basically a validity
`analysis?
` A. Yes. Except for the conclusion at the end.
` Q. Okay. And given that your qualification
`took at least -- in the introduction -- took almost
`14 pages, more than half of this document is a
`validity analysis; is that correct?
` A. Yeah. Yes.
` Q. You don't know of anything wrong with
`submitting a validity analysis in a claim
`construction hearing, do you?
` A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question.
` MR. GUY: Can I have it read back.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0025
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` (Record read by the reporter as follows:
` "QUESTION: You don't know of anything
` wrong with submitting a validity analysis in a
` claim construction hearing, do you?")
` THE WITNESS: It's a legal matter. I have
`no idea.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. Do you know whether anybody asked you
`whether or not submitting a validity analysis --
`whether you thought that was appropriate or not?
` A. It was not discussed.
` Q. All right. Now, with respect to the
`meaning of specific terms -- you see there at
`line -- about midway down the page -- at page 30?
` A. I do.
` Q. All right. Now, as part of the Unified
`Patent IPR, you felt it was necessary to construe at
`least four terms as part of your validity analysis;
`is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And do you believe you had a dispute with
`the other side as to those constructions?
` A. I do. They support the analysis that comes
`later.
` Q. And was your intent that the Patent and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0026
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Trademark Appeals Board rely upon your
`constructions; is that correct?
` A. I don't know about "rely." Certainly
`consider them.
` Q. All right. In order to understand or
`follow your validity analysis, it was necessary that
`they adopt your claim constructions; correct?
` A. Well, I don't know how they operate. I
`would assume that they consider it, in order to
`understand my analysis.
` Q. The claim construction terms were an
`integral part of your validity analysis; correct?
` A. Yeah. That would be correct.
` MR. GUY: Excuse me. Let me get some
`water.
` (Brief discussion held off the
` stenographic record.)
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. Now, this was an expert declaration --
`well, let me back up.
` You were an expert witness for MCM in their
`opposition to institution of an IPR; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you were hired as an expert witness in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0027
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`that case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you gave expert testimony in that case?
` A. Well, in the form of this declaration.
` Q. Did you ever testify in that case?
` A. No.
` Q. Now, at the time you submitted this in
`December of 2017, do you have an understanding of
`what the standard for claim interpretation was
`before the PTAB?
` A. I'm not sure what you mean. You mean like
`broadest? BRI? Broadest reasonable interpretation?
`Yes.
` Q. And what is BRI? Or broadest reasonable
`interpretation?
` A. It's the widest interpretation that could
`reasonably be applied to the matter.
` Q. Okay. And did you use that standard in
`interpreting the specific terms that you construed
`in this declaration?
` A. I did.
` Q. Okay. Now, are you familiar with something
`called the Phillips standard?
` A. Not by that name.
` Q. Okay. Do you know what standard is applied
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0028
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`in district court litigation matters?
` A. It's the ordinary meaning.
` Q. All right. Do you have an understanding
`of --
` A. Plain and ordinary meaning.
` Q. Plain and ordinary meaning?
` Do you have an understanding of the
`difference between a plain and ordinary meaning and
`the BRI or broadest reasonable interpretation?
` A. You know, the plain and ordinary meaning is
`a more narrow definition or more narrow
`interpretation.
` MR. JOHNSON: I just on the record want to
`object to this line to the extent it calls for legal
`conclusions.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. All right. Now, in terms of a -- looking
`at a patent -- and let's say you've got a case where
`you've got to interpret the claims before the PTAB
`and interpret the claims for the district court.
` How do you know how to narrow those claims
`to meet the ordinary meaning as you say in district
`court compared to the BRI in a PTAB matter?
` A. Well, you look at the -- how the patent
`disclosure defines the terms in the -- looking at a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0029
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 30
`claim. And if it's not defined there, you look for
`the broader meaning of how it would be -- one
`skilled in the art would understand it.
` And failing that, you would just look at --
`like, a dictionary definition. So that would be the
`steps you take.
` And for broader, you would just look at
`a -- more wider of -- you know -- particularly for
`one skilled in the art, you know, how narrow would
`their field of endeavor have to be. And I would
`expect a broader interpretation for the BRI.
` Q. Can you give me an example? Give me an
`example of a term that you can think of in a patent
`in which it might be given -- of how the definition
`might change between the BRI and the district court
`standard.
` MR. JOHNSON: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: I can't think of an example
`off the top of my head. I'd have to think about
`that for a while.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. Okay. Would you consider it hard to do?
`Or difficult?
` MR. JOHNSON: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: It's hard to do in general.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0030
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`It's like "when you see it, you know it" kind of
`thing.
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. All right. You mentioned dictionary
`definitions. Is it fair to use dictionary
`definitions in interpretation of a claim term?
` A. It can be.
` Q. Have you done it in the past?
` A. I have.
` Q. Often?
` A. Occasionally, not often. Yeah. I would
`list that as, you know, one of the last choices for
`interpreting rather than one of the first ones.
` Q. Do you believe it's fair to interpret, say,
`a phrase like the word -- let's say "to transmit."
`Okay? Or "to connect."
` I imagine if you've been in the electronics
`field, you have -- and communications field, you
`have -- you've interpreted the word "connect"
`before; is that fair?
` MR. JOHNSON: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Yes. Although that in itself
`is broad. It would be -- need to talk about the
`context in which we're talking about.
`///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`DISH, Exh.1023, p.0031
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. GUY:
` Q. All right.
` A. There's a lot of different kinds of
`connections.
` Q. Now, the broadest would just be a general
`dictionary definition of "connect." Would you say
`that?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Do you think it's fair to -- interpreting,
`say, like the word "connect," to simply define it by
`itself? In other words, to say "connect" means
`"connect"? Does that aid in construction at all?
` A. I think you'd have to consider that in
`context. You know, of the context of the claim and
`the disclosure, preferred embodiment. The
`lexicog