UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` 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
`
`
` 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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
