Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________
` APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` MAXELL, LTD.,
` Patent Owner
` __________
` Case IPR2020-00202
` U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
` __________
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION VIA WEBEX
` Wednesday, October 14, 2020
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF VICTOR SHOUP, Ph.D.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________
` APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` MAXELL, LTD.,
` Patent Owner
` __________
` Case IPR2020-00202
` U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
` __________
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION VIA WEBEX
` Wednesday, October 14, 2020
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF VICTOR SHOUP, Ph.D.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 2
`
` Videotaped Webex Cross-Examination of
`VICTOR SHOUP, Ph.D., a witness herein, called for
`examination by counsel for Patent Owner in the
`above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, the
`witness being duly sworn by SUSAN L. CIMINELLI, CRR,
`RPR, a Notary Public in and for the District of
`Columbia, taken via Webex commencing at 11:02 a.m.
`Eastern Standard Time.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 2 of 82
`
`
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 3
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`APPEARANCES:
` On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` ROBERT G. PLUTA, ESQ.
` Mayer Brown, LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 701-8641
` rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
` On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
` JENNIFER C. BAILEY, ESQ.
` ROBIN SNADER, ESQ.
` ERISE IP, P.A.
` 7015 College Boulevard
` Suite 700
` Overland Park, Kansas 66211
` (913) 777-5600
` Jennifer.Bailey@eriseip.com
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 3 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 4
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`now on the record. This is the deposition of
`Dr. Victor Shoup, taken in the matter of Apple,
`Inc., Petitioner, versus Maxell, Limited, Patent
`Owner, Case Number IPR2020-00202, before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board. This deposition is being
`taken via Cisco WebEx video service. The time on
`the video monitor is 11:02 a.m., Eastern Standard
`Time. The date today is October 14th, 2020.
` The court reporter is Sue Ciminelli. The
`video specialist is Vincent Falcetano, both from
`Ace-Federal Reporters. Will counsel please identify
`themselves for the record?
` MR. PLUTA: Robert Pluta, on behalf of
`Maxell.
` MS. BAILEY: Jennifer Bailey and Robin
`Snader of ERISE IP, on behalf of Petitioner Apple,
`Inc.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will our court reporter
`please swear in the doctor?
`Whereupon,
` VICTOR SHOUP, Ph.D.,
`was called as a witness, and having been duly sworn,
`was examined and testified as follows:
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 4 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 5
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You may continue,
`Mr. Pluta.
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Good morning, sir. Can you please state
`your name for the record?
` A My name is Victor John Shoup.
` Q Dr. Shoup, you've been deposed several
`times before, correct?
` A I have been deposed twice on one matter.
` Q And was that an IPR matter?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. Given the remote nature of this
`deposition, it's going to be important for us to not
`talk over each other, so the court reporter can take
`down the questions and your answers. Can you agree
`to try not to do that, and I'll do the same?
` A I can agree to that.
` Q Great. And if you recall, one of the
`particular things about an IPR deposition is that if
`we take break, you're not allowed to talk with
`counsel about your testimony during the breaks. Do
`you understand that?
` A I do understand that.
` Q And you agree not to do that?
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 5 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 6
`
` A I agree.
` Q Great. You understand you're here to
`testify in an IPR proceeding relating to U.S. Patent
`10,212,586, is that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And you understand that's Exhibit 1001 in
`the IPR evidentiary record?
` A Correct.
` Q Are you okay with us referring to that as
`the '586 patent today?
` A That would be a good way to refer to it,
`yes.
` Q And just to clarify, you have -- maybe
`this is an appropriate question for Ms. Bailey as
`well. Do you have the record in front of you from
`this IPR, all the exhibits?
` A Was that question to me?
` Q Yes, if you can answer it.
` A Could you repeat the question?
` Q Yeah. Do you have all the exhibits to the
`IPR proceeding in front of you?
` A Yes, I believe so. I received a package
`of exhibits by FedEx. I didn't, like, go through a
`check list, to make sure I had each and every one of
`them, but I believe I have all of them.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 6 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 7
`
` Q Okay. Great.
` MS. BAILEY: May I interject briefly?
` MR. PLUTA: Please do.
` MS. BAILEY: I don't believe that we sent
`him the entire record, as in every single exhibit,
`but I sent him the ones that I felt would be
`relevant to your questioning today, and so he has
`copies of those.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q As long as you have the patent, your
`declaration, the Kirkup reference, and the de la
`Huerga reference, I think we'll be good.
` A I have those.
` Q Great. Did you meet with anyone to
`prepare for the deposition here today?
` A Yes, I did.
` Q Who did you meet with?
` A I met virtually with counsel, Jennifer and
`Robin.
` Q And when did that meeting occur?
` A That meeting occurred on Monday of this
`week.
` Q And how about -- about how long did you
`meet with them?
` A I think between seven and eight hours.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 7 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 8
`
` Q And was anyone else present during that
`meeting?
` A Yes.
` Q Who else was present?
` A Somebody named Zach somebody, who was
`another lawyer, very briefly.
` Q Was it a lawyer with Ms. Bailey's firm or
`another firm?
` A I believe it was with another firm.
` Q Do you recall the name of the firm?
` A No.
` Q Do you know whether the other attorney was
`representing Apple in this matter?
` A My understanding would be that that would
`be yes.
` Q Have you spoken with anyone at Apple
`regarding your participation in this IPR proceeding?
` A No.
` Q Have you spoken -- other than the folks
`you've identified, have you spoken to anyone else
`regarding your participation in this proceeding?
` A Could you repeat the question?
` Q Sure. Other than the folks you've
`mentioned, have you spoken with anyone else
`regarding your participation in this proceeding?
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 8 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 9
`
` A No.
` Q Did you review documents in prep for this
`deposition?
` A Yes.
` Q Do you recall which documents you referred
`to?
` A Yes, I do. Do you want me to recite them?
` Q Yeah, just briefly.
` A I reviewed the '586 patent. I reviewed
`the Kirkup reference. I reviewed the de la Huerga
`reference. I reviewed my declaration. And I also
`reviewed the petition. I reviewed the Patent
`Owner's preliminary response. And I reviewed the
`decision to institute. I think that's all.
` Q Thank you. And your declaration, for the
`record, is Exhibit 1003, correct?
` A 1003, correct.
` Q And when did you begin preparing your
`declaration?
` A When did I begin preparing it? I'd have
`to look back at my calendar exactly. I think it was
`in the time frame of November of last year, but I'd
`have to double check to get the exact dates.
` Q Did you draft the declaration yourself, or
`did you have help? Tell me a little bit about the
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 9 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 10
`
`process.
` A Well, the process was an interactive
`process. I discussed a number of issues regarding
`prior art in the '586 patent with counsel. The
`actual typing of characters into a word processing
`program was done by counsel. I reviewed the
`declaration carefully to make sure that it
`represented my opinions accurately. And I can say
`that all of the opinions stated in the declaration
`are my own.
` Q Did counsel provide the prior art to you
`for your consideration?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. So the Kirkup reference was
`provided to you by counsel?
` A Correct.
` Q Similarly, the de la Huerga reference was
`also provided to you by counsel?
` A Correct.
` Q Do you recall about how much time you
`spent during that process in drafting your
`declaration?
` A I would, again, have to refer to my
`calendar to get the exact number, but I can estimate
`it to be somewhere around perhaps 25 hours.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 10 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 11
`
` Q Okay. Thank you. Let's take a look at
`the '506 -- I'm sorry, '586 patent, Exhibit 1001.
`And if you could turn to the claims 9, 10, 11, and
`12.
` A I'm there, yes.
` Q Excuse me. I'm just trying to get your
`picture back up on the screen here. And claims 1,
`9, and 16 are independent claims, correct?
` A You're asking if claims 1, 9, and 16 are
`independent claims?
` Q Yes.
` A Just a moment. Correct.
` Q And it's your contention in this
`proceeding that each of these claims is unpatentable
`in view of Kirkup, is that correct?
` A Just a moment. So you asked about
`independent claims 1, 9, and 16, correct?
` Q Correct.
` A And those are unpatentable under Kirkup,
`correct.
` Q Now, claims 1, 9, and 16, is it correct,
`each requires certain conditions to be met as a part
`of the claim?
` A Correct.
` Q Let's take a look at claim 1,
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 11 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 12
`specifically. For claim 1, the conditions include
`the first, second, and third condition set forth at
`column 9, line 58, through column 10, line 7, is
`that correct?
` A Correct.
` Q And you designate these elements 1E, 1F,
`and 1G, respectively, in your declaration, is that
`right?
` A Correct.
` Q Now, do you agree that these conditions
`set forth in claim 1 must occur in a specific order?
` A Yes.
` Q And claims 9 and 16 contain similar
`conditions, is that right?
` A Yes.
` Q And the conditions of 9 -- claims 9 and
`16, you would agree, must occur in a specific order,
`right?
` A Yes.
` Q Now, each independent claim also includes
`a wherein clause that is predicated on execution of
`those conditions in the specified order. Do you
`agree with that?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection to form.
` MR. PLUTA: I'm sorry, what was the
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 12 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 13
`
`objection? I couldn't --
` MS. BAILEY: It was form.
` MR. PLUTA: Okay.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Let me -- let me restate the question
`here. Do you agree that each independent claim has
`a wherein clause that starts "wherein"?
` A Claim 1, at column 954, has a wherein
`clause. Claim 9 has at least one wherein clause,
`the one that starts at column 10, line 41, '2, '3,
`'4, '5. And then wherein -- actually, well, you'd
`have to be more specific. There are at least two
`wherein clauses. The word "wherein" appears twice.
` Q I agree. Let me back up, and let's just
`get some clarity here. Do you agree that each
`independent claim contains a wherein clause that
`states, "wherein when conditions are met"?
` A Not exactly, no. That's not -- that's not
`what's stated in claim 9. It says in claim 9,
`"switching a state of the -- of the another terminal
`from a locked state to an unlocked state, when
`conditions are met, wherein the locked state
`prevents unauthorized access to the mobile terminal,
`and wherein the conditions include." So whereas the
`first claim does contain, you know, the statement,
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 13 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 14
`
`"wherein when the conditions are met," the
`terminology in claim 9 is slightly different.
` Q Okay. Would you agree that each
`independent claim requires execution of the
`conditions for something else as designated in the
`claim to happen?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I agree that each of the
`independent claims 1, 9, and 16 contain a wherein
`clause, which is somewhat related to a list of three
`conditions, yes. But the terminology in each is
`slightly different. I'm not saying they're
`different on substance, but you're asking me
`questions, and I'm giving you the answers.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Sure. Let's look at claim 1. You
`designate the wherein clause, "wherein when
`conditions are met" as element 1D, correct?
` A 1D, as in dog, yes.
` Q So do you understand 1D, where it says,
`"wherein when conditions are met, the controller
`controls the mobile terminal," et cetera, that that
`wherein clause is predicated on the execution of the
`conditions set forth in elements 1E, F, and G?
` A Yes.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 14 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 15
` Q Thank you. And for claim 9, the clause of
`the claim starting "transmitting information from
`the mobile terminal," do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q And it says, "transmitting information
`from the mobile terminal to another mobile terminal,
`which is for switching a state of the another
`terminal from a locked state to an unlocked state
`when conditions are met." Do you understand that
`that clause is predicated on execution of the
`conditions set forth in claim 9?
` A Yes.
` Q And let's take a look at claim 16. Do you
`see the third clause of claim 16 begins "wherein
`when conditions are met, the controller controls the
`first mobile terminal, and transmits information to
`the second mobile terminal for switching a state of
`the second mobile terminal from a locked state to an
`unlocked state." Do you see that clause?
` A Yes. At the bottom of column 11 and the
`top of page 12?
` Q Yes. Do you agree that that clause is
`predicated on execution of the conditions set forth
`in claim 16?
` A Yes.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 15 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 16
`
` Q And each of those clauses that are
`predicated on the execution of the conditions relate
`to unlocking a device, correct?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
`question, please?
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Sure. Each of those clauses that we were
`just discussing that are predicated on execution of
`the conditions of each respective independent claim
`unlock the particular device that that clause is
`discussing?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, perhaps you could be
`more specific. The -- for example, independent
`claim 1 mentions two devices, a mobile terminal and
`the another mobile terminal. So if I'm
`understanding your question, which device are you
`referring to?
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Let me ask it a different way. Do you
`agree that the independent claims require -- strike
`that.
` Do you agree with the following statement:
`All independent claims of the '586 patent require
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 16 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 17
`three specific ordered conditions before unlocking
`information is transmitted?
` A Yes.
` Q Now, each -- I'm switching gears a little
`bit here. Now, each independent claim also requires
`short-range wireless communication, right?
` A Yes.
` Q Please turn to figure 1 of the '586
`patent. And do you understand the patent -- the
`'586 patent discloses short-range wireless
`communication in 16 and 26?
` A Yes.
` Q And short-range wireless communication
`unit 16 is disclosed as being in mobile terminal 1,
`and short-range wireless communication unit 26 is
`disclosed as being in mobile terminal 2, is that
`right?
` A Correct.
` Q Let's take a look at the description of
`figure 1 in the '586 patent. If you could turn to
`column 2, lines 6 and 7. The patent describes the
`mobile terminals as having the function of
`performing short-range wireless communications
`between mobile terminals, and can transmit and
`receive a variety of information between the mobile
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 17 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 18
`
`terminals 1 and 2. Do you agree with that?
` A That's what it says, correct.
` Q And do you agree that the short-range
`wireless communication can both transmit and receive
`information, as described in the '586 patent?
` A Yes, I would say that it's correct to say
`that both mobile devices have a functionality that
`allows them to receive information and transmit
`information over the -- over the wireless
`transceiver.
` Q Okay. Now, the '586 patent also
`discusses -- strike that.
` The '586 patent discusses authentication
`in the context of an authentication input to a
`mobile terminal, is that your recollection?
` A That's my general understanding.
` Q And the patent also discusses authorized
`or unauthorized access to the mobile terminal, is
`that right?
` A I think for that question, I'd ask you to
`point me to a specific statement in the '586 patent
`that says that, in that language.
` Q Sure. Just take a look at claim 1, for
`example, element 1C.
` A A controller with switches?
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 18 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 19
`
` Q Correct.
` A Okay. What's the -- do you want to repeat
`the question or restate it?
` Q Yeah, I can restate it. Is it your
`understanding that the patent discusses authorized
`or unauthorized access to a mobile terminal, in
`addition to authentication in the context of an
`authentication input to the mobile terminal?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I agree that clause 1C
`says that there is a locked state that prevents
`unauthorized access to the mobile terminal. And I
`agree that a later clause, the last clause, in fact,
`of claim 1 discusses an authentication input for
`switching the mobile terminal from the locked state
`to an unlocked state.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Thank you. In the context of the computer
`security space, what's your understanding of the
`term "authentication" around the year 2012, when the
`'586 patent application was filed?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's a very broad
`term, and is used in different contexts in different
`literature, textbooks, patents, standards. It's a
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 19 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 20
`term that may be used in somewhat different ways in
`different contexts.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q So you don't have a general understanding,
`based on your background, of what "authentication"
`means in the computer security space?
` A Yes, I do. It's just that it can mean
`different things in different contexts.
` Q Okay. I would -- so I'm asking for your
`understanding. I understand that you're answering
`that it could have different meanings in different
`contexts. But sitting here today, and I also
`narrowed the question to the time at which the '586
`patent was filed, in 2012, do you have an
`understanding in the computer security space of what
`the term "authentication" means?
` A Sure. I mean, it can be used, for
`example, to mean to authenticate the identity of --
`and I realize that's a circular definition. To
`authenticate the identity of a human user to a
`device. It can also be used to authenticate the
`identity of one device to another device, wherein,
`you know, in each case -- you know, authenticating
`either a user to a device, or for example, one
`device to another device, the authentication process
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 20 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 21
`should reliably convince the second device in each
`of those constructions to be confident that
`communication is occurring with a legitimate user or
`device.
` That -- legitimate meaning a user whose
`role or identity is the one that is appropriate for
`a particular protocol.
` Q Okay. So excuse my lay summary, but just
`let me know if I'm understanding correctly. So
`basically, authentication ascertains that a human or
`a user, or even another device is who he, she, or it
`claims it to be?
` A I would say generally that's a fair
`assessment. It could be a bit broader, in the sense
`that, in some contexts, it's not even the -- it's
`not the -- it's not necessarily ensuring that, for
`example, a given person is, you know, Alice or Bob
`or Charlie, but maybe it just ascertains that it's a
`person that has certain rights and privileges of a
`certain type. Not necessarily that they are
`actually a specific person or device, but that this
`person or device -- it can mean that, and it could
`also mean that this is a person or a device that has
`certain rights and privileges vis-à-vis the system.
` Q Okay. Thank you. And similar to that
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 21 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 22
`question, around the time that the '586 patent was
`filed in 2012, in the context of the computer
`security space, what's your understanding of the
`term "authorization"?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, form and scope.
` THE WITNESS: To make sure I have the
`right context for the meaning of the term
`"authorization" for these proceedings, can you point
`to a use of the term "authorization" in, say, the
`'586 patent, so that I make sure I'm on the same
`page?
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Sure. I guess I'll go with my first thing
`that came to mind was that -- in the claims, the
`unauthorized access term.
` A Sure. Okay.
` Q So that's -- you know, I guess I framed
`the question in the context of authorization, and
`what your understanding of it is. You know, I guess
`I'll restate the question to state that in the
`computer security space, at the time the '586 patent
`was filed in 2012, what's your understanding of the
`term "authorization" or "unauthorized access"?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection to the form and
`scope.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 22 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 23
` THE WITNESS: Well, in the context of, you
`know, the use of the term "unauthorized access" in
`claim 1C, I would understand that to mean, you know,
`that that would prevent a user or a device that was
`not previously authorized to access the -- in this
`case, the mobile terminal, whatever devices.
` If you authenticate -- if one entity
`authenticates itself to a second entity, then if
`that authentication succeeds, the presumption is the
`first entity has authorized access. And conversely,
`if the first entity does not have authorized access,
`then they are unable to establish a -- use the
`second device, or use whatever privileges would be
`granted to an authorized user or entity.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q Thank you. So if a particular entity is
`authenticated to a particular device, could it be
`that that entity is authorized to utilize certain
`resources on the device, but not authorized to use
`other resources on the device?
` MS. BAILEY: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: I'm going to ask you to
`repeat the question, just to make sure I have it
`directly in my mind.
` MR. PLUTA: Susan, can you please read
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 23 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 24
`
`that question back?
` THE REPORTER: "Question: So if a
`particular entity is authenticated to a particular
`device, could it be that that entity is authorized
`to utilize certain resources on the device but not
`authorized to use other resources on the device?"
` THE WITNESS: Well, there are a couple of
`facets to my answer. One is, if what you mean by --
`if a first entity -- if an entity is authenticated
`to a device, if that means that the entity and the
`device executed some kind of authentication protocol
`which succeeded, first of all, it's possible that
`because of the use of an insecure protocol, or other
`type of security failure or cryptography failure,
`that even though the authentication protocol
`succeeded, and the user was quote, unquote,
`authenticated, the entity was quote, unquote,
`authenticated, if the protocol is insecure, it
`doesn't mean any -- you can't conclude anything from
`that assumption.
` If, however, the protocol is secure, the
`authentication protocol is secure, and has been
`executed reliably, that means that the entity so
`authenticated will be authorized to use -- to use
`certain resources or to perform certain functions,
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 24 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 25
`
`utilize certain functions on the device. Whether
`it's unauthorized to use other resources or
`functions is -- depends on the protocol and the
`configuration of the system. That may or may not be
`the case.
`BY MR. PLUTA:
` Q So in that situation that you just
`described, authorization to use or not use certain
`functions of the device would follow authentication
`of the actual user of the device, is that right?
` A I'm saying that the execution of an
`authentication protocol that was cryptographically
`sound, and secure, and widely implemented, if so
`executed, and the entity was authenticated by that
`protocol, that would typically mean that -- that
`entity, after the authentication protocol succeeded,
`would be granted certain rights and privileges to
`utilize certain systems or functions of the device
`in accordance to whatever security policy is in
`force at the time of the design of the system.
` Q And the granting of those rights as to
`that device would only follow a successful
`authentication of that user upon a successful
`authentication protocol implementation?
` A Yes. Typically, the device would grant
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 25 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`October 14, 2020
`
`Page 26
`
`access to certain functions and usage, functions,
`and resources only after the authentication protocol
`succeeded to authenticate the entity.
` Q Okay. Thank you. Let's turn to Kirkup,
`which is Exhibit 1004. Kirkup generally describes a
`handheld electronic device 120 in communication with
`personal computer 110, through a communication link
`115. Is that your recollection?
` A That's one particular embodiment, yes.
` Q And Kirkup also describes what it calls
`as -- calls an authentication code for the PC 110
`stored in the handheld electronic device?
` A In a number of embodiments, that's
`correct. For example, paragraph 10 of Kirkup talks
`about a first authentication code stored on a memory
`accessible by the handheld electronic device.
` Q If you could turn to paragraph 40 of
`Kirkup? In that paragraph, Kirkup discloses "the
`handheld electronic device is configured to transmit
`the authentication code for the computer, so as to
`enable the user to unlock the desktop of the
`computer, and thus gain access to the computer
`functions." Is that your understanding of the
`purpose of the authentication code in Kirkup?
` A Yes.
`
`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
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2029
`
`Page 26 of 82
`
`
`
`Victor Shoup
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`
`Oct
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
