`
`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