UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` DISH NETWORK LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )Case No.
` )IPR2020-01267
` BROADBAND ITV, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` ______________________________)
`
` VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
` MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D., J.D.
` Monday, July 19, 2021
` Volume I
`
` Reported by:
` CARLA SOARES
` CSR No. 5908
` Job No. 4713079
` Pages 1 - 124
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 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
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 1
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` DISH NETWORK LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )Case No.
` )IPR2020-01267
` BROADBAND ITV, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` ______________________________)
`
` VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
` MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D., J.D.
` Monday, July 19, 2021
` Volume I
`
` Reported by:
` CARLA SOARES
` CSR No. 5908
` Job No. 4713079
` Pages 1 - 124
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 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
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 1
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` DISH NETWORK LLC, )
`
` )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` )
`
` vs. )Case No.
`
` )IPR2020-01267
`
` BROADBAND ITV, INC., )
`
` )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
` ______________________________)
`
` VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL I.
`
` SHAMOS, Ph.D., J.D., Volume I, taken on behalf of
`
` Petitioner, beginning at 12:02 p.m., and ending at
`
` 3:17 p.m., on Monday, July 19, 2021, before CARLA
`
` SOARES, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 5908.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`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 Ex. 1052, p. 2
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
` APPEARANCES VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE:
`
` For the Petitioner:
`
` ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
` BY: CLEMENT SETH ROBERTS, Attorney at Law
`
` 405 Howard Street
`
` San Francisco, California 94105
`
` 415.773.5700
`
` croberts@orrick.com
`
` For the Patent Owner:
`
` FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI LIM TONKOVICH &
`
` BELLOLI LLP
`
` BY: HONG LIN, Attorney at Law
`
` BY: DAVID ALBERTI, Attorney at Law
`
` 577 Airport Boulevard, Suite 250
`
` Burlingame, California 94010
`
` 650.825.4300
`
` hlin@feinday.com
`
` dalberti@feinday.com
`
` --o0o--
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 3
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
` INDEX
`
` WITNESS
`
` MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D., J.D. EXAMINATION
`
` Volume I
`
` BY MR. ROBERTS 6
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1
`
` E-mail string, top e-mail to Alyssa 10
`
` Caridis from David Alberti, dated
`
` 8-20-20
`
` --o0o--
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 4
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
` R E F E R E N C E D E X H I B I T S
`
` E X H I B I T P A G E
`
` E x h i b i t 2 0 3 5 9
`
` I N S T R U C T I O N S N O T T O A N S W E R
`
` P A G E L I N E
`
` ( N o n e )
`
` - - o 0 o - -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 5
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
` Witness Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
`
` Monday, July 19, 2021
`
` 12:02 p.m.
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. This is Clem
`
` Roberts, from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, for DISH.
`
` MR. LIN: This is Hong Lin, with Feinberg Day,
`
` for the patent owner. Also with me is David Alberti.
`
` MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, Ph.D., J.D.,
`
` having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. ROBERTS:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Shamos. How are you today?
`
` A I'm good.
`
` Actually, I woke up feeling a little queasy,
`
` so I had to take Pepto-Bismol. But I'll let you know if
`
` that's going to interfere with anything.
`
` Q I think many people feel queasy when they need
`
` to be deposed by me.
`
` Anything -- are you feeling ill in a way that
`
` you think would impact your ability to give full,
`
` truthful, and accurate testimony today?
`
` A No, I'm not. But what I'm telling you is that
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 6
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` if that does occur, I will let you know.
`
` Q Okay. Please. I appreciate that.
`
` Is there any other reason that you wouldn't be
`
` able to -- drugs, medication, anything else that --
`
` medical condition -- that would impact your ability to
`
` give full, truthful, and accurate testimony today?
`
` A No, other than difficulty hearing you, which
`
` is -- I don't think it's a problem on my end.
`
` Q So what I ask is, Dr. Shamos, if you can't
`
` understand a question because of the way I've worded it
`
` or because of technical difficulties in the feed, will
`
` you agree to let me know that you couldn't hear or
`
` understand my question?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And so the board can rely on the fact, if you
`
` do answer a question, that you presumably believed that
`
` you understood it?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Now, Dr. Shamos, I know you've been deposed
`
` before so I believe you're comfortable with the rules of
`
` a deposition.
`
` Do you have any -- have you had an opportunity
`
` to refresh yourself about those rules? Do you have any
`
` questions?
`
` A I've sort of committed the rules to memory. I
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 7
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` haven't reviewed anything specifically with respect to
`
` deposition rules in preparation for this deposition.
`
` Q But you've been deposed hundreds of times?
`
` A No. It's probably -- I'm guessing it's around
`
` 150.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` A Something like that.
`
` Q You've been deposed approximately 150 times?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Your -- as I mentioned off the record, I don't
`
` expect we're going to go a full day or anything close to
`
` it. But if at any time you want to take a break, please
`
` let me know. I don't -- this is not an endurance test.
`
` And if you need to use the bathroom or you, you know,
`
` want to get another cup of coffee or anything like that,
`
` just let us know, and we'll go off the record. Okay?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q In front of you, you should have an Exhibit
`
` Share folder. And if you refresh that folder, you
`
` should see a copy of your declaration in that folder.
`
` Can you confirm for me that you can access the
`
` Exhibit Share and you can see a copy of your declaration
`
` in that folder?
`
` A Yes, I can confirm that.
`
` Q If you see any of the documents I put into
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 8
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 8
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 folder, you will be able to control and manipulate
`
` those documents yourself. And at any time during this
`
` deposition, if you feel the need to look for additional
`
` context beyond the place where I'm directing you or
`
` other information in the document, you should feel very
`
` free. Okay?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So let me ask you to turn to the copy of your
`
` report that has been placed in the folder, which is
`
` Exhibit 2035.
`
` A Yes, my declaration.
`
` Q Is Exhibit 2035 a true and correct copy of the
`
` declaration you submitted in this case?
`
` A It appears to be. I mean, I've just skimmed
`
` it. Nothing appears to be amiss.
`
` Q Is there anything in the declaration, as you
`
` sit here today, that you would like to change or
`
` correct?
`
` A Not that I know of. It's conceivable that as
`
` we go through it I might find some typos. I'll let you
`
` know.
`
` Q Are there any opinions in this declaration
`
` that you have altered or revised since the time that you
`
` have signed it?
`
` A Not really.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 9
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` So there's an issue about "Internet-connected
`
` digital device," which has been subjected to an agreed
`
` construction in the district court case.
`
` And so I think that affects my thinking about
`
` what such a thing is, which may be -- which may be
`
` different from that which is implied in this
`
` declaration.
`
` MR. ROBERTS: Let's look at that agreed
`
` construction. So I'm going to put that in the marked
`
` exhibits.
`
` And we haven't marked this with an exhibit
`
` number, but Mr. Lin, how do you want to do this? Should
`
` we call this Shamos 1?
`
` MR. LIN: That's fine.
`
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification
`
` and is attached hereto.)
`
` BY MR. ROBERTS:
`
` Q So Professor Shamos, if you look at what's
`
` been marked as Shamos 1 --
`
` A Yeah, I'm looking at it. I've never seen this
`
` before. What I saw was a document that listed the
`
` agreed constructions.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` A All the agreed constructions in the district
`
` court case.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 10
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 10
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 Let me ask you to look at this. And I can
`
` represent that this is an e-mail exchange between my
`
` partner, Alyssa Caridis, and Mr. Alberti, who is your
`
` counsel, or counsel for the respondent who is on the
`
` call today, and reaching agreement about a -- that the
`
` term "Internet-connected digital device" will be
`
` construed in the district court to mean, quote, "a
`
` device configured to send or receive information via the
`
` Internet."
`
` A Yes, and that's what I understand the agreed
`
` construction to be.
`
` Then when I'm looking at the exchange below
`
` between counsel, it appears they might have some
`
` different opinions on what that construction actually
`
` means.
`
` Q I understand, but let me ask you this: Do you
`
` agree that the agreed construction, "a device configured
`
` to send or receive information via the Internet," is a
`
` reasonable construction of "Internet-connected digital
`
` device" in the '026 patent?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q All right. Let's turn back to your report.
`
` We'll get there.
`
` Did you consider that agreed construction or
`
` were you aware of that agreed construction at the time
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 11
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 11
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 you drafted the report that's Exhibit 2035?
`
` A I don't think so. Because -- hang on a
`
` second. I want to go back to the date of that
`
` agreement. I can look at it or you can remind me what
`
` the date was.
`
` So that's a year ago. I don't recall being
`
` aware of it. I don't think it was -- I don't think it
`
` was raised in the IPR. I can tell you what I took the
`
` phrase to mean --
`
` Q That's okay.
`
` A -- when I was writing my declaration.
`
` Q Let's just stick with my questions for the
`
` moment, if we could.
`
` A Sure.
`
` Q So -- actually, why don't you tell me, what
`
` did you take the phrase to mean at the time you -- just
`
` give me the construction you applied at the time.
`
` A Yeah. So I thought it meant a device that was
`
` actually connected to the Internet and was capable of
`
` communicating over the Internet.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` A And so I think the issue with the construction
`
` is --
`
` Q I didn't ask that. I just asked you what
`
` definition you took in your report.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 12
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 12
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 Okay.
`
` Q Okay. So let me ask you to turn back to your
`
` report.
`
` How much time have you spent on this case?
`
` A So it's a very complicated question. The
`
` reason is that there are district court cases, there
`
` were multiple IPRs. And I don't have the time
`
` segregated by individual matters. I send essentially
`
` one bill to Feinberg Day.
`
` Q Okay. So let's start with that.
`
` About how much time have you spent overall on
`
` the set of related matters that include the '026 patent?
`
` A About 180 hours.
`
` Q And if you had to estimate, of that 180 hours,
`
` about how much time was specifically devoted to the '026
`
` patent both between the IPR and the district court case?
`
` And I understand this is an estimate and not a
`
` mathematical exercise.
`
` A This is a wild guess. I might say 60.
`
` Q And of that approximately 60, how much time do
`
` you think you spent on the IPR portion as compared to
`
` the district court portion?
`
` MR. LIN: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Wild guess, 25.
`
` ///
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 13
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 13
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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. ROBERTS:
`
` Q Okay. What were you asked to do with respect
`
` to the '026 in the district court?
`
` MR. LIN: Object to form. Outside the scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think it's confined to
`
` rebutting Dr. Russ's expert report.
`
` BY MR. ROBERTS:
`
` Q On invalidity?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Thank you.
`
` How much time would you say you spent looking
`
` at the materials reviewed that are discussed in this
`
` petition overall between this report and whatever you've
`
` done in the district court? How much time have you
`
` spent with Gonder and Son and Kelts and the other
`
` materials considered?
`
` A Wild guess, 25.
`
` Q Who did the actual writing of this
`
` declaration? And I understand it's your declaration and
`
` you stand behind it, it's your work in that sense, but
`
` who (inaudible).
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I'm missing words.
`
` I apologize for the interruption. Is anybody else
`
` having difficulty?
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I am. I missed the last
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 14
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 14
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` sentence of the question.
`
` MR. ROBERTS: Let me try and fix this.
`
` THE REPORTER: Can we go off the record while
`
` we try and figure this out?
`
` MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, let's go off the record.
`
` (Recess, 12:15 p.m. - 12:18 p.m.)
`
` BY MR. ROBERTS:
`
` Q All right, Professor Shamos. Let me repeat my
`
` last -- by the way, do you like "Mr. Shamos,"
`
` "Dr. Shamos," "Professor Shamos"? It doesn't matter to
`
` me.
`
` A "Doctor" is the usual thing.
`
` Q Okay. Let me repeat my last question.
`
` Who actually did the writing of this
`
` declaration?
`
` A I did.
`
` Q So you typed it out physically?
`
` A That, too. I mean, there's the act of
`
` composing what's to be said, and then there's the act of
`
` entering that into a computer.
`
` Q Yes.
`
` A I did both of those.
`
` Q You did both of those.
`
` Did anybody assist you with any portion of
`
` either of those steps?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 15
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 15
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 Well, we went through the usual process. When
`
` I do a draft, I tell counsel that I believe it to be
`
` 95 percent complete. I send that to them, and then, of
`
` course, comments get made, and there's back-and-forth,
`
` and ultimately it turns into the final declaration.
`
` Q Did you change any of your opinions -- any of
`
` your material opinions as a result of comments from
`
` counsel?
`
` A I don't think so.
`
` Q I noticed in your introduction and
`
` qualifications, you mentioned two companies, Unilogic
`
` and Lexeme. What do those --
`
` A It's pronounced "Lexeme."
`
` Q Thank you.
`
` What did those companies do?
`
` A So Unilogic, Limited, was formed as a
`
` technology transfer company. The idea was to license
`
` developments that had been made at Carnegie Mellon
`
` University and commercialize them and make them
`
` available to the industrial world.
`
` We had a few products, but the main one was a
`
` document production system called Scribe, S-C-R-I-B-E,
`
` which was a system that allowed people to format complex
`
` documents, even ones that they were not able to see on a
`
` typical terminal display, which, at that time, consisted
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 16
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 16
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` of 24 lines of 80 characters per line. No fonts, no
`
` different sizes, no color, nothing.
`
` And the question is, a person sitting at such
`
` a terminal, how would they actually format a book, for
`
` example, that has large type chapter headings, has an
`
` index, has footnotes with a horizontal line above the
`
` footnotes; how could you do that if you couldn't even
`
` see it on the screen? And that's what the Scribe system
`
` did.
`
` Q And Lexeme?
`
` A Yeah. So Lexeme was an affiliate of Unilogic.
`
` In the old days, there were many different
`
` computer manufacturers: IBM, DEC, Prime, GE, et cetera.
`
` And their computers were mutually incompatible. So if
`
` you wrote a piece of software for one system, you would
`
` have to transform it in order to get it to run on
`
` another computer. They had different programming
`
` languages and different operating systems.
`
` And we grew tired at Unilogic of doing this.
`
` Because if you take the original source code described
`
` and you transform it so now you have two different
`
` versions, you have an IBM version and you have a Prime
`
` version, and then a third one, you have a DEC version,
`
` now, if you want to make a change to the program, you
`
` have to make the change in three different places. And
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 17
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` since the code is different, it might not behave the
`
` same in all three versions.
`
` So I decided that it was important to be able
`
` to do automatic source language translation, that is,
`
` maintain one source code and have an automated
`
` translator translate it into the source codes necessary
`
` for the different systems. That's what Lexeme did.
`
` Q Thank you.
`
` A Yeah.
`
` Q I note that you are and have been for a long
`
` time an attorney, and you're admitted to the PTO Bar,
`
` correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Are you providing or are you purporting to
`
` provide any legal opinions in connection with your
`
` testimony?
`
` A No. I'm sure I say that I'm not. I think
`
` it's in paragraph 7.
`
` Q Have you ever worked in the cable industry?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Have you ever worked in the television
`
` industry?
`
` A No.
`
` Q What was the first time that you read any of
`
` the specifications from CableLabs?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 18
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 18
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 Oh, specifically for CableLabs? I believe it
`
` was in connection with one of the IPRs, one or more of
`
` these IPRs.
`
` Q When you say "these IPRs," you mean the IPRs
`
` in the case pending between BBiTV and DISH?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q If you look at the materials considered,
`
` starting on page 3 of your declaration and continuing
`
` through page 4, would you take a moment and review
`
` those?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Is this a complete list of the materials you
`
` considered in forming your opinions expressed in the
`
` declaration?
`
` A Well, it's certainly a complete list of the
`
` materials that I specifically looked at in connection
`
` with this -- preparing the declaration.
`
` Q Okay. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Perez?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Have you ever spoken to Mr. Kagawa?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Have you ever spoken to Leighton Chong, the
`
` gentleman who prosecuted the applications resulting in
`
` the '026 patent?
`
` A No.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 19
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 Have you looked at or read any of their
`
` deposition transcripts?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q When did you do that?
`
` A Within the past few weeks.
`
` Q Whose transcripts did you review?
`
` A I reviewed all three.
`
` Q Since this declaration was signed, in addition
`
` to reviewing the deposition transcripts of
`
` Messrs. Chong, Leighton, and Kagawa, and the stipulated
`
` construction of "Internet-connected digital device,"
`
` have you reviewed any other materials that are relevant
`
` to the opinions expressed in Exhibit 2035?
`
` A I'm not sure how I can answer that. I've
`
` reviewed a tremendous amount of material in the last few
`
` weeks in connection with preparing rebuttal reports in
`
` the district court cases.
`
` I didn't -- I wasn't specifically looking at
`
` them in consideration of the declaration that I filed
`
` and submitted in this IPR. It's conceivable that there
`
` are materials that are highly relevant, and I'm sure
`
` there are plenty of materials that are not. I don't
`
` know.
`
` Q Okay. Let me ask you to turn to your
`
` compensation. It says you're being compensated at $600
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 20
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 20
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` an hour. Is that still true?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Is deposition time charged at the same rate?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What has been your total compensation that you
`
` have made -- you probably can't answer this -- but for
`
` the IPR?
`
` A I can't answer it. As I said, I haven't split
`
` it out. I know what the total is since I was originally
`
` engaged.
`
` Q That's fine, but I can do the math. You've
`
` given me the hours. So that's fine.
`
` All right. So if we look at the summary of
`
` your opinions on page 5 of your declaration, you say,
`
` "Claims 1 through 9 of the '026 patent are fully
`
` supported by disclosure of the '192 application."
`
` Do you see that, sir?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q What do you mean by "fully supported"?
`
` A It means they provide sufficient written
`
` description.
`
` Q What is your understanding of the relationship
`
` between constructive reduction to practice and written
`
` description?
`
` A So I was thrown for a loop by the term
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 21
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 21
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` "constructive reduction to practice" because I don't see
`
` how actual reduction to practice would have anything to
`
` do with written description.
`
` So one constructively reduces an invention to
`
` practice when one writes a patent application -- for
`
` example, when one writes a patent application which
`
` contains a written description of the claimed invention
`
` and contains information sufficient for one of skill in
`
` the art to make and use the invention.
`
` Q What is your understanding of the relationship
`
` between what constitutes an adequate written description
`
` and obviousness, and in particular -- let me rephrase
`
` that.
`
` If a patent specification provides enough
`
` material to render a claim obvious, does it also,
`
` thereby, provide adequate written description?
`
` A That's not my understanding.
`
` Q What is your understanding?
`
` A My understanding is that one does not rely on
`
` obviousness when searching for a written description.
`
` Q If we look at -- well, let me ask you this:
`
` What is necessary to provide an adequate written
`
` description?
`
` A Well, the written description is supposed to
`
` convince one of skill in the art that the inventor
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 22
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` actually possessed in his mind the invention that's
`
` claimed.
`
` Now, of course, this is all from the viewpoint
`
` of one of ordinary skill in the art. So not absolutely
`
` everything associated with the invention has to be
`
` described in precise words in the specification. One is
`
` not allowed to supply missing material by obviousness,
`
` but one can use the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`
` in order to understand what the meaning is of the
`
` phrases that are used in the specification.
`
` Q In paragraph 17, you state, "Claims 1 through
`
` 9 of the '026 patent were conceived by March 31st, 2004,
`
` and, in any event, no later than April 26, 2004."
`
` Do you see that, sir?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q My understanding of your opinion about
`
` conception is that it's based on the testimony of
`
` Mr. Diaz and the documents cited by Mr. Diaz's
`
` corroboration; is that right?
`
` A And I believe oral testimony of others who
`
` corroborate it.
`
` Q Let me ask you this: You have no independent
`
` knowledge of the alleged conception. You have no
`
` contemporaneous knowledge of it, correct?
`
` A Correct.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 23
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 23
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 You're evaluating the testimony and offering
`
` an opinion based upon that testimony and the submitted
`
` alleged corroborating evidence, correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Let me ask you to look at your legal
`
` principals, paragraph 21.
`
` A Okay. One second. Yes.
`
` Q You say, "A prior art reference can disclose a
`
` limitation that is not expressly disclosed in the
`
` reference if it is 'inherently present.'"
`
` You continue on, "It is my understanding that
`
` a limitation is not disclosed by inherency if the
`
` missing limitation is only probably is present or if
`
` there is merely a possibility that it is present."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes. And you managed to stumble over one of
`
` my typos.
`
` Q No worries.
`
` A I think the word "is" is redundant in the
`
` next-to-last line of that paragraph. It should be
`
` "limitation is only probably present." The second "is"
`
` should be omitted.
`
` Q Typos happen.
`
` Is your understanding that this principal of
`
` inherency, including both what is inherent and what is
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 24
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` not inherent, is true for the written description
`
` question, or is it only true for prior art in your
`
` understanding?
`
` A So I'm not sure I've considered that question.
`
` I don't think I've considered it before.
`
` Q Let me ask you to turn to page 11 of your
`
` declaration. Actually, let's start with page 9 through
`
` 11. You have a proposed definition of "Internet
`
` protocol TV system," IPTV.
`
` Do you see that, sir?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And I saw where you disagreed, but my question
`
` is, is there anything in your analysis that would change
`
` if IPTV were given a plain and ordinary meaning rather
`
` than the meaning the board gave it?
`
` A I don't think so. I just tend to disagree
`
` with things I don't like. That's why it's there.
`
` Q If we turn now to the bottom of page 11,
`
` "Priority of Claims 1 through 9," you write, "It is not
`
` necessarily true that all the '026 claims are entitled
`
` to the filing date of the '192 application. However,
`
` claims 1 through 9 are so entitled."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Are the other claims, claims 10 through the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 25
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 25
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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
`
` end, entitled, in your view, to the priority date to --
`
` to the filing date of the '192 application?
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. "The priority date
`
` to"?
`
` MR. ROBERTS: Let me rephrase the question.
`
` Q In your view, are the claims other than
`
` 1 through 9 of the '026 entitled to the filing date of
`
` the '192 application?
`
` A I wasn't asked to take that position. I
`
` haven't formed one. And it's my understanding that
`
` BBiTV does not take that position.
`
` Q Well, sir, you've reviewed this material
`
` carefully, right?
`
` A I reviewed it with respect to claims 1 through
`
` 9.
`
` Q Okay. When you were reviewing the '192
`
` application, did you identify any material that would
`
` make claim 11 -- give it priority to the '192
`
` application?
`
` A I didn't have that specifically in mind. I
`
` might have come across something. But since I wasn't
`
` looking at claim 11, I didn't consider it.
`
` Q So as you sit here today, is it fair to say
`
` you have no evidence to offer that any claims other than
`
` claims 1 through 9 are entitled to the priority date of
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 26
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 26
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020-01267
`
`
`
`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 '192 application?
`
` A I'm not sure whether I have anything to offer,
`
` but I haven't offered anything.
`
` Q As you sit here today, you're not aware of any
`
` evidence that claims other than 1 through 9 are entitled
`
` to the priority date of the '192 application?
`
` A That's correct. I didn't look.
`
` Q And as you sit here today, you're not aware of
`
` any evidence that any claims other than claims 1 through
`
` 9 are entitled to an earlier conception date than the
`
` '026 application?
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q I want to flip for a moment relatively far
`
` back in your declaration to your discussion of Kelts.
`
` And in particular, page 52, and paragraph 126 of your
`
` declaration.
`
` A Um-hum.
`
` Q And you write, in part -- and I'm starting
`
` three lines up from the bottom of page 52 -- "The
`
` cellular phone of Kelts has only basic capabilities and
`
` allows limited viewing of web pages using the wireless
`
` application protocol (WAP). A WAP-enabled phone at the
`
` time of Kelts had no capability of displaying streaming
`
` video."
`
` Do you see that, sir?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 27
`
`DISH Ex. 1052, p. 27
` DISH v. BBiTV
` IPR2020
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
