throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - x
`APPLE INC.,
`: Case No. IPR2021-00600
`Petitioner, : U.S. Patent No. 10,298,451
`:
`v.
`KOSS CORPORATION, :
`Patent Owner. :
`- - - - - - - - - - - x
`
`Deposition of JEREMY COOPERSTOCK, Ph.D.,
`Conducted Virtually
`Friday, November 5, 2021
`3:47 p.m. EST
`
`Job No.: 407369
`Pages: 1 - 80
`Reported by: Pamela L. Beck
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`APPLE 1025
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00255
`
`1
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`2
`
`Deposition of JEREMY COOPERSTOCK,
`Ph.D., Conducted Virtually:
`
`** ALL PARTIES ATTENDED REMOTELY **
`
`Pursuant to Notice, before Pamela L.
`Beck, Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
`Pennsylvania.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`2
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` SETH M. SPROUL, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
` San Diego, California 92130
` (858) 678-5070
`
` RYAN CHOWDHURY, ESQUIRE
` JOEL HENRY, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 1000 Maine Avenue SW
` Washington, D.C. 20024
` (202) 638.6554
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`3
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`4
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` LAUREN MURRAY, ESQUIRE
` MARK G. KNEDEISEN, ESQUIRE
` K&L GATES LLP
` 210 Sixth Avenue
` Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
` (412) 355.6342
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` IAN ROWE, AV Technician
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`4
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`5
`
` C O N T E N T S
`EXAMINATION OF JEREMY COOPERSTOCK, Ph.D. PAGE
` By Ms. Murray 6
` By Mr. Sproul 74
` By Ms. Murray 76
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`J. COOPERSTOCK DEPOSITION EXHIBIT PAGE
`Exhibit 1002 Issue Notification 20
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Dr. Jeremy 8
` Cooperstock
`Exhibit 1004 Pub. No.: US 2007/0033197 13
`Exhibit 1005 Pub. No.: US 201110289229 39
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`5
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`6
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` REPORTER: Mr. Cooperstock, do you hereby
`acknowledge that your testimony will be true under
`the penalties of perjury?
` THE WITNESS: I do.
` JEREMY COOPERSTOCK, Ph.D.
` the witness herein, was examined and
` testified under penalty of perjury as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MS. MURRAY:
` Q Good afternoon, Dr. Cooperstock. I'm
`Lauren Murray. How are you?
` A Good afternoon, Ms. Murray. Nice to meet
`you.
` Q Nice to meet you too. You've been
`deposed before, correct?
` A Yes, I have.
` Q Just earlier today. If there's ever a
`time you don't understand my questions or you can't
`hear my question, please let me know, I'm happy to
`rephrase it or ask it again. Is that okay?
` A Very good.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`6
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`7
`
` Q Great. Thank you. Now, how did you
`prepare for today's deposition?
` A I reviewed my declaration and went over
`the prior art references and discussed the materials
`with counsel.
` MR. SPROUL: I want to caution the
`witness not to reveal privileged communications or
`the content of those discussions.
` Q And are you still -- it looks like you're
`in the San Diego office of Fish & Richardson still?
` A Yeah. I was hoping to get back to
`Montreal over lunch, but it was --
` Q And who is with you?
` A Seth Sproul.
` Q Okay. Are you connected to the internet
`right now?
` A I am. That's how I'm videoconferencing
`with you.
` Q Is it a wired or a wireless connection?
` A Wired power, wireless internet.
` Q Okay. Do you have Exhibit 1003?
` A I believe that's my declaration.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`7
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`8
`
` AV TECHNICIAN: Counsel, would you like
`me to put that on the screen?
` MS. MURRAY: That would be great. So
`this is for the '451 patent. It's IPR, the one
`ending in 600, Exhibit 1003.
` (There was a discussion off the record.)
` (Exhibit 1003 was marked for
`identification.)
` MR. SPROUL: Just to note, in order to
`return to Canada, Dr. Cooperstock has to have a
`negative COVID test. So the testers will be here at
`1:30, give or take, so we'll need to take hopefully
`a five-minute break around that time, whenever it is
`they show up.
` MS. MURRAY: That's fine. Just let us
`know, and we'll take a short break then.
`BY MS. MURRAY:
` Q So I'm looking at the screen now. This
`is Exhibit 1003 that I was referring to.
` Dr. Cooperstock, do you recognize Exhibit
`1003?
` A Yes, I do.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`8
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`9
`
` Q And what is this Exhibit 1003?
` A This is my declaration on the '451
`patent, the second declaration that I provided on
`the same matter.
` Q If we could look at pages 125 through 126
`of this declaration. This is a list of matters. Is
`this the list of matters where you have given expert
`testimony?
` A Partially.
` Q So it's not a complete list of your
`expert testimony experiences?
` A No. It's a list ending at October 2020,
`and it doesn't exclusively consist of my work as an
`expert witness.
` Q Okay. And in this list, does the
`testimony that you provided regarding the validity
`of U.S. patents always conclude that the claims are
`invalid?
` A In the cases that are listed here, that
`has been my experience.
` Q Why is that?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`9
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`10
`
` A The matters that I have consulted on as
`an expert witness were ones in which the claims in
`the patents were already covered by prior art.
` Q Have you ever given sworn testimony that
`a claim of a U.S. patent is valid?
` A I don't believe so.
` MS. MURRAY: Can we look now at paragraph
`15 of that same exhibit, Exhibit 1003.
` AV TECHNICIAN: Counsel, apologies, what
`page would that be on?
` MS. MURRAY: Page 10 of the pdf I
`believe.
` AV TECHNICIAN: It should be on the
`screen now.
` Q Dr. Cooperstock, can you summarize your
`opinions in this paragraph 15.
` A To summarize, I've concluded that Claims
`1, 6, 12, 13 and 16 to 20 of the '451 patent are
`obvious over Scherzer and Subramaniam.
` And Claims 2, 7 through 10 and 21 are
`obvious over Scherzer and Subramaniam and Baxter.
` Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Scherzer,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`10
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`11
`
`Subramaniam and Drader.
` Claim 5 is obvious over Scherzer,
`Subramaniam and Ramey.
` Claims 11 and 15 are obvious over
`Scherzer, Subramaniam and Montemurro.
` And Claim 14 is obvious over Scherzer,
`Subramaniam and Gupta.
` Q How did you determine that these claims
`are obvious?
` A I applied the analysis that's described
`in my declaration with regard to the claim language
`and the prior art references, and my understanding
`of the knowledge and motivations of a person of
`ordinary skill as of the claimed priority date.
` Q How did you identify the references that
`are listed here in paragraph 15?
` A Those were provided to me.
` Q Who provided them?
` A Attorney for Petitioner.
` Q Did you consider other references as
`well?
` A Not to the best of my knowledge.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`11
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`12
`
` Q These references that are in paragraph
`15, are they the closest prior art to the claimed
`inventions?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A How would you characterize degree of
`proximity?
` Q Looking at paragraph 175 of your
`declaration -- or actually, it's paragraph 172, I
`believe, and that looks like page 113 in the pdf.
` MR. SPROUL: What paragraph number are
`you referencing, Ms. Murray?
` MS. MURRAY: Paragraph 172.
` MR. SPROUL: Thank you.
` Q Is this the obviousness analysis for --
`let me rephrase that.
` In paragraph 172, you list four factors.
`Did you consider these four factors in determining
`the obviousness in paragraph 15 of your declaration?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A The factors that are identified in
`paragraph 172 of my declaration constitute the
`factors that I have in mind as I carry out my
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`12
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`13
`
`analysis. And with respect to the conclusions that
`I have reached as summarized in paragraph 15, the
`key factors that were apparent to me are those
`identified as 1, 2 and 3 of the obvious
`determination.
` Q With respect to No. 2, did you identify
`differences between Scherzer and Claim 1?
` MR. SPROUL: Could you read back the
`question, or repeat your question, please.
` (The record was read back by the
`Reporter.)
` Q The Scherzer reference, which is Exhibit
`1004.
` (Exhibit 1004 was marked for
`identification.)
` AV TECHNICIAN: Please stand by.
`Counsel, would you like Exhibit 1004 on the screen?
` MS. MURRAY: If that would be helpful to
`Dr. Cooperstock.
` THE WITNESS: No, that's not necessary.
` MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Ian. I don't
`think we need it at this point, then.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`13
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`14
`
` A So in brief, the answer is the '451
`patent in Scherzer are obviously different patents.
`And there are elements of the teachings of Scherzer
`that are distinct from claims in the '451 patent,
`and vice versa. And this is what motivated my
`combination of Scherzer and Subramaniam.
` Q Did you describe the differences between
`Claim 1 and Scherzer in your declaration?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A I'm not clear on what you consider as
`being a description of the differences.
` Q I'm referring to factor 2, which you
`identified as a key factor to your analysis, the
`differences between the prior art and the asserted
`claims.
` A Yes, but in my analysis, I considered
`combinations, not just references or prior art on
`its own or on their own. So when you're asking me
`whether I identify differences between Scherzer and
`Claim 1, I'm not sure how that is relevant to my
`analysis, given that my considerations were of prior
`art and combinations of prior art references.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`14
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`15
`
` Q You had said that factors 1, 2 and 3 were
`the key factors in your analysis. With respect to
`factor 4, did you consider any secondary
`considerations?
` A I felt that with the claim limitations of
`the '451 patent being addressed thoroughly by the
`prior art, and, thus, not being novel, and rather
`the claims were obvious, that the secondary
`considerations of commercial success were not
`something I had to further investigate. Because I
`had already established that given the first three
`factors, the claims of the '451 patent were not
`patentable.
` Q Looking back at paragraph 15 of your
`declaration. In this bulleted list, there are
`sometimes two references listed and other times
`three references listed.
` How did you decide whether to rely on two
`references or three references?
` A The process that I go through is not one
`of choosing a number, and saying for this claim, I
`want to have a specific number of references.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`15
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`16
`
`Rather, the question is, what combination makes
`sense here? What would a POSITA have considered at
`the time in meeting a need and solving the problem
`and developing a system?
` And in cases -- well, in the cases of the
`claims here, the combination of sometimes two,
`sometimes three references are the basis, or form
`the basis of how a POSITA would have thought to
`develop or design a particular system.
` Q Anything else to add there?
` A No, I'm fine with my answer.
` Q Again in paragraph 15, Scherzer is listed
`as the primary reference, the first reference, and
`Subramaniam is listed as the secondary reference.
` Why is that? Why is Scherzer listed as
`the primary reference and Subramaniam as the
`secondary reference?
` A So the distinction of primary and
`secondary references is somewhat not in my purview
`as an expert as having a strong distinction, when
`the combination of the two references is used in
`addressing, or in the analysis of each of the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`16
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`17
`
`claims. It's not as if in one situation I rely only
`on Scherzer and rarely bring in Subramaniam. I'm
`relying on the combination of the two of them to
`address each of the claim limitations.
` Q In the IPR 2021-00255 for which your
`declaration was on the screen initially, also on the
`'451 patent, the Scherzer reference was also listed
`as a grounds.
` In that declaration, Scherzer was listed
`as a secondary reference and Brown as the primary
`reference. Is there a reason?
` A My understanding from counsel for
`Petitioner is that Patent Owner raised some
`arguments as to priority dates, or dates of claimed
`invention that ostensibly predated Brown. And in
`order to be sure that I was conducting an analysis
`that took full account of the prior art, I went to
`earlier references. And in this case, turned to
`Subramaniam in addressing, in combination with
`Scherzer, some of the elements that Brown was
`responsible for in the first IPR.
` Q Why was Brown listed first in the other
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`17
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`18
`
`IPR for the '451 patent?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A Do I have a copy of -- I don't believe I
`have a copy. I can pull it up from my computer
`or --
` MS. MURRAY: It's in the Dropbox, Ian, if
`you want to bring it up on to the screen. That
`would be great.
` AV TECHNICIAN: Yes, counsel. Please
`stand by.
` MS. MURRAY: I'm dragging it over to the
`chat now.
` MR. SPROUL: Ms. Murray, can we take a
`quick break for the COVID test?
` MS. MURRAY: Of course.
` MR. SPROUL: Thank you. We'll be back
`hopefully in five minutes.
` MS. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you.
` (Whereupon, there was a recess in the
`proceedings.)
`BY MS. MURRAY:
` Q I think Ian was going to pull up the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`18
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`19
`
`exhibit that we were referring to. It's your
`declaration for the '451 patent, but in IPR
`2021-00255.
` A And can I interrupt with that?
` Q Yes.
` A Okay. So the analysis that I performed
`in the first IPR also used the combination of Brown
`and Scherzer for all of the claims that I discussed
`or that I analyzed. And the narrative in my
`analysis in the first IPR was centered around or
`began with the functionality of exchanging of
`credentials, or access credentials to network assets
`as taught by Brown as the initial functionality of
`interest. And supplemented by the functionality of
`Scherzer to provide a similar type of benefit to the
`user, which is improved networking access through
`the teachings of Scherzer.
` Whereas, in the second IPR, the narrative
`in the analysis that I went through begins with the
`desirability of the functionality of having expanded
`access to other networking assets or wireless LAN
`access rights to regions or access points that are
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`19
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`20
`
`not owned by the user, as the teachings of Scherzer
`and supplemented by the additional benefits and
`complimentarity of technologies taught by
`Subramaniam of being able to exchange access
`credentials between the users' devices.
` Q Looking at -- it's Exhibit 1003 in the
`present IPR, so the 600 IPR, and paragraph 12. You
`say the applicant submitted an inventory declaration
`stating that the invention date was May 14th, 2012.
` Do you see that?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q Where did the applicant say the invention
`date for the '451 patent was May 14th, 2012?
` A I believe that was in the prosecution
`history.
` MS. MURRAY: Ian, can we open the
`prosecution history for the '451 patent. It's
`Exhibit 1002.
` AV TECHNICIAN: Please stand by. The
`exhibit should now be on the screen.
` (Exhibit 1002 was marked for
`identification.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`20
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`21
`
` Q Dr. Cooperstock, can you identify where
`in the prosecution history the applicant declared an
`invention date of May 14th, 2012?
` A We'll see if I can find that. Can I have
`control again.
` AV TECHNICIAN: Dr. Cooperstock, I
`believe you are controlling the document.
` A There we go. No, I'm mistaken.
` Q On page 50 of that pdf, there is a
`declaration of Michael J. Koss under 37 C.F.R. ยง
`1.131.
` A Oh, yes, why wasn't it finding the 2012
`when I searched for it? It's right there.
` Q In this declaration, where does the
`applicant assert an invention date of May 14th,
`2012?
` A Yeah, so those are the dates that appear
`in the Koss declaration. Is that Exhibit A on --
`I'm having trouble with the small scale scrolling
`within the very large document. So in paragraphs 4
`and 5, and I believe a later paragraph as well, the
`earliest date that is stated in the Koss declaration
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`21
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`22
`
`is May 14th, 2012.
` Q So did you interpret prior to May 14th,
`2012 as being on May 14th, 2012?
` A I have no knowledge of what the actual
`date that the applicant Koss Corporation and its
`inventors claimed to have been the date of the
`purported invention. So all I can go by here is the
`date -- the earliest date that is listed in the
`declaration.
` Q So your assessment of the invention date
`is based on the earliest date listed in this
`declaration?
` A Because I neither worked for Koss nor was
`present at the time that Koss made the declaration,
`nor the time that Koss and its inventors were
`working on the claimed invention, I have no ability
`to assess or make even an educated guess as to what
`date their claimed invention would be, other than
`the earliest listed date on the declaration.
` Q Looking now at paragraph 22 of Exhibit
`1003. That's page 15, pages 14 to 15 of the pdf.
`Why did you mention the preliminary amendment in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`22
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`23
`
`your declaration?
` A This is a summary of the prosecution
`history of the '451 patent, and that preliminary
`amendment that Patent Owner filed is part of that
`prosecution history.
` Q The prosecution history includes two
`preliminary amendments. Is there a reason the
`declaration only mentions one of them?
` A I'll have to spend some time reading the
`prosecution history to be able to form an answer to
`that.
` Q Let's look at paragraph 26 of Exhibit
`1003. Does this paragraph accurately state your
`view as to the skill level of a POSITA for the '451
`patent?
` A Yes, it does.
` Q Did you apply this standard in forming
`your opinions and conclusions in paragraph 15 of
`your declaration?
` A That is correct.
` Q Does a person with a Bachelor's degree in
`computer science and two years of experience in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`23
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`24
`
`local area networks qualify as a POSITA for the '451
`patent?
` A That would depend very much on what
`specific areas of computer science they studied, and
`what sort of experience in wireless
`communications -- sorry, two years of experience in
`wireless communications across short distance or
`local area networks is fine. The computer science
`element really is the piece where it would depend on
`what areas they specialized on in their studies.
` Q How does your experience compare to the
`skill level of a POSITA?
` A I would say that I meet or exceed that
`standard.
` Q In paragraph 43 of your declaration, the
`first sentence describes a Scherzer reference, which
`is Exhibit 1004. Paragraph 43 starts on page 30 of
`the pdf.
` Does this first sentence accurately
`reflect your understanding of Scherzer?
` A Yes, this is a good summary of the
`teachings of Scherzer.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`24
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`25
`
` Q And the second sentence, does this
`accurately reflect your understanding of Scherzer?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A Yes, given that I've qualified here that
`this requires a device to be registered with
`Scherzer's service. So using a software client that
`allows communication with an application server,
`this is consistent with Scherzer that would require
`a user to register a device in order to make use of
`the facilities or the functionality taught by
`Scherzer.
` Q Paragraph 43 of your declaration uses the
`term registered users. What is a registered user?
` A A registered user, based on Scherzer's
`description, would be a user who has provided
`registration information to the server.
` Q Can you provide an example of a
`registered user in this context.
` A Well, a user who provides their access
`point information to the server would be a
`registered user.
` Q In saying a user who, do you mean a user
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`25
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`26
`
`is a person?
` A Ultimately I think that makes sense. I
`think you -- even if you considered a company as
`being an entity that wants to benefit from the
`teachings of Scherzer, that company would ultimately
`have to share access credentials or access point
`information via a user of the system. And that user
`of the system would be a human being.
` Q How does a user become a registered user
`in Scherzer?
` A In paragraph 44 of my declaration, I
`explain how Scherzer describes two techniques of
`obtaining the software client on a new device. And
`this is a prerequisite to the user becoming a
`registered user, because registration requires
`providing information to the server regarding the
`user's access point that they wish to make available
`to other users. And, thus, that is the first step
`in how a user becomes a registered user, is by
`obtaining the software client.
` Q What are the additional steps, if any?
` A Well, the next step would be to make use
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`26
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`27
`
`of -- well, install the software client that's being
`obtained via hard media, like a CD sent through the
`mail. It would have to be installed on the
`user's -- on one of the users' devices. And then
`making use of that software to provide the -- to
`provide the access information to the server.
` I just want to check to see whether, in
`fact, the software client is necessary for
`registration. I take that back. I don't see
`Scherzer explicitly stating that the use of the
`software is necessary for registration. Scherzer
`only describes the provision of registration
`information to the server. Presumably that could be
`through the software, but it might not necessitate
`the use of the software in order to register.
` Q What is the user registering -- what is
`the purpose of registration?
` A Well, Scherzer's system relies on having
`a server with access point information to devices
`that are -- or access points, rather, that are to be
`shared by the community of users.
` Q And is it your opinion that a user could
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`27
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`28
`
`register with Scherzer's service without downloading
`the Scherzer software?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A So Scherzer does not seem to explicitly
`require that registration go through the software.
`It would seem to be a natural and obvious choice of
`implementation, but it seems that Scherzer would
`allow for either registration -- or either an
`implementation in which registration requires the
`use of the software, or potentially without using
`the software to register, to provide one's access
`point information to the server.
` Q Looking back at the second sentence in
`paragraph 3, which states: This requires a device
`to be registered with Scherzer's service using a
`software client -- paragraph 43.
` A 43, yes, I see that. And on rereading
`Scherzer here, it's obvious that Scherzer requires
`that the user have the software in order to make use
`of the Scherzer system, in order to gain access
`information or the table of all of the different
`access points to which a user might wish to connect.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`28
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`29
`
`That's provided through the Scherzer software.
` But in order to register, I don't see an
`explicit statement in Scherzer that requires that
`registration take place only through the software.
` Q So connecting to the access points of
`other registered users requires the Scherzer
`software, however, the Scherzer software is not
`required to register.
` Is that an accurate statement?
` A No, no, that's not what I said. In order
`to gain access to all of the access points that are
`registered with the Scherzer system, or on the
`Scherzer application server -- is it the application
`server or just server? I just want to be clear in
`my terminology. Yes, the application server. So in
`order to acquire access information for network
`access points that are made available, the client
`software is installed.
` So to benefit from the full services of
`the Scherzer system, which provides for access to
`all of the access points of the user community of
`Scherzer system, the user would have to download the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`29
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`30
`
`Scherzer software.
` Q Could a device without the Scherzer
`software get access to the access points of other
`registered users in Scherzer's system?
` A I would just ask you to repeat the
`question.
` Q Could a device without the Scherzer
`software get access to the access points of other
`registered users in Scherzer's system?
` A When you end your sentence with in
`Scherzer's system, do you mean using Scherzer's
`software, or do you mean accessing access points of
`users who are part of the user community that is
`using Scherzer's system?
` Q Accessing access points of other users
`who are part of the community.
` A In that case, yes, Scherzer is explicit
`in describing how users who are not yet registered
`can gain access to the network resources.
` Q Where does Scherzer describe that?
` A Yes, in paragraph 16, the second sentence
`of Scherzer, in some embodiments, a temporary user
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`30
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`31
`
`contribution account is established, for example,
`for a trial period. So I read that as considering
`the possibility that a user who has not yet
`registered with the system can gain access to one of
`the access points in the Scherzer system. This may
`be a way of encouraging users to join the community.
` Q How does a user acquire a temporary user
`contribution account?
` A It could be by their MAC address, for
`example.
` Q You mentioned a user contribution
`account. What is a user contribution account?
` A I don't believe I provided a definition
`in my declaration for a user contribution account.
`And Scherzer does not seem to provide a definition
`either, only describing it as -- by examples of
`various embodiments of things that the user
`contribution account may involve with respect to
`things like accessibility, or what is added to the
`contribution account balance, for example.
` Q Paragraph 29 of your declaration mentions
`a user contribution account.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`31
`
`

`

`Transcript of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`Conducted on November 5, 2021
`
`32
`
` MR. SPROUL: Is there a question pending?
` Q In paragraph 29, the user contribution
`account that you reference, what is the purpose of
`the user contribution account in paragraph 29 of
`your declaration?
` MR. SPROUL: Objection, form.
` A As I don't have a definition for the user
`contribution account, I'm left with the examples
`provided by Scherzer and that are described in some
`embodiments. So they can -- for example, in
`paragraph 17 of Scherzer, the user contribution
`account tracks the balance of bandwidth provided by
`a user, by the user's access point to other users.
`And in some embodiments, user contribution accou

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket