In the Matter Of:
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs V elos Media
`
`
`
`Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`August 23, 2019
`
`REPORTING
`
`Dr:JD
`•==.=.•.=.====
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE
`
`Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316
`855.478.7376
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000281
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 1 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs V elos Media
`
`
`
`Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`August 23, 2019
`
`REPORTING
`
`Dr:JD
`•==.=.•.=.====
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE
`
`Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316
`855.478.7376
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000281
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 1 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`2
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`3 ----------------------------·
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`:Case IPR2019-00194
`
`6
`
`VELOS MEDIA; LLC,
`
`:Patent 9,338,449
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`***CONFIDENTIAL UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER***
`
`
`
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`10
`
`Friday, August 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`11 Videotaped Deposition of:
`
`12
`
`KEVIN JAKEL
`
`
`
`13 called for oral examination by counsel for the
`
`
`
`14 patent owner, pursuant to notice, at Wilmer, Cutler,
`
`
`
`15 Pickering, Hale and Dorr, L.L.P., 1875 Pennsylvania
`
`
`
`16 Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., before Sheri C.
`
`
`
`a Notary Public in 17 Stewart, RMR, of IST Reporting,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18 and for the District of Columbia beginning at
`
`
`
`19 10:11 a.m., when were present on behalf of the
`
`
`
`20 respective parties:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`O[;]Dif:i:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000282
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 2 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1 A P PE AR AN CE S:
`
`2 On behalf of Petitioner:
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`ASHRAF FAWZY, ESQUIRE
`Unified Patents
`
`1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Floor 10
`
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`(240)505-3675
`AFawzy@UnifiedPatents.com
`
`7 On behalf of Patent Owner:
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`CHRISTOPHER GRANAGHAN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Nelson, Bumgardner, Albritton
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`(817)806-3811
`Chris@nbafirrn.com
`
`12 Also present: R ay Moore, Videographer
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`O[;]Dirui:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000283
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 3 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jaket
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`C O N T E N T S
`
`
`
`EXAMINATION BY:
`
`MR. GRANAGHAN
`
`MR. FAWZY
`
`MR. GRANAGHAN
`
`PAGE
`
`6
`
`208
`
`217
`
`
`
`VELOS DEPOSITION EXHIBITS:
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`2015 Part two of a written interview given
`
`by Jakel to Above the Law
`
`57
`
`2016 Final written decision in Unified Patents,
`
`10
`
`Inc. versus Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`
`11
`
`
`
`Luxembourg, S.A.
`
`78
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`2017 Petitioner's Supplemental Second Voluntary
`
`13
`
`
`
`Interrogatory Responses
`
`107
`
`
`14
`2018
`
`Member agreement between Unified and
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1111
`
`116
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`2019 Post from Unified's Web site dated
`
`18
`
`November 8, 2018
`
`144
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`2020 Post from a filing of a different IPR
`
`20
`
`against Velos patent
`
`153
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`2021 Blog post from Unified's Web site dated
`
`22
`
`January 9, 2019
`
`OgJO i:::if:m
`UH
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`158
`
`Page3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000284
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 4 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
`
`2
`
`
`
`VELOS DEPOSITION EXHIBITS:
`
`PAGE
`
`3
`
`2022 Linkedin post from Shawn Ambwani
`
`177
`
`4 2023 Mass e-mail from Fred Teleki (phonetic)
`
`5
`
`6
`
`to a number of people about the Veles
`
`
`
`licensing program
`
`177
`
`7 2024 Document titled Unified Files IPR Against
`
`8
`
`
`
`US 9,338,449 Owned by Veles Media LLC
`
`189
`
`
`
`9 2025 Unified Patents newsletter from November
`
`10
`
`2018
`
`196
`
`
`
`11 PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`12
`VELOS 2003
`Linkedin post by Mr. Ambwani
`
`Web page from Unified Patents' Web
`VELOS 2010
`13
`
`14
`
`site pulled from the wayback machine
`
`
`
`Interrogatory 15 UNIFIED 1014 Unified's Voluntary
`
`
`
`16
`
`Responses
`
`
`
`17 (*Exhibits attached to transcript.)
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`O[;]Di:::i::ru
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000285
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 5 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents
`
`vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
`We are now on the
`
`2 record. This begins DVD No. 1 in the
`
`
`
`3 deposition of Kevin Jakel in the matter of
`
`
`
`4 Unified Patents, Incorporated versus Velos
`
`5 Media, LLC, in the United States Patent and
`
`
`
`6 Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and
`
`
`
`7 Appeal Board, Case No. IPR2019-00194. Today is
`
`8 August 23rd, 2019. The time is 10:11 a.m.
`
`9
`
`
`
`This deposition is being taken at 1875
`
`
`
`Washington, 10 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest,
`
`
`
`11 D.C., at the request of Nelson Bumgardner.The
`
`
`
`12 videographer is Ray Moore of IST Court
`
`
`
`is Sheri 13 Reporting and the court reporter
`
`
`
`14 Stewart of IST Court Reporting.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Will counsel and all parties present state
`
`
`
`16 their appearances and whom they represent.
`
`17
`
`MR. GRANAGHAN:
`
`
`Chris Granaghan from the
`
`
`
`18 law firm Nelson, Bumgardner, Albritton for the
`
`
`
`19 patent owner.
`
`20
`
`MR. FAWZY: Ashraf Fawzy, in-house counsel
`
`21 at Unified Patents on behalf of Unified
`
`22 Patents.
`
`Dc:JD iruiilln
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Pages
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000286
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 6 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`
`2
`
`please swear in the witness.
`
`3
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`4 WHEREUPON,
`
`5
`
`KEVIN JAKEL
`
`
`
`6 called as a witness, and having been first duly
`
`
`
`7 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Please proceed.
`
`9
`
`
`
`EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PATENT OWNER
`
`10 BY MR. GRANAGHAN:
`
`11
`
`
`
`Q Good morning, Mr. Jakel. State your name
`
`for the record, please.
`12
`
`13
`
`A Hi. Kevin Jakel.
`
`14
`
`Q You're the unified CEO, right?
`
`15
`
`A I am Unified CEO.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Q When I say Unified, I mean Unified
`
`
`
`17 Patents, obviously.
`
`18
`
`You've been deposed before?
`
`19
`
`A
`
`I have.
`
`20
`
`Q
`
`About how many times?
`
`21
`
`A
`
`Maybe six to ten times.
`
`22
`
`Q
`
`All in IPRs?
`
`D[;]Dif:i:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Pages
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000287
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 7 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`A No. One previous deposition took place
`
`2 many, many years ago related to transfer of some
`
`3 boxes from one law firm to another and whether or
`
`
`
`4 not some materials were in those boxes a long time
`
`5 ago.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`All the other times were IPRs?
`
`All the other times have been related to
`
`8 Unified as part of an IPR proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Q Has anyone from Unified ever testified in
`
`other than you?
`10 an IPR proceeding
`
`11
`
`A Shawn Ambwani. In my very first IPR, I
`
`12 gave a deposition.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`16 you?
`
`
`
`On real party-in-interest issues?
`
`
`
`On real party-in-interest issues.
`
`Okay. But since then it's always been
`
`17
`
`A He had, at that time, he had only been at
`
`18 the company for a couple weeks, but it's always been
`
`19 me.
`
`20
`
`Q
`
`
`
`Are you an attorney, Mr. Jakel?
`
`21
`
`A
`
`I am.
`
`22
`
`Q
`
`Where did you go to law school?
`
`O[;]Dif::iilln
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000288
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 8 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`A
`
`GW.
`
`Q Can you give me some of your background
`
`3 starting with law school?
`
`4
`
`
`
`A Sure. So I moved out to Washington, D.C.
`
`5 and went to work at the USPTO as a patent examiner.
`
`
`
`6 I went to law school. I graduated from GW in 2003
`
`7 or 2004. I then was an attorney at Howrey and then
`
`8 was an attorney with Kaye Scholer and ultimately
`
`
`
`9 became, or I ultimately left Kaye Scholer to become
`
`
`
`10 head of IP litigation at Intuit and then I left
`
`11 Intuit in 2012 to found Unified Patents.
`
`12
`
`Q Do you still consider yourself the
`
`13 practice of law?
`
`14
`
`A
`
`I do.
`
`15
`
`Q
`
`Where are you licensed?
`
`16
`
`A
`
`
`
`In California and D.C.
`
`17
`
`Q All right. So I'm --sounds like you have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18 some pretty extensive deposition experience, so I'm
`
`19 going to assume that you know the ground rules. I'm
`
`20 happy to go over them if you want, but I assume you
`
`21 know them.
`
`22
`
`A
`
`I do.
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Pages
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000289
`
`
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 9 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`Q Okay. What did you do to prepare for this
`
`
`
`2 deposition today?
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`
`A Yesterday we went over just some of the
`
`
`
`
`
`voluntary interrogatories and some of the materials
`
`that were in the briefing.
`
`Q Who is "we"?
`
`A Myself and Ash Fawzy.
`
`Q Okay. Did you talk to anyone else to get
`
`9 ready for the deposition?
`
`10
`
`A
`
`I did not.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Q Other than the voluntary interrogatory
`
`did you review any documents?
`12 responses
`
`13
`
`MR. FAWZY: I'm just going to caution the
`
`14
`
`witness not to divulge anything we talked about
`
`15
`
`
`
`during the --any privileged information during
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`the preparation of this deposition.
`
`17 BY MR. GRANAGHAN:
`
`18
`
`Q And I'm not asking for any of your
`
`
`
`Just did you 19 communication with your counsel.
`
`
`
`20 review any documents?
`
`21
`
`A
`
`I did review documents.
`
`22
`
`Q Did you review briefing on the motion for
`
`OgJD if::iilln
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000290
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`U
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 10 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`1 additional discovery?
`
`2
`
`3
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`That document was not, no.
`
`Okay. What other documents did you
`
`4 review?
`
`5
`
`6
`
`MR. FAWZY: I'm going to object. What we
`
`reviewed is privileged.
`
`7 BY MR. GRANAGHAN:
`
`8
`
`Q Okay. Are you going to follow that
`
`9 instruction?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`All right. Were you the first CEO of
`
`12 Unified Patents?
`
`13
`
`A
`
`Yes.
`
`14
`
`Q
`
`And when did you start it?
`
`15
`
`A
`
`I started Unified Patents in the summer of
`
`16 2012.
`
`17
`
`Q And just before that you were an attorney
`
`18 at Intuit, right?
`
`19
`
`A
`
`I was.
`
`20
`
`Q
`
`Why did you start Unified?
`
`21
`
`A
`
`
`
`I saw a business opportunity to do
`
`
`
`22 deterrent work for technology areas related to the
`
`
`
`0[;]0 if:ru:m
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000291
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 11 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel Unified Patents
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`entities. 1 monetization of patents by nonpracticing
`
`
`
`2
`
`Q What made you see that business
`
`3 opportunity?
`
`4
`
`A It's kind of a long story. Do you want
`
`5 the whole thing?
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Q
`
`Sure.
`
`A So joint defense groups --my experience
`
`
`
`8 was both from an outside counsel perspective at Kaye
`
`9 Scholer and Howrey and then again as head of IP
`
`
`
`10 litigation at Intuit. Joint defense groups were
`
`
`
`11 wildly ineffective and slow where you depend on your
`
`12 fair share of joint defense groups. In many cases
`
`13 nothing got done.
`
`14
`
`
`
`And when it came to NPE litigation in
`
`
`
`15 particular, it's not just one company that is facing
`
`16 the, kind of a common issue, there were other
`
`
`
`
`
`17 solutions out there, namely, RPX, that their model
`
`
`
`18 of doing kind of patent risk mitigation was to try
`
`
`
`
`
`litigation. 19 and buy companies out of expensive
`
`
`
`20
`
`My problem with that was that it kind
`
`
`
`21 of incentivizes NPEs to take some of the profits
`
`22 they get from RPX, reinvest them and go out and buy
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`
`Atlanta, GA30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000292
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 12 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`1 more patents, so it incentivizes everyone to kind of
`
`2 have more NPE litigation.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`My problem was that lots and lots of
`
`
`
`patents actually, across the board there's lot of
`
`
`
`5 patents that are invalid, but in particular it's
`
`6 lots of patents that I felt like were invalid that
`
`7 were asserted by NPEs, and so I wanted to start a
`
`8 company that would have a way to deter people making
`
`
`
`9 investments into asserting patents in the NPE space.
`
`
`
`10
`
`There's, you know, patent owners,
`
`11 people who buy patents. There are patent licensing
`
`
`
`12 entities who are in charge of doing that. Theres
`
`1
`
`13 the contingency
`
`
`counsel who take on NPE matters and
`
`
`
`funding from 14 there•s obviously kind of litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`15 behind the scene. All of those entities are making
`
`
`
`16 kind of investment decisions into, you know, who
`
`
`
`
`
`to sue, technologies 17 they want to sue, how they want
`
`
`
`
`
`18 they want to sue, and what I wanted to do was kind
`
`19 of deter the use of bad patents so that technology
`
`20 areas were not sued over and over and over and over
`
`21 again.
`
`22
`
`
`
`And so I came up with this idea kind
`
`Dc:JD if::mru
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000293
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 13 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1 of in the, in early kind of 2012, and then worked on
`
`
`
`2 that and ultimately decided to make a run at it and
`
`3 see if I could start a company that would do that
`
`
`
`4 kind of deterrence work in the summer of 2012.
`
`5
`
`Q And for the record, when you say NPE, do
`
`
`
`6 you mean non-practicing entity?
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A
`
`I do.
`
`Q So is it fair to say that one of your main
`
`9 goals in starting Unified was to fix the
`
`
`
`10 inefficiencies of joint defense groups when
`
`
`
`11 companies in those joint defense groups are
`
`NPEs?
`12 litigating against
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. FAWZY: Object to form.
`
`A
`
`It wasn't, it wasn't like to fix the
`
`
`
`15 efficiencies of the joint defense groups. I wanted
`
`
`
`16 a kind of third-party to do something that no one
`
`
`
`
`
`17 else could kind of do, which was create deterrents.
`
`
`
`18 Joint defense groups aren't about creating
`
`
`
`19 deterrents. Joint defense groups were about, you
`
`
`
`20 know, kind of everyone working and doing their own
`
`
`
`21 kind of litigation strategies and stuff.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`I'm not trying to replace joint
`
`Dr1110 ir■ifiln
`
`lltJ ....... ..
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000294
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 14 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents
`
`vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`1 defense groups. Actually, the whole idea of being
`
`
`
`2 an entity that would be independent of all of that
`
`3 is that we would have kind of the ability to do our
`
`
`
`4 own thing. You can't really do deterrents as a
`
`5 joint defense group, that's kind of the idea. Being
`
`6 outside of that whole system it allows the
`
`
`
`
`
`7 third-party, in my view, in this case Unified, to
`
`
`
`8 create deterrents, and that is kind of the way in
`
`9 which I kind of view Unified going forward.
`
`10 BY MR. GRANAGHAN:
`
`11
`
`Q
`
`Did the passage of the American Invents
`
`12 Act play into your decision to start Unified?
`
`13
`
`A Not entirely.
`There were things about the
`
`Invents Act that I thought would make the
`14 American
`
`
`
`15 ability for us to create deterrents more productive,
`
`
`
`16 and actually I started working on this idea even
`
`17 before, even before the passage of the American
`
`
`
`18 Invents Act, I didn't know if it was going to pass,
`
`
`
`19 but I had thought around ideas of how you could use,
`
`
`
`20 back then, inter partes examination for this. I
`
`
`
`21 think we could have used inter partes through
`
`
`
`
`
`22 examination and done the same thing.
`
`
`
`D[;]Dif::irun
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000295
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 15 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`I do think that the, the procedures
`
`2 around the inter partes review are overall a better
`
`
`
`3 system and therefore, yeah, we take advantage of the
`
`
`
`
`
`4 AIA (phonetic) and the changes that were made to
`
`
`
`5 inter partes re-examination to bring about the PTAB
`
`6 and the IPR process.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Q So other than the AIA's creation of inter
`
`8 partes review, are there other portions of the AIA
`
`9 that you saw as a benefit to your efforts to deter
`
`10 these?
`
`11
`
`A I guess I --I mean, a big part of the AIA
`
`12 was about bringing the U.S. laws into kind of
`
`
`
`patent laws. 13 consistency with international
`
`
`
`
`
`14 Unified, I think, could have worked using inter
`
`
`
`15 parties re-examination. I mean, I guess when I say
`
`
`
`16 that there's aspects about it that I think are
`
`17 better, we don't have inter partes re-examination
`
`
`
`18 anymore, so it's not like, it's not like I have a
`
`
`
`19 choice between the two.
`
`20
`
`So are there other aspects of the
`
`21 AIA? I mean, there's lots of things about the AIA.
`
`
`
`
`
`22 If you have some specifics, I might be able to tell
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000296
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 16 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1 you whether I think any of them benefit us, but
`
`
`
`2 ultimately having a good patent system, I think, is,
`
`
`
`3 is a good thing for both Unified and everybody else.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Q
`
`When did Unified file its first IPR?
`
`A
`
`We filed our first IPR in the summer of
`
`6 2013.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Q
`
`And you said you started Unified in 2012?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`I did.
`
`Who did you start Unified with?
`
`Started by myself. I left Intuit, I
`
`11 believe it was July of 2012, went out, started
`
`
`
`12 talking to people and companies about what I had in
`
`13 mind.
`
`14
`
`22
`
`Q
`
`And has he left since then?
`
`DC;1Dirui:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000297
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 17 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Yes.
`
`So do you,
`
`So Brian Hinman left Unified in
`
`4 the summer of 2013 and at the time he left, Shawn
`
`5 Ambwani joined and
`
`10
`
`Q And Mr. Ambwani is the chief operating
`
`11 officer, right?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`He is, yes.
`
`
`
`Who was Unified's first customer?
`
`MR. FAWZY: Objection.
`
`
`
`MR. GRANAGHAN: What's the objection?
`
`MR. FAWZY: To the form of the question.
`
`17
`
`Unified doesn't have customers.
`
`18
`
`A The first company to sign an agreement
`
`19 with Unified was NetApp.
`
`20 BY MR. GRANAGHAN:
`
`21
`
`Q And you don't refer to them as customers;
`
`22 is that right?
`
`0[;10 irui:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000298
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 18 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`A I mean, everyone signs a membership
`
`
`
`2 agreement so we call them a member and they become a
`
`3 member of a zone and you could be a member of one
`
`4 zone, you could be a member of two zones, you could
`
`5 be a member of all of our zones. It's not like
`
`6 we --we call them, if you have a membership
`
`
`
`7 agreement, so we refer to them all as members.
`
`8
`
`Q
`
`
`
`Do you consider that as different than a
`
`9 customer?
`A
`
`10
`
`I don't think so, no. They're customers,
`
`11 yeah.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Is NetApp still a customer?
`
`It is, yes.
`
`Q
`
`But it is --
`
`16
`17 -
`
`18
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`
`
`So what kind of activities does Unified
`
`19 perform for its members?
`
`20
`
`A So members sign up to a zone. A zone has
`
`21 a whole bunch of things that we do, data analytics,
`
`
`
`22 we do landscaping work, we do kind of research and
`
`0[;10 irui:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000299
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 19 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`1 analytics, we do prior art. We do all kinds of,
`
`
`
`2 kind of activities in the space. We want to be kind
`
`
`
`3 of the most knowledgeable people about all of the
`
`
`
`4 activity that's going on in a particular zone.
`
`5
`
`We have tools and services that we
`
`6 provide through our portal that includes like patent
`
`7 quality tools and a whole bunch of other things.
`
`8 The big thing that all of our zones do is what we
`
`
`
`9 refer to as deterrence. That deterrence is kind of
`
`
`
`
`
`10 an independent service that we run to choose how
`
`11 we're going to create that deterrence.
`
`12
`
`And we use IPRs to identify or we
`
`13 identify and then we file IPRs against patents we
`
`
`
`14 believe are invalid, and when doing so we try to
`
`
`
`15 show that those patents should never have been
`
`16 issued in the first place. We think that that
`
`
`
`17 deterrent strategy is designed to deter others
`
`18 well, and the patent owner that we file against.
`
`19
`
`But in addition to that, most
`
`
`
`20 important point, we want every IPR to have kind of
`
`
`
`21 an outsized deterrent impact so that others watching
`
`22 will also be deterred from bringing kind of invalid
`
`D[;]Dif::i::ru
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000300
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 20 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1 patents and trying to entice those in our zones.
`
`2
`
`
`
`expenditures Q What percentage of Unified's
`
`
`
`3 today are spent on IPRs?
`
`4
`
`
`
`A So as part of our total expenditures, IPRs
`
`
`
`5 are like one of the most expensive parts of what we
`
`
`
`6 do, it's simply because they're expensive, but we
`
`
`
`7 think that all the other stuff we do is important as
`
`8 well. But IPRs are kind of a, one of the more
`
`
`
`9 expensive parts of what we do for them.
`
`10
`
`Q Do you know, ballpark percentage,
`of the
`
`
`
`11 expenditures that you have on IPRs?
`
`12
`
`
`
`A So of our expenditures, IPRs would make up
`
`
`13
`
`the largest percentage of it.
`
`14
`
`In our
`
`
`
`15 standard essential patent zone, the video codec
`
`
`
`zone, it makes up a
`16
`
`of our
`
`because we have done some other work
`17 expenditures
`
`
`
`18 that's quite expensive as well.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`We have done an economic analysis of
`
`20 HEVC and as part of that, that was a rather
`
`
`
`21 expensive endeavor as well. We also developed some
`
`
`
`
`
`22 tools, landscaping tools, curated data around that,
`
`D[;]Dif::imn
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000301
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 21 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`1 which is also pretty expensive. And we've also done
`
`
`
`2 some additional kind of database work around
`
`
`
`3 submissions to the standard setting bodies, that has
`
`
`
`4 been pretty expensive as well.
`
`5
`
`
`
`So our standard essential patent
`
`
`
`6 zone, actually the expenditures on IPRs is
`
`7 it would be in our NPE zone.
`
`8
`
`
`
`patent Q When you say "standard essential
`
`
`
`9 zone", are there zones within the standard essential
`
`10 patent zone?
`
`11
`
`A Let me just maybe break this up. We
`
`
`
`12 originally started working on NPE matters and we
`
`13 called those kind of NPE zones. And then in --when
`
`
`
`14 we started working on standard essential patent
`
`
`
`15 issues, SEP issues, we created another part of the
`
`
`
`16 business that would be kind of working on standard
`
`
`
`17 essential patent licensing issues. And inside that
`
`
`
`18 we have a standard essential patent zone. We
`
`
`
`19 would --you know, we're always working on creating
`
`
`
`20 new standard essential patent zones around other
`
`
`
`21 standards. LTE is an example or Wi-Fi or SG or, you
`
`
`
`22 know, any of the other standards, USB, I don't know,
`
`D[;]Dif:i:rni
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000302
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 22 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1 there's tons of other standards.
`
`2
`
`So each of those other standards
`
`3 would possibly get their own zone for us to be doing
`
`
`
`4 this kind of work on standard essential patent areas
`
`5 on each of those standards.
`
`6
`
`Q So just to make sure I'm clear, though,
`
`
`
`7 the SEP zone is not synonymous with the video codec
`
`8 zone. The video codec zone is based on within this
`
`9 SEP area, right?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes, correct. Yes, absolutely.
`
`
`
`So going back to the expenditures and IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`12 Do you know a percentage in number, percentage of
`
`
`
`that it spent on IPRs? 13 Unified's expenditures,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`A As a percentage, I do not. I haven't
`
`
`
`15 tracked, as a percentage, expenditures in the video
`
`
`
`
`
`16 codec zone and a specific amount that is related to
`
`
`
`17 the filing of IPRs.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Q
`
`Do you think it's more or less than
`
`?
`
`20
`
`A
`
`21
`
`Q
`
`You think it's
`
`?
`
`22
`
`A
`
`I don't know.
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000303
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 23 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`Q
`
`
`
`How many employees does Unified currently
`
`2 have?
`
`3
`
`A
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`
`
`I believe we currently have 14 employees.
`
`How many of those are attorneys?
`
`Most of them. I have to try to count them
`
`6 up. I can, if you want me to.
`
`7
`
`Q Yeah. Go ahead and do it. When I say
`
`8 attorneys,
`I mean how many are actually practicing
`
`
`
`9 attorneys, would you consider?
`
`10
`
`
`
`A All of the attorneys that are --all of
`
`
`
`11 the attorneys that are working at Unified are
`
`
`
`12 licensed attorneys to practice law.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`All right.
`
`attorneys.
`So they're all practicing
`
`15
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I think 11 out of 14 are attorneys.
`
`
`
`And what are their responsibilities at
`
`18 Unified?
`
`19
`
`
`
`A We have a department of attorneys that are
`
`
`
`
`
`and doing legal work 20 responsible for overseeing
`
`
`
`21 related to IPRs. We have --well, I'm an attorney
`
`22 so I'm in charge of kind of all of the operations
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000304
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 24 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`
`
`1 and I oversee the legal department. I oversee all
`
`
`
`2 the departments too, so I'm engaged in all of that.
`
`3
`
`Shawn is an attorney and he
`
`
`
`4 participates in all of that activity as well.
`■
`
`17
`
`
`
`Q And how many attorneys are in the
`
`18 department?
`
`19
`
`
`
`A So that department, not including myself
`
`
`
`
`
`20 or Shawn, who both are in that department, by the
`
`21 way, but I'm just going to --I'll include us too,
`
`22 so that would -
`
`O[;]Di:::i::m
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`....
`
`Page 24
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000305
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 25 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential Kevin Jake!
`
`
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`Q Okay. And how is work divied up within
`
`
`
`2 that, within the department? Are certain attorneys
`
`3
`
`assigned to a certain zone or is it divied up
`
`4
`
`another way?
`
`5
`
`A
`
`22
`
`Q
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 25
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000306
`
`EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS'
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 26 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media
`
`
`
`Confidential Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`934 Glenwood Ave SE, Suite 250
`
`
`Atlanta, GA 30316 I 855.478.7376
`
`Page 26
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01048 -UP000307
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`United Patent, LLC. Ex. 1043 Page 27 of 222
`United Patents, LLC v. Elects. & Telecomm. Res. Inst., et al.
`IPR2021-00368
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents vs Velos Media Confidential
`Kevin Jakel
`
`08/23/2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`Q So what do you do day-to-day as Unified's
`
`2 CEO?
`
`3
`
`
`
`A So day-to-day any given day would include
`
`4 some, you know, just like over, overhead kind of
`
`5 running the company. Anything from HR to payroll to
`
`
`
`6 management meetings, meeting with people. It would
`
`
`
`7 include kind of engaging with the legal department
`
`8 around the filing of IPRs and that process. It
`
`
`
`9 would include business development and, you know,
`
`10 kind of strategy and pipeline issues for Unified.
`
`11
`
`Finance would make up another aspect
`
`
`
`12 of it, just being on top of budgeting for the entire
`
`13 company. All of that would go into kind of my
`
`
`
`14 day-to-day activities.
`
`15
`
`
`
`members? Q Do you interface with Unified's
`
`
`
`16
`
`A I do.
`
`17
`
`Q How much of your time is spent doing that?
`
`18
`
`A Not very much. If there's an opportunity
`
`
`
`19 to engage. I mean, there's no, lik
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
