·
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·2· ·--------------------------------------
`· · ·RINGCENTRAL, INC.,
`·3
`· · · · · · ·Petitioner· ·Case IPR2021-00574
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`· · · · · · ·V.
`·5
`· · ·ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`·6
`· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·7· ·--------------------------------------
`·8· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI,
`·9· ·Ph.D., taken by Patent Owner, pursuant to
`10· ·Notice, via Zoom, on Friday, March 11, 2022,
`11· ·at 9:00 a.m., before Monique Cabrera, a
`12· ·Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, within
`13· ·and for the State of New York.
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 1
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·2· ·--------------------------------------
`· · ·RINGCENTRAL, INC.,
`·3
`· · · · · · ·Petitioner· ·Case IPR2021-00574
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`· · · · · · ·V.
`·5
`· · ·ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`·6
`· · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·7· ·--------------------------------------
`·8· · · · · · DEPOSITION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI,
`·9· ·Ph.D., taken by Patent Owner, pursuant to
`10· ·Notice, via Zoom, on Friday, March 11, 2022,
`11· ·at 9:00 a.m., before Monique Cabrera, a
`12· ·Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, within
`13· ·and for the State of New York.
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 1
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S :
`·2· ·WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS, PLLC
`· · · · · · · Attorneys for Patent Owner
`·3· ·1735 Market Street - Suite A #453
`· · ·Philadelphia, PA· 19103
`·4
`· · ·BY:· JOHN WITTENZELLNER, ESQ.
`·5· · · · johnw@wsltrial.com
`· · · · · ABDUL ALTHEBAITY, ESQ.
`·6
`·7· ·ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
`· · · · · · · Attorneys for Petitioner
`·8· ·51 West 52nd Street
`· · ·New York, New York· 10019
`·9
`· · ·BY:· K. PATRICK HERMAN, ESQ.
`10· · · · pherman@orrick.com
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 2
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`·2· ·WITNESS· · · · · ·EXAMINATION BY· · · PAGE #
`·3· ·V. Madisetti, Ph.D· ·Mr. Herman· · · · ·4
`·4
`·5
`·6· ·EXH NO.· · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · ·PAGE #
`·7· ·Exhibit 2018 Declaration of Dr.
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Vijay Madisetti· · · · · · ·7
`·9· ·Exhibit 2013· Declaration of Vijay K.
`10· · · · · · · · ·Madisetti in support of
`11· · · · · · · · ·Estech System's Patent
`12· · · · · · · · ·Owner's response in
`13· · · · · · · · ·IPR2021-00574· · · · · · · ·8
`14· ·Exhibit 1001· U.S. Patent No. 6,067,349· ·10
`15· ·Exhibit 1004· U.S. Patent No. 5,841,838
`16· · · · · · · · ·Itoh reference· · · · · · ·63
`17· ·Exhibit 1006· U.S. Patent No. 5,117,451· ·86
`18· ·Exhibit 1003· U.S. Patent No. 5,841,838
`19· · · · · · · · ·in the '574 proceeding· · ·104
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 3
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · ·Whereupon,
`·2· · · · · · ·Vijay K. Madisetti, PH.D.,
`·3· ·after having been first duly sworn, was
`·4· ·examined and testified as follows:
`·5· · · · · ·COURT REPORTER:· Can you state your
`·6· ·name and address for the record.
`·7· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's Vijay K.
`·8· ·Madisetti, 56 Creekside Park Drive, Johns
`·9· ·Creek, Georgia 30022.
`10· ·BY MR. HERMAN:
`11· · · ·Q.· Good morning, Doctor.
`12· · · ·A.· Good morning, sir.
`13· · · ·Q.· My name is Patrick Herman and I am an
`14· ·attorney from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,
`15· ·here today on behalf of Petitioner RingCentral
`16· ·in two IPR proceedings, and those are
`17· ·IPR2021-00573 and IPR2021-00574.
`18· · · · · ·Now, before we begin, I would like to
`19· ·go over a few basic ground rules to make sure
`20· ·we are on the same page.
`21· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`22· · · ·A.· Sounds good.
`23· · · ·Q.· So the first is that there is a
`24· ·reporter here who is going to be taking down
`25· ·my questions and your testimony, so it's
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 4
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·important that you respond verbally.
`·2· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`·3· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·4· · · ·Q.· It's also important that we not talk
`·5· ·over each other so that we have a clear
`·6· ·record.· So I will do my best to wait until
`·7· ·you finish an answer before asking another
`·8· ·question, and I will also ask that you wait
`·9· ·until I finish with my question before
`10· ·answering.
`11· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`12· · · ·A.· That's okay.
`13· · · ·Q.· Next you are entitled to a question
`14· ·that you understand.· So if there is anything
`15· ·unclear about any of my questions, please ask.
`16· ·Otherwise I will assume we are on the same
`17· ·page.
`18· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`19· · · ·A.· That's okay.
`20· · · ·Q.· Next, I ask that you not look at any
`21· ·documents on your computer or in your presence
`22· ·besides those that I provide to you during the
`23· ·deposition today, and if you do look at a
`24· ·document for some reason that I have not
`25· ·provided to you, I ask that you let me know.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 5
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`·2· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·3· · · ·Q.· Now, do you have any documents with
`·4· ·you today?
`·5· · · ·A.· No, I have not opened any.
`·6· · · ·Q.· Okay.· Now, I also ask that you not
`·7· ·have any side discussions with anyone using
`·8· ·text messaging, chat software, a cell phone or
`·9· ·the like while the deposition is underway.
`10· · · · · ·Is that okay?
`11· · · ·A.· Yes.
`12· · · ·Q.· Now, is there anything that would
`13· ·prevent or interfere with your ability to
`14· ·testify today?
`15· · · ·A.· No.
`16· · · ·Q.· Now, do you understand that you are
`17· ·here today to discuss two declarations that
`18· ·you submitted in the IPR proceedings that I
`19· ·mentioned a few moments ago?
`20· · · ·A.· Yes.
`21· · · ·Q.· I am going put copies of those
`22· ·declarations into the Zoom chat box,
`23· ·hopefully.
`24· · · ·A.· There is some scratchy noise and I
`25· ·don't know if that is from my laptop or is it
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 6
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·from yours, if anyone cannot hear it, that's
`·2· ·fine, but I think we have some microphone.
`·3· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· I've also heard
`·4· ·it.
`·5· · · ·Q.· There should be two documents in the
`·6· ·Zoom chat folder.
`·7· · · · · ·Do you see those?
`·8· · · ·A.· I do.
`·9· · · ·Q.· The first is a document that has been
`10· ·designated by Patent Owner as Exhibit 2018 in
`11· ·the 573 proceeding.
`12· · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit 2018, Declaration
`13· ·of Dr. Vijay Madisetti, was identified.)
`14· · · ·Q.· What is that document?
`15· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Should I download,
`16· ·please, Counsel?
`17· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Yes, and I
`18· ·recommend you keep a copy in an easy access
`19· ·location so we can go back and forth between
`20· ·exhibits.
`21· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
`22· · · · · ·Give me a second so I can download
`23· ·it.
`24· · · · · ·Yes, I have now downloaded them,
`25· ·Counsel.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 7
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·BY MR. HERMAN:
`·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So what is Exhibit 2018,
`·3· ·what's been designated as Exhibit 2018?
`·4· · · ·A.· It is my expert Declaration,
`·5· ·Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti in support
`·6· ·of Estech Systems Inc.'s Patent Owner response
`·7· ·for IPR2021-00573.
`·8· · · ·Q.· And that relates to Patent Number
`·9· ·6,067,349; is that right?
`10· · · ·A.· Yes.
`11· · · ·Q.· And would it be okay if I referred to
`12· ·that Patent today as the '349 patent?
`13· · · ·A.· Yes.
`14· · · ·Q.· Now, what is Exhibit 2013 in the 574
`15· ·IPR proceeding?
`16· · · ·A.· That is, again, the Declaration of
`17· ·Vijay K. Madisetti in support of Estech
`18· ·System's Patent Owner's response in
`19· ·IPR2021-00574.
`20· · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit 2013, Declaration
`21· ·of Vijay K. Madisetti in support of Estech
`22· ·System's Patent Owner's response in
`23· ·IPR2021-00574, was identified.)
`24· · · ·Q.· And that relates to Patent No.
`25· ·8,391,298; is that right?
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 8
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·2· · · ·Q.· And would it be okay if I refer to
`·3· ·that as the '298 patent today?
`·4· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·5· · · ·Q.· So I would like to start by
`·6· ·discussing your '349 patent Declaration.· And
`·7· ·that's, again, Exhibit 2018 in the 573
`·8· ·proceedings; if you could get that in front of
`·9· ·you?
`10· · · ·A.· Okay.
`11· · · ·Q.· And I would like to direct your
`12· ·attention to a passage that begins in
`13· ·paragraph 62.· Can you turn to that, please?
`14· · · ·A.· Okay.· I am on paragraph 62 in my
`15· ·Declaration, Exhibit 2018.
`16· · · ·Q.· This paragraph is part of a section
`17· ·that relates to claim construction; is that
`18· ·right?
`19· · · ·A.· This paragraph?· Yes, this paragraph
`20· ·is part of Section 4, starting on paragraph 58
`21· ·on the previous page, entitled "Claim
`22· ·Construction."
`23· · · ·Q.· And the particular claim language
`24· ·that you are addressing, starting in paragraph
`25· ·62 is, "Telephone call/voice processing
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 9
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·system"; is that right?
`·2· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·3· · · ·Q.· Now, if you look at paragraph 63, you
`·4· ·reference a series of claims in that
`·5· ·paragraph.
`·6· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·7· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·8· · · ·Q.· Now, there is no reference there to
`·9· ·Claim 1 of the '349 patent; true?
`10· · · ·A.· In this paragraph there is no
`11· ·reference to Claim Number 1.
`12· · · ·Q.· And that's because Claim 1 does not
`13· ·include the phrase "telephone call/voice
`14· ·processing system"; correct?
`15· · · ·A.· Could I look at the expert
`16· ·correspondence to the '349 patent?
`17· · · ·Q.· Sure.
`18· · · · · ·I am putting into the chat what has
`19· ·been designated as Exhibit 1001 in the 573
`20· ·proceeding.· Let me know when you have that.
`21· · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit 1001, U.S.
`22· ·Patent No. 6,067,349, was identified.)
`23· · · ·A.· Yes, I've downloaded that, and I am
`24· ·going to open that.
`25· · · ·Q.· What is Exhibit 1001?
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 10
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·A.· Exhibit 1001 is the U.S. Patent,
`·2· ·6,067,349.
`·3· · · · · ·So could you please repeat your
`·4· ·question again, Counsel, with respect to the
`·5· ·claims of this Patent?
`·6· · · ·Q.· Sure.
`·7· · · · · ·So my question is:· Claim 1 is not
`·8· ·referenced in your paragraph 63 because it
`·9· ·does not include the words "telephone
`10· ·call/voice processing system."
`11· · · ·A.· My testimony was that I do not
`12· ·mention explicitly Claim 1 in paragraph 63.
`13· ·That's the extent of my testimony.
`14· · · ·Q.· So I am asking you why that's the
`15· ·case.· This Claim 1 is not referenced there
`16· ·because it does not include the particular
`17· ·claim language that you're discussing in
`18· ·paragraph 62 and 63.
`19· · · ·A.· That's not my testimony.· The claim
`20· ·speaks for itself.· It does not have the exact
`21· ·phrase.
`22· · · ·Q.· So you will agree --
`23· · · ·A.· It does not have the exact explicit
`24· ·phrase; that is, "telephone call/voice
`25· ·processing system," but I don't offer an
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 11
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·opinion about anything else other than that
`·2· ·the English language word, "telephone
`·3· ·voice" -- "telephone call/voice processing
`·4· ·system" isn't explicitly described as a phrase
`·5· ·in Claim 1.· Claim 6 depends on Claim 1.
`·6· · · ·Q.· And Claim 6 is a dependent claim; is
`·7· ·that right?
`·8· · · ·A.· Yes.
`·9· · · ·Q.· Which means that it's narrower than
`10· ·independent Claim 1?
`11· · · ·A.· Again, I don't -- the claims speak
`12· ·for themselves.· I do not wish to offer a
`13· ·legal opinion.
`14· · · ·Q.· So in forming your Declaration, did
`15· ·you have an understanding of what it means to
`16· ·be a dependent claim?
`17· · · ·A.· Yes.
`18· · · ·Q.· So what does it mean to be a
`19· ·dependent claim?
`20· · · ·A.· A dependent claim includes all the
`21· ·limitations of the independent claim on which
`22· ·it depends on and then adds -- and then has
`23· ·additional limitations.
`24· · · ·Q.· So a dependent claim adds limitations
`25· ·that are not found in an independent claim.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 12
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·That's what you just told me; correct?
`·2· · · ·A.· Again, I stick to my answer that a
`·3· ·dependent claim includes everything in the
`·4· ·independent claim and adds limitations.
`·5· · · ·Q.· So if you look at Claim 6, the only
`·6· ·limitation that Claim 6 adds is the
`·7· ·requirement that the steps of Claim 1 be
`·8· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`·9· ·processing system," correct?
`10· · · ·A.· As I described earlier, the claim
`11· ·speaks for itself.· I don't wish to summarize
`12· ·it in any way or limit its scope.· Claim 6 is
`13· ·described by the '349 as a matter as recited
`14· ·in Claim 1.· The steps are performed in the
`15· ·"telephone call/voice processing system."
`16· · · ·Q.· So, in authoring your Declaration,
`17· ·you compared Claim 6 to the prior art
`18· ·identified in the petition, true?
`19· · · ·A.· My Declaration, again, has for
`20· ·support some opinions and I opined -- I opined
`21· ·certain arguments and opinions with respect to
`22· ·Claim 6.
`23· · · ·Q.· But you understand in forming those
`24· ·opinions what Claim 6 requires, correct?
`25· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 13
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· And the only thing that Claim 6
`·2· ·requires that is not part of Claim 1 is the
`·3· ·requirement that, quote, "The steps are
`·4· ·performed in a telephone call/voice processing
`·5· ·system," correct?
`·6· · · ·A.· Again, the claim speaks for itself.
`·7· ·For example, Claim 1 could have certain steps
`·8· ·that are not performed in the "telephone
`·9· ·call/voice processing system," while Claim 6
`10· ·requires all steps to be performed in the
`11· ·"telephone call/voice processing system."· So
`12· ·Claim 1 is broader than Claim 6, but yet could
`13· ·require a "telephone call/voice processing
`14· ·system" to perform some of the steps.
`15· · · · · ·So, again, the claims speak for
`16· ·themselves, and I defer to the plain language
`17· ·of the claims to set out the scope.· I don't
`18· ·wish to limit the scope in any manner.
`19· · · ·Q.· Let me see if I understand your
`20· ·answer.· So I think what you just said is that
`21· ·Claim 6 requires all of the steps of Claim 1
`22· ·to be performed in a "telephone call/voice
`23· ·processing system," correct?
`24· · · ·A.· That's not my -- that's not my
`25· ·testimony.· My testimony is that Claim 1 could
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 14
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·have a case where certain steps are not
`·2· ·performed in a telephone call/voice processing
`·3· ·system.
`·4· · · ·Q.· So I ask again --
`·5· · · ·A.· I didn't say that.· I did not say
`·6· ·anything about Claim 6.· Claim 6 is what is
`·7· ·described in the specification in the common
`·8· ·term.
`·9· · · ·Q.· I am going to read back exactly what
`10· ·you testified.· So your exact answer was:
`11· ·"Again, the claim speaks for itself.· For
`12· ·example, Claim 1 could have certain steps that
`13· ·are not performed in the telephone call/voice
`14· ·processing system, while Claim 6 requires" --
`15· ·and these are your words -- "all steps to be
`16· ·formed in the telephone call/voice processing
`17· ·system?"
`18· · · ·A.· I don't --
`19· · · ·Q.· That's what you said and that's what
`20· ·you testified.· So my question was:· You just
`21· ·testified that Claim 6 requires all the steps
`22· ·of Claim 1 to be performed in the "telephone
`23· ·call/voice processing system."· That's what
`24· ·you testified, correct?
`25· · · ·A.· I disagree.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 15
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Object to form.
`·2· · · ·A.· To the extent that you are saying
`·3· ·that I said all steps, I correct it here. I
`·4· ·said that Claim 1 may have some of the steps
`·5· ·performed.· Claim 6 may have the steps
`·6· ·performed.· So whether it's all steps or
`·7· ·whether the steps, meaning all steps is,
`·8· ·again, a claim construction or a claim
`·9· ·construction that I do not offer at this
`10· ·point.
`11· · · · · ·All I can say is that, as I said
`12· ·earlier, I do not wish to limit the claims. I
`13· ·don't wish to express any of the claims in
`14· ·language other than how they are described in
`15· ·the specification, and I stand by Claim 6 as
`16· ·written in column 12, lines 3 to 4.· I do not
`17· ·wish to characterize it in any other way.
`18· · · ·Q.· So I am having difficulty
`19· ·understanding what you're saying about the
`20· ·claims.· I am having difficulty understand
`21· ·what you view the claims to require.· So let's
`22· ·talk about Claim 6, first.
`23· · · · · ·Claim 6 is a dependent claim that
`24· ·depends on Claim 1, and Claim 1 requires a
`25· ·series of steps; is that correct?
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 16
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·A.· Claim 1 is described in lines 29 to
`·2· ·46 of Column 11, and it is a method claim that
`·3· ·consists of a series of steps.
`·4· · · ·Q.· Now, Claim 6 requires those steps and
`·5· ·by "those steps," I mean the steps in Claim 1
`·6· ·to be performed by a "telephone call/voice
`·7· ·processing system," true?
`·8· · · ·A.· Again, I would defer to the claim
`·9· ·language itself and say that the method Claim
`10· ·6 recites on the third as is cited in Claim 1,
`11· ·wherein those steps are performed in a
`12· ·"telephone call/voice processing system."
`13· · · ·Q.· All right.· So Claim 6 requires the
`14· ·steps in Claim 1, as you've just said, to be
`15· ·performed by the "telephone call/voice
`16· ·processing system," correct?
`17· · · ·A.· As per Claim 6 it's the method or as
`18· ·recited in Claim 1 wherein the steps are
`19· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`20· ·processing system."
`21· · · ·Q.· And that particular claim is narrower
`22· ·than Claim 1, true?
`23· · · ·A.· As I said, the claim speaks for
`24· ·itself.· I don't wish to paraphrase them or
`25· ·limit their scope.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 17
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· So in offering your opinions, you had
`·2· ·no understanding whatsoever regarding whether
`·3· ·Claim 6 was broader or narrower than Claim 1.
`·4· ·Is that how you approached these claims in
`·5· ·offering your opinions in this case?
`·6· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Objection to
`·7· ·form.
`·8· · · ·A.· As I said, I offered a technical
`·9· ·opinion and, in my opinion, Claim 1 cites a
`10· ·certain set of steps.· Claim 6 is a dependent
`11· ·claim, so it includes everything that the
`12· ·independent has and it adds additional
`13· ·limitations, and these additional limitations
`14· ·are described in Claim 6 as wherein the steps
`15· ·are performed in a "telephone call/voice
`16· ·processing system."
`17· · · ·Q.· So that additional limitation that
`18· ·you just referenced, wherein the steps are
`19· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`20· ·processing system," that additional limitation
`21· ·is not part of Claim 1, correct?
`22· · · ·A.· That language, wherein the steps are
`23· ·performed in a "telephone call/voice
`24· ·processing system," is not described in Claim
`25· ·1.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 18
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· That's not a limitation of Claim 1,
`·2· ·true?
`·3· · · ·A.· Again, the claim speaks for itself.
`·4· ·It says here that the steps -- that those
`·5· ·steps are performed in a "telephone call/voice
`·6· ·processing system," and in a nonlimiting
`·7· ·example, Claim 1 would include some steps that
`·8· ·could be performed in a "telephone call/voice
`·9· ·processing system."
`10· · · ·Q.· Now, if you look at paragraph 63,
`11· ·paragraph 63 cites a number of passages from
`12· ·the '349 patent; is that right?
`13· · · ·A.· Paragraph 63 of my Declaration on
`14· ·pages -- yes, paragraph 63 describes certain
`15· ·portions of the specification of '349.
`16· · · ·Q.· And you actually quote passages from
`17· ·the '349 patent; is that right?
`18· · · ·A.· I quote in terms of cite to the
`19· ·specific line numbers and certain excerpts
`20· ·from those lines.
`21· · · ·Q.· Now, certain of those quotations
`22· ·include the acronym EKT.
`23· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`24· · · ·A.· You are referring to, for example,
`25· ·and I already described them in Column 5,
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 19
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·lines 52 to 20 as an EKT 1400, which is
`·2· ·described as an electronic key telephone in
`·3· ·that embodiment.
`·4· · · ·Q.· So the acronym "EKT" stands for an
`·5· ·electronic key telephone; is that right?
`·6· · · ·A.· Yes, in this environment, yes.
`·7· · · ·Q.· What is an electronic key telephone?
`·8· · · ·A.· It's a type of telephone that has
`·9· ·keys that allow the phone to communicate and
`10· ·connect to different telephone lines.
`11· · · ·Q.· Now, another one of the passages that
`12· ·you quote here includes the acronym "KSU."
`13· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`14· · · ·A.· Yes.· That's under "environment."
`15· ·That refers to an example of a key system
`16· ·unit, KSU, in Column 6, lines 12 through 13.
`17· · · ·Q.· And what a key system unit?
`18· · · ·A.· Again, it is an example that is cited
`19· ·in the specification.· It is -- it works with
`20· ·EKT's.
`21· · · ·Q.· And how does it work with the EKT's?
`22· · · · · ·MR. WITTENZELLNER:· Objection to
`23· ·form.
`24· · · ·A.· How does it work?· It is a type of --
`25· ·I think there is some hardware that allows
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 20
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·multiple telephones -- that allows it to be
`·2· ·connected to multiple telephones.
`·3· · · ·Q.· Now, is it your opinion that the
`·4· ·claims that you reference in paragraph 63 are
`·5· ·limited to just systems that include an EKT
`·6· ·and a KSU?
`·7· · · ·A.· No.· As I said, I described here that
`·8· ·the claims speak for themselves.· I don't wish
`·9· ·to limit the claims in any way.· I was citing
`10· ·to certain examples in this specification
`11· ·which are examples.
`12· · · ·Q.· So it's your opinion that the
`13· ·passages that you cite in paragraph 63 relate
`14· ·to examples in the '349 patent, true?
`15· · · ·A.· Again, that's a generalization.· My
`16· ·opinions are described in my Declaration. I
`17· ·don't wish to summarize them in any other way.
`18· ·All I mention here is that EKT is a specific
`19· ·embodiment.
`20· · · ·Q.· So only one specific embodiment of
`21· ·what the '349 patent discloses, correct?
`22· · · ·A.· Again, the '349 speaks for itself.
`23· ·All I can say is I use EKT as an nonlimiting
`24· ·example of a certain type of electronic key
`25· ·telephone.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 21
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· · · ·Q.· And the combination of the EKT and
`·2· ·the KSU are also nonlimiting examples, true?
`·3· · · ·A.· Yes.· These are, again, nonlimiting
`·4· ·examples disclosed in the '349 patent.
`·5· · · ·Q.· Okay.· And I would like you to get --
`·6· ·or at least revisit the '349 patent which you
`·7· ·should have already.· This is Exhibit 1001 in
`·8· ·the 573.
`·9· · · ·A.· I do.
`10· · · ·Q.· Now, all of the passages that you
`11· ·cite in paragraph 63 of your Declaration are
`12· ·found in the Patent detail description
`13· ·section; is that right?
`14· · · ·A.· Yes, in paragraph 63, yes.
`15· · · ·Q.· And that detailed description section
`16· ·begins starting in about Column 2 of the '349
`17· ·patent; is that right?
`18· · · ·A.· Column 2.· There is a section in
`19· ·Column 2, line 30, that is described as
`20· ·detailed, a description.
`21· · · ·Q.· In that section, that detailed
`22· ·description section includes all of the
`23· ·passages that you cite in paragraph 63 of your
`24· ·Declaration; correct?
`25· · · ·A.· I am going back to my Declaration.
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 22
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·So in paragraph 63, I defer to Column 5,
`·2· ·Column 4, Column 6.· So Columns 4, 5 and 6 are
`·3· ·within -- within that section titled "Detailed
`·4· ·Description."
`·5· · · ·Q.· Now, that Detailed Description
`·6· ·section, starting at about line 32, has a
`·7· ·sentence that reads:· "In the following
`·8· ·description, numerous technical details are
`·9· ·set forth, such as specific word length and
`10· ·specific hardware interfaces, et cetera, to
`11· ·provide a thorough understanding of the
`12· ·present invention."
`13· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`14· · · ·A.· Yes.· You read from lines 32 to 35 of
`15· ·Column 2 of the '349.
`16· · · ·Q.· And then the same Detailed
`17· ·Description section goes on in Column 2,
`18· ·starting at line 35 to say:· "However, it will
`19· ·be obvious to those skilled in the art that
`20· ·the present invention may be practiced without
`21· ·such specific details."
`22· · · · · ·Do you see that?
`23· · · ·A.· You read again from lines 35 to 37
`24· ·with respect to the specific details which --
`25· ·which, again, is how the specification
`
`
`
`www.huseby.comwww.huseby.com
`
`
`
`Huseby Global LitigationHuseby Global Litigation
`
`
`
`800-333-2082800-333-2082
`
`YVer1f
`
`RingCentral Ex. 1037, p. 23
` RingCentral v. Estech
` IPR2021-00574
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`
`RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.RINGCENTRAL, INC. vs ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. on 03/11/2022
`·1· ·describes it in lines 35 to 37.
`·2· · · ·Q.· Okay.· So one of the things that the
`·3· ·'349 patent is saying here is that you can use
`·4· ·the, quote, "specific hardware interfaces,"
`·5· ·end quote, discussed after this point, but you
`·6· ·don't have to, to practice the Patent's
`·7· ·invention; correct?
`·8· · · ·A.· As I said, I disagree with that
`·9· ·characterization.· I believe that the claims
`10· ·describe as mentioned, not the specification.
`11· · · ·Q.· So I'm talking about what the
`12· ·specification is saying here.· Those
`13· ·specifications say that you can use the,
`14· ·quote, "specific hardware interfaces," quote,
`15· ·the Patent discusses to practice
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
