UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRADLEPOINT, INC., DELL INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
`INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
`HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT
`MOBILE, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US)
`HOLDINGS INC., THALES DIS AIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`ZTE CORPORATION, AND ZTE (USA) INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2021-00639
`
`Patent No. 8,189,611
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CRAIG BISHOP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE, Ex. 1019
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 2
`
`PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF 3GPP TECHNICAL
`SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO POSITAS .............. 7
`
`A. Prominence and Purpose of 3GPP ........................................................... 8
`
`B. 3GPP Document Policies and Practices ................................................. 12
`
`C. 3GPP Structure and Standards Development Process ............................ 13
`
`D. 3GPP Documents .................................................................................. 16
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`TDocs .................................................................................... 17
`
`Technical Specifications ........................................................ 20
`
`E. The 3GPP Online File Repository.......................................................... 25
`
`IV. EXHIBIT 1009 (“TS 24.008 V6.6.0”) ....................................................... 27
`
`V.
`
`EXHIBIT 1011 (“TS 23.107 V6.3.0”) ....................................................... 30
`
`VI. EXHIBIT 1012 (“TS 25.331 V5.0.0”) ....................................................... 32
`
`VII. EXHIBIT 1013 (“TS 23.107 V6.1.0”) ....................................................... 35
`
`VIII. EXHIBIT 1014 (“TS 23.107 V6.2.0”) ....................................................... 38
`
`IX. EXHIBIT 1015 (“TS 03.60 V7.9.0”) ......................................................... 40
`
`X.
`
`EXHIBIT 1017 (“TS 23.060 V6.9.0”) ....................................................... 43
`
`XI. EXHIBIT 1018 (“TS 29.060 V6.9.0”) ....................................................... 46
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 48
`
`XIII. DECLARATION ....................................................................................... 50
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Craig Bishop, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of
`
`Petitioners related to Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,189,611
`
`(“the ’611 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my accustomed
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the results of my study, the substance of my opinions, or the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration I have reviewed Exhibits 1009,
`
`1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1017, and 1018, each of which is a type of material
`
`that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon when forming their opinions.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed within this declaration, I have
`
`considered:
`
`1)
`
`Exhibits 1009, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1017, and 1018;
`
`and
`
`2) My own academic background, knowledge, and professional
`
`experiences in the field of wireless communications and 3rd
`
`Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards-development,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`
`as described below.
`
`5.
`
`Although I have attempted to organize the information presented in this
`
`declaration into helpful sections and/or divisions, my opinions are supported by the
`
`information in the declaration in its entirety.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which has been attached as Appendix 1. The
`
`following is a summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`7.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Electronic Engineering degree with Honors
`
`from Polytechnic of Central London in 1989. In 2005, I earned my MSC in
`
`Computer Science with Distinction from the University of Kent.
`
`8.
`
`After graduating with my first degree, I worked as an operations
`
`engineer at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for 4 years, then as a civil
`
`servant at the UK Radiocommunications Agency until 1996, during which time I
`
`became
`
`involved
`
`in
`
`telecommunications standardization
`
`in
`
`the European
`
`Telecommunication Standards Institute (“ETSI”), working in particular in Technical
`
`Committee Radio Equipment and Systems (TC RES2) concerned with the
`
`standardization of Private Mobile Radio (PMR). From 1994 through 1996, I acted
`
`as Rapporteur for voice and data related PMR standards ETS 300 113, ETS 300 219
`
`and ETS 300 390. I participated as the only TC RES2 delegate on behalf of the UK
`
`2
`
`

`

`Radiocommunications Agency, generating proposals
`
`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`in support of UK
`
`administration and business requirements, downloading and reviewing other
`
`meeting input documents, and proposing changes as necessary to ensure input
`
`documents and the resulting specifications were in line with said requirements.
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, I joined Samsung Electronic Research Institute as a Senior
`
`Standards Engineer where I worked for 16 years, eventually becoming Director of
`
`Standards and Industry Affairs in 2011. My work at Samsung mainly focused on the
`
`standardization of Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)/ General
`
`Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
`
`(UMTS), and Long-Term Evolution (LTE)/ Evolved Packet System (EPS) systems.
`
`Initially, I participated in ETSI Special Mobile Group (SMG) committees SMG1,
`
`SMG2, SMG4, SMG5, and SMG9, and relevant UMTS related sub-committees
`
`working on the air interface radio access network protocols, service, and terminal
`
`aspects of UMTS and GSM/GPRS until 1999. I was specifically involved in the
`
`ETSI SMG2 meetings leading up to selection of Wideband Code Division Multiple
`
`Access (WCDMA) as the radio access technology for the Frequency Division
`
`Duplex (FDD) mode of UMTS.
`
`10. Beginning in 1998, I worked as a Principal Standards Engineer on the
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) on UMTS. I have been involved with
`
`3GPP since its inception. I attended the inaugural 3GPP Technical Specification
`
`3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`Group (TSG) meetings held in December 1998, and I began attending Working
`
`Group (WG) meetings in 1999. Specifically, I regularly attended Radio Access
`
`Network (RAN) WG1, Services & System Aspects (SA) WG1, Terminals (T) WG2,
`
`but also other Working Groups and TSG plenary meetings covering similar technical
`
`aspects as in my previous work in ETSI. As examples, RAN WG1 was, and is, a
`
`Working Group responsible for the specification of the physical layer of the latest
`
`wireless cellular standards, and RAN WG2 was, and is, a Working Group
`
`responsible for signaling protocol layers 2 and 3 residing just above the physical
`
`layer. As part of this work, I would prepare meeting contributions in support of
`
`Samsung’s research and development activities. Also, by way of preparation for
`
`each meeting, I would download all contributions and review those of interest to
`
`Samsung, and where necessary, prepare additional input to the meeting based on
`
`said review.
`
`11. Beginning in 2000, I acted as project manager and then as system
`
`engineering manager at Samsung, providing technical requirements for the team
`
`working on Samsung’s UMTS modem development. This involved scrutiny of
`
`ongoing standardization work, particularly in RAN WG1, RAN WG2, and TSG
`
`Core Network (CN) WG1, from which I would download, and assess the impact of,
`
`contributions on Samsung’s development projects, ensuring that Samsung’s
`
`development team was kept informed about the latest developments as layers 2 and
`
`4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`
`3 of the UMTS standard were stabilized.
`
`12. During this period, in addition to authoring and presenting technical
`
`contributions for the 3GPP standard, and producing technical requirements for the
`
`radio modem, I acted as Rapporteur for 3GPP Technical Reports covering User
`
`Equipment (“UE”) capability requirements (3GPP TR 21.904) from 1999–2000, and
`
`the Evolution of the 3GPP System (3GPP TR 21.902) in 2003 (the first Study Item
`
`to consider the 3GPP system beyond UMTS towards LTE/EPS).
`
`13.
`
`In 2005, I became Head of Advanced Technologies, Standards and
`
`Regulation (ATSR) at Samsung. In addition to my managerial duties which included
`
`responsibility for standards, research, and regulatory engineers including three
`
`standards engineers who were regularly attending 3GPP RAN WG2 and Core
`
`Network and Terminals (CT) WG1 Working Groups, I personally continued to work
`
`on 3GPP standardization issues. From 2005 until 2008, I regularly attended and
`
`participated in SA WG2 meetings, mainly focusing on IP Multimedia Subsystem
`
`(IMS) including voice over IMS but also looking at wider Evolved Packet System
`
`(EPS) related issues. From 2008 until 2011, I regularly attended and participated in
`
`SA WG1 meetings. I also attended SA plenary meetings from 2008 until I left
`
`Samsung in 2013. As well as generating contributions in support of Samsung’s
`
`research and development as preparation for each meeting, I would download and
`
`review documents from other 3GPP members, identifying those of interest to
`
`5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`Samsung and, where necessary, preparing additional contributions on behalf of
`
`Samsung. The work required a sound working knowledge of the broader 3GPP
`
`system to ensure effective management of the ATSR team, effective participation in
`
`meeting discussions, expert assessment of third-party standards contributions, and
`
`provision of implementation guidance to Samsung developers.
`
`14. From 2006 until I stopped attending SA WG1 meetings in 2011, I
`
`authored and presented over 100 contributions to SA WG2 and SA WG1 meetings
`
`at 3GPP and appeared as an author/co-author on 18 patent applications related to
`
`User Equipment operation in the IMS and the 3GPP Core Network.
`
`15.
`
`In 2011, I became Director of Standards and Industry Affairs at
`
`Samsung, and in November of that year I was elected to the Board of ETSI on which
`
`I served for a term of 3 years until November 2014. In this position I gained further
`
`perspective on the organisation, management, and activities of ETSI and its
`
`Technical Committees.
`
`16. Since leaving Samsung in January 2013, I have become a member of
`
`ETSI, and as part of various projects undertaken, I have continued to regularly access
`
`the ETSI and 3GPP document servers, and to keep abreast of ETSI and 3GPP
`
`document handling and publication practices.
`
`17. Through my extensive work in ETSI and on 3GPP standardization
`
`issues over the years, I have become very familiar with ETSI and 3GPP practices for
`
`6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`when and how revisions to the technical standards and other standards-related
`
`contributions are made publicly available, including in the 1999-2011 timeframe
`
`when I was attending or monitoring various 3GPP Working Groups including RAN
`
`WG2. Also, in the 1998-1999 timeframe as explained above in ¶ 9, I participated in
`
`ETSI Special Mobile Group (SMG) committees SMG1, SMG2, SMG4, SMG5, and
`
`SMG9, and relevant UMTS related sub-committees working on the air interface
`
`radio access network protocols, service, and terminal aspects of UMTS and
`
`GSM/GPRS.
`
`18. For purposes of my analysis in this declaration, I have been informed
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’611 patent
`
`in approximately November 2005 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a similar discipline, with at least 3 years of relevant industry or
`
`research experience (or additional education). This description of a POSITA is
`
`consistent with my experience with 3GPP and ETSI. I was a POSITA in November
`
`2005 based on my education and experience, which are described above and in my
`
`attached CV.
`
`III. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF 3GPP TECHNICAL
`SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO POSITAS
`
`19. Based on my years of experience working in various capacities in 3GPP
`
`and on 3GPP standards issues, I am familiar with the regular business practices of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) relating to technical documents
`
`including specifications, draft standards and proposals, and standards-related
`
`technical contributions—including the business practices through which 3GPP
`
`makes these documents public.
`
`A. Prominence and Purpose of 3GPP
`
`20.
`
`3GPP was inaugurated in December 1998 to produce Technical
`
`Specifications and Technical Reports for the Universal Mobile Telecommunications
`
`System (UMTS), a 3G Mobile System based on evolved GSM core networks and a
`
`new radio access network known as UTRA (UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access).
`
`Appendix 10 at 2–3 (3GPP Partnership Project Description); Appendix 11 at 4;
`
`Appendix 16 at 15. At that time, various standards organizations agreed to cooperate
`
`to produce a “complete set of globally applicable Technical Specifications” that
`
`would then be transposed into standards by the relevant standardization bodies (also
`
`known as organizational partners). Appendix 10 at 3, 5 (3GPP Partnership Project
`
`Description). 3GPP “attracted a very strong commitment from organisations and
`
`companies around the world, reflecting the truly global nature of the project.”
`
`Appendix 16 at 17.
`
`21.
`
`3GPP is a global initiative partnership made up of organizational
`
`partners, market representation partners, and individual members. Appendix 23 at 7
`
`(3GPP Working Procedures, 1999); Appendix 17 at 13; Appendix 10 at 10. Today,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`3GPP unites seven telecommunications standard development organizations
`
`(“Organizational Partners”) from around the world: the Association of Radio
`
`Industries and Businesses (ARIB) and the Telecommunication Technology
`
`Committee (TTC) from Japan, the China Communications Standards Association
`
`(CCSA) from China, the Telecommunications Standards Development Society,
`
`India (TSDSI) from India, the Telecommunications Technology Association (TTA)
`
`from Korea, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), and the
`
`Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) from the United
`
`States.1 These Organizational Partners are regional standards organizations that have
`
`the authority to define, publish, and set standards for their respective regions.
`
`Appendix 10 at 12. 3GPP also includes “Market Representation Partners” that
`
`represent various industry perspectives and offer market advice. Appendix 23 at 7–
`
`8 (3GPP Working Procedures, 1999, “Market Representation Partnership”);
`
`Appendix 17 at 13 (“The market representation partners are industry associations
`
`that promote deployment of specific technologies); Appendix 10 at 14; Appendix 16
`
`at 15. Additionally, 3GPP includes individual member companies (“Individual
`
`Members”) that participate in 3GPP through their membership in a 3GPP
`
`
`
`1 The number, and some of the names, of organizational partners that make up
`3GPP have changed over time.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`Organizational Partner. Appendix 23 at 8 (3GPP Working Procedures, 1999,
`
`“Individual Membership”); Appendix 18 at 5 (textbook including a chart showing
`
`3GPP organization at the time of publication); Appendix 16 at 15. As an example of
`
`how prominent 3GPP was in the industry, by January 2000, there were 284
`
`companies participating as Individual Members. Appendix 16 at 18; Appendix 17 at
`
`14 (textbook noting there were 297 Individual members by 2006). Indeed, even in
`
`the 1999 timeframe, just after the inception of 3GPP, at least dozens of companies
`
`were already members of 3GPP. In fact, 350 delegates attended the first 3GPP
`
`Technical Meeting in December 1998. Appendix 16 at 6.
`
`22. As noted in paragraph 20, a primary goal of 3GPP is to provide an
`
`environment to produce technical specifications and technical reports that define and
`
`standardize technologies covering cellular telecommunications networks, including
`
`User Equipment or Mobile Device (UE) technologies, Radio Access Network
`
`(RAN) technologies, Core Network (CN) technologies, and service and system
`
`capabilities—including work on codecs, security, and quality of service. The
`
`specifications also provide hooks for interworking with non-3GPP networks
`
`including but not limited to Wi-Fi networks.
`
`23. Given the prominence of 3GPP in the wireless communication industry,
`
`beginning in 1999 and continuing through today, interested POSITAs were tracking
`
`the developments of the latest 3GPP specifications and reports to ensure timely
`
`10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`development of products and services by their companies that were consistent with
`
`the standards being developed. In other words, it is my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`be familiar with 3GPP and the specification-related documents produced as part of
`
`the 3GPP process in order to properly perform his or her job. Without access to and
`
`knowledge of the 3GPP documentation, including for example the substantive
`
`contents of 3GPP technical specifications, an engineer could not develop products
`
`that were interoperable with the worldwide 3G (and later 4G) standards. Because
`
`3GPP documents were an important aspect of a POSITA’s professional experience,
`
`textbooks and articles about cellular communications commonly directed readers to
`
`the 3GPP website for information regarding standards development. Appendix 16 at
`
`23 (directing readers to the 3GPP website at the conclusion of the chapter on the
`
`success of 3GPP in the standards development process). As a POSITA myself, I
`
`would regularly visit the 3GPP website for the latest developments in 3G standards
`
`setting and refer colleagues involved in the development of 3G devices to the 3GPP
`
`website as a valuable reference.
`
`24. My personal experience at Samsung confirms 3GPP’s prominence in
`
`the wireless industry. For example, engineers and managers at Samsung who were
`
`responsible for developing 3G modem software (and who were not attending 3GPP
`
`meetings or involved with 3GPP in any direct way) would regularly ask me to which
`
`version of a given 3GPP specification they should be developing their products. A
`
`11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`significant part of my role at Samsung was to ensure that Samsung’s development
`
`engineers were made aware of changes and proposals made in the 3GPP
`
`development process that would likely impact their work—and to discuss the
`
`implications of those changes or proposals with them. Such communication became
`
`so regular that around 2003 we began holding regular feedback sessions between
`
`those of us involved with 3GPP and the development engineers who were not
`
`involved with 3GPP work. I also maintained an internal company database that
`
`tracked changes that had been approved by 3GPP, to help the various development
`
`groups at Samsung stay informed as to changes that would impact their development
`
`work. The database contained summaries of changes introduced (and by whom), a
`
`brief assessment on the potential impact of the change, and the time and date
`
`information, including from which version the change was introduced. The database
`
`also included links to relevant 3GPP documents so that engineers could access the
`
`documents directly. In short, the technical work of 3GPP was at the forefront of
`
`development at Samsung, even for engineers who were not directly involved with
`
`creating or contributing to the 3GPP process.
`
`B. 3GPP Document Policies and Practices
`
`25.
`
`3GPP’s policy was to make 3GPP documents available to the public,
`
`including to interested POSITAs. The free availability of 3GPP documents to any
`
`interested member of the public was widely recognized in the industry. As an
`
`12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`example of the prominence of 3GPP and its place in the wireless standards industry,
`
`I note that textbooks directed readers to the 3GPP website for information about
`
`relevant standards. For example, one textbook made clear that “[t]he latest
`
`specifications can be obtained from 3GPP.” Appendix 18 at 6.
`
`26. Because the purpose of 3GPP was worldwide adoption of a common
`
`standard, no restrictions on distribution or discussion were placed on 3GPP
`
`documents. For example, I personally recall sharing some documents with a
`
`colleague who was not involved in the 3GPP process, and the internal company
`
`database I created at Samsung, discussed in paragraph 24, included links to 3GPP
`
`documents so that others (including individuals not involved with 3GPP) could
`
`access those documents directly.
`
`C. 3GPP Structure and Standards Development Process
`
`27. Within 3GPP, responsibility for producing specifications was delegated
`
`to the Technical Specification Groups (TSGs). Appendix 23 at 11 (3GPP Working
`
`Procedures, 1999, “TSG tasks”). At its inception, 3GPP was divided into four
`
`Technical Specification Groups (TSGs), each covering a particular category of
`
`technology. Appendix 10 at 31 (3GPP Partnership Project Description); Appendix
`
`18 at 5-6 (textbook listing four TSGs and noting the subsequent addition of a fifth
`
`TSG); Appendix 16 at 16, 25, 39. Each TSG is further divided into a number of
`
`Working Groups (WGs). Appendix 17 at 14; Appendix 18 at 5; see also Appendix
`
`13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`23 at 21 (3GPP Working Procedures, 1999, defining “Working Group”). Two of the
`
`TSGs from 1999 are still in existence in 2021: TSG Radio Access Networks (RAN)
`
`and TSG Service & Systems Aspects (SA). The activities of two other TSGs, TSG
`
`Core Networks (CN) and TSG Terminals (T), were amalgamated under Core
`
`Network and Terminals (CT) following the closure of TSG T in 2005, with
`
`responsibility for terminal test specifications being moved to a RAN working group
`
`(RAN WG5). The fifth TSG, GSM EDGE Radio Access Networks (GERAN), was
`
`responsible for evolution of the GSM radio technology from 2000 until that TSG
`
`closed in 2016 and its work was transferred to a RAN working group (RAN WG6)
`
`which was itself closed in July 2020.
`
`28. The TSGs held quarterly plenary meetings2 where members’
`
`contributions, draft specifications/reports, and other documents that had been agreed
`
`upon by the Working Groups were presented for discussion and approval. Appendix
`
`23 at 18 (3GPP Working Procedures, “Deliverable types,” stating that Technical
`
`Specifications and Technical Reports are “drawn up by the TSGs” and are approved
`
`by TSGs). Once a Technical Specification was, or Change Requests creating a new
`
`version of a Technical Specification were, formally approved by TSG plenary, the
`
`
`
`2 Except in 1999 when 5 meetings were held.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`latest version of said Technical Specification would be created by the Mobile
`
`Competence Centre (MCC3) and uploaded to the file server. Appendix 15 at 8
`
`(#4.15). In that way, the conclusion of 3GPP TSG plenary meetings serves as notice
`
`that new versions of specifications incorporating Change Requests approved by the
`
`TSG meeting will shortly be made available on the public 3GPP server.
`
`29. As part of the standards development process, delegates could submit
`
`contributions on behalf of the Individual Members. Members had an incentive to
`
`stay updated on 3GPP developments because those members usually wanted to
`
`contribute to the standard and make suggestions as to what technology and/or
`
`features should (or should not) be included. Delegates also attended 3GPP meetings
`
`to keep their employers abreast of developments related to the standards that would
`
`ultimately apply to those members and the products those members (e.g., companies)
`
`produce. 3GPP members around the world—and the interested POSITAs employed
`
`by them—would have been motivated to stay up to date regarding 3GPP
`
`developments to ensure their products, networks, and research programmes
`
`remained consistent with and relevant to the specifications being developed. In light
`
`of this need to follow the standards development process, delegates often distributed
`
`
`
`3 Part of the ETSI secretariat supporting 3GPP activities.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`3GPP-related documents far beyond the attendees at 3GPP meetings. This was
`
`certainly my experience at Samsung, as I described in paragraphs 24-26.
`
`30. Although attendance at 3GPP meetings was generally limited to 3GPP
`
`members, the public, including interested POSITAs, would have been made aware
`
`of Working Group meeting dates and times on 3GPP’s website and via 3GPP email
`
`lists (if subscribed). For example, POSITAs would have been aware of the meeting
`
`information pages for each TSG Working Group. Appendix 17 at 26 (textbook
`
`providing, as an example, a URL to the meeting information page for TSG RAN
`
`WG1 and including a screenshot of that web page).
`
`D. 3GPP Documents
`
`31. The technical specifications and reports developed by 3GPP were, and
`
`are, driven by the technical contributions of 3GPP members. As part of that
`
`development process, various types of documents were produced. As relevant to this
`
`case, the 3GPP process involved the consideration of temporary4 documents
`
`
`
`4 The term “temporary” is used to designate documents that are submitted to and
`
`dealt with by 3GPP TSGs and WGs in the process of elaborating the standards, but
`
`do not constitute permanent 3GPP deliverables such as Technical Specifications
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`(“TDocs,” also referred to as “technical contributions,” or “member contributions”),
`
`resulting in the production of technical specifications.
`
`i. TDocs
`
`32. Prior to each Working Group meeting, members of the Working Group
`
`could prepare TDocs to identify, discuss, and/or propose a new feature or change(s)
`
`to an existing feature or to identify a technical issue for discussion. According to the
`
`3GPP FAQs, “[a]ny bona fide representative of any 3GPP Individual Member . . .
`
`can present a technical contribution - for example, a Change Request - to any 3GPP
`
`TSG or WG meeting.” Appendix 12 at 7. This has been the practice since 1999 when
`
`I began attending 3GPP Working Group meetings.
`
`33. POSITAs would have known that TDocs could be a helpful source of
`
`technical information regarding the 3GPP specifications. Appendix 17 at 24
`
`(textbook explaining that “[o]ne way to find a more detailed description of the
`
`specific methodology or parameter in the specification is to go through the
`
`contribution papers (called technical [sic] documents, or tdocs) that 3GPP uploads
`
`on their meeting website”).
`
`
`
`and Reports. Temporary documents are permanently archived by and freely
`
`available from 3GPP once they have been submitted.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`34. Each TDoc was assigned a TDoc number, according to a standard
`
`format set by 3GPP.5 As described in the 3GPP Working Procedures from 1999, the
`
`numbering system followed the format: Gxmnnzzz.ext. Appendix 23 at 15–16.
`
`Within that format, “Gx” referred to the relevant TSG. Appendix 23 at 15. For
`
`example, “R” was used for TSG RAN. Appendix 23 at 15. Likewise, “m” referred
`
`to the relevant Working Group. Appendix 23 at 15. A document for RAN WG1
`
`would therefore begin with “R1,” and a document for the TSG RAN plenary would
`
`use the letter “P” instead of a number. Appendix 23 at 15. The two digits “nn”
`
`represented the year (e.g., 99), and the digits “zzz” represented the unique document
`
`number. Appendix 23 at 15–16; Appendix 17 at 25 (a book explaining the TDoc
`
`naming convention). This document number was used as the TDoc’s filename.
`
`Appendix 23 at 15. Documents could be compressed to “.zip” files, such that a
`
`document titled, for example, “R1-99357” would be contained in the file “R1-
`
`
`
`5 Some documents other than technical contributions (such as meeting reports)
`
`were also assigned TDoc numbers, for ease of reference.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`99357.zip.” This general naming convention has been in use since at least 1999 with
`
`only minor variations6. Appendix 23 at 15–16 (3GPP Working Procedures, 1999).
`
`35. Each TDoc would include in its header the meeting at which the
`
`contributor intended the TDoc to be discussed. Most TDocs were uploaded to the
`
`3GPP website for public viewing prior to the relevant Working Group meeting listed
`
`on the TDoc, although some TDocs were uploaded during or after the meeting.
`
`Appendix 12 at 9. Specifically, “TDoc numbers start to be allocated some weeks
`
`before a 3GPP meeting, and the authors then create [the TDocs] and they or the
`
`group’s secretary uploads them to the public file server as soon as possible.”
`
`Appendix 12 at 9. The documents were uploaded to the public file repository in an
`
`area allocated to the particular Working Group. Appendix 7 (RAN WG2 Homepage
`
`with link to WG2’s “Documents Area”). Immediately upon upload, any member of
`
`the public could download and access the TDocs and other documents offered for
`
`discussion. “No password is needed to access any information on the 3GPP Web
`
`site, all information is openly published.” Appendix 12 at 8. The process discussed
`
`
`
`6 E.g. due to the number of TDocs handled by 3GPP Working Groups, the number
`
`of “z” digits was increased to four from the beginning of 2000, and in some Working
`
`Groups starting from 2016 to five.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,189,611
`in this paragraph has been the practice since I began attending Working Group
`
`meetings in 1999.
`
`ii. Technical Specifications
`
`36. As I noted in paragraphs 20 and 22, a primary purpose of 3GPP is to
`
`prepare, approve, and maintain globally applicable Technical Specifications and
`
`Technical Reports. Appendix 23 at 6 (3GPP Working Procedures, “Purpose”). A
`
`“Technical Specification,” as defined by 3GPP, is “[a] 3GPP output document
`
`containing normative provisions approved by a Technical Specification Group.”
`
`Appendix 23 at 21. 3GPP would (and still does) periodically freeze a complete set
`
`of standards (referred to as a “Release” 7), and each set would include many new
`
`specifications. Appendix 17 at 14. 3GPP would also make publicly availabl