UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`
`)
`)
`) Patent No.
`) 10,621,228
`Patent Owner. )
`
` The highly confidential video teleconference
`deposition of KEVIN JAKEL, called for examination,
`taken pursuant to the provisions of the Code of
`Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court
`of the State of Illinois pertaining to the taking of
`depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken
`before KAREN PILEGGI, a Notary Public within and for
`the County of DuPage, State of Illinois, and a
`Certified Realtime Reporter of said state, at
`Chicago, Illinois, May 26, 2022, at the approximate
`hour of 9:43 a.m.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 1 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`
`)
`)
`) Patent No.
`) 10,621,228
`Patent Owner. )
`
` The highly confidential video teleconference
`deposition of KEVIN JAKEL, called for examination,
`taken pursuant to the provisions of the Code of
`Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court
`of the State of Illinois pertaining to the taking of
`depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken
`before KAREN PILEGGI, a Notary Public within and for
`the County of DuPage, State of Illinois, and a
`Certified Realtime Reporter of said state, at
`Chicago, Illinois, May 26, 2022, at the approximate
`hour of 9:43 a.m.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 1 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`PRESENT:
` UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
` 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 600,
` Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815,
`925-434-8754, by:
` MS. MICHELLE ASPEN,
` michelle@unifiedpatents.com,
` MR. ELLYAR BARAZESH,
` ellyar@unifiedpatents.com,
`appeared on behalf of the Petitioner;
`
` NIXON PEABODY, LLP,
` 70 West Madison Street, Suite 5200,
` Chicago, Illinois 60602,
`312-977-4458, by:
` MR. MATTHEW A. WERBER,
` mwerber@nixonpeabody.com,
` MS. JENNIFER HAYES,
` jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com,
`appeared on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`ALSO PRESENT: Brendan O'Callaghan
`
`REPORTED BY: Karen Pileggi, CSR, RPR, RMR, CRR,
`CSR License No. 84-3404
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 2 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 3
` MR. WERBER: We are on the record and we have
`agreement among parties that the witness can be
`sworn in remotely.
` MS. ASPEN: That's correct. Yes.
`(WHEREUPON, the witness was
`duly sworn.)
`KEVIN JAKEL,
`called as the witness herein, having been first duly
`sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`Mr. Jakel, first of all, did I pronounce
`your last name correctly?
`A.
`It's Jakel, but you're in good company.
`Q.
`I'm a Weber to 95 percent of the world
`instead of a Werber.
`Can you please state and spell your full
`name for the record, Mr. Jakel.
`A.
`My name is Kevin Jakel. Kevin,
`K-e-v-i-n. Jakel, J-a-k-e-l.
`Q.
`Where are you physically located today,
`Mr. Jakel?
`A.
`Q.
`
`I am in Washington, D.C.
`Just for the record, we are doing this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 3 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 4
`remotely. You do have, presumably, a laptop open so
`we can conduct the Zoom session, right?
`A.
`I do.
`Q.
`We discussed off the record we are using
`the Agile platform in case there are new exhibits to
`be introduced. You have that available to you too?
`A.
`Correct.
`Q.
`Just to confirm, we trust that your
`e-mail communications are closed down at the moment
`today while you're under oath?
`A.
`Yes. I can officially hit the little X
`button on my e-mail. There, the e-mail is
`officially closed down.
`Q.
`At the moment the applications you're
`running are Zoom and then a view into that Agile
`page, correct?
`A.
`Correct.
`Q.
`Nothing else?
`A.
`Nothing else.
`Q.
`I do understand you may have paper copies
`of some of the documents in this case with you; is
`that right?
`A.
`Yes, I have a binder of documents
`provided by counsel.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 4 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 5
`It's possible you might have some exhibit
`Q.
`tabs so you know where to find the particular
`document, right?
`A.
`They are tabbed, otherwise I believe they
`are just printouts of documents.
`Q.
`Clean copies, then, correct?
`A.
`Correct.
`Q.
`Besides your binder with some of the
`papers and filings in this case, do you have
`anything else accessible to you in the room?
`A.
`There's nothing else in the room.
`Q.
`I'm not sure if you have it in front of
`you, but we just did a practice run and I will show
`you, then, on Agile, we had a notice of deposition
`of Kevin Jakel. Do you see that?
`A.
`Do you want me to switch over to Agile?
`Q.
`If you have it handy. I'm agnostic as to
`how you see it.
`A.
`I'm looking at it right now. I'm going
`to switch back and forth between the Chrome browser,
`which has Agile in it, and Zoom.
`Q.
`Just a couple questions about this. You
`do recognize this deposition notice?
`A.
`I believe so, yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 5 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`I understand you are an attorney,
`
`Q.
`correct?
`I am.
`A.
`You've been a part of a few depositions
`Q.
`before, right?
`A.
`I have.
`Q.
`On both sides?
`A.
`I have, yes.
`Q.
`Just a couple formalities that you're
`probably quite familiar with. This is a deposition
`notice asking you to appear and testify under oath
`in relation to the matter captioned here?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`You understand you're here to provide
`truthful and accurate answers in response to my
`questions?
`I do.
`A.
`Is there anything that you can think of
`Q.
`that may prevent you from hearing and understanding
`my questions today?
`A.
`I don't believe so.
`Q.
`Anything that might prevent you from
`testifying truthfully that you want to tell us about
`right now?
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 6 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`No.
`A.
`Counsel is present on this Zoom session
`Q.
`and, for the record, do you understand which
`attorney is here defending your deposition?
`A.
`I do.
`Q.
`Could you tell us -- is that Ms. Aspen?
`A.
`It is, yes.
`Q.
`What, if anything, did you do to prepare
`for today's deposition?
` MS. ASPEN: I counsel the witness not to answer
`to the extent this involves privileged information.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`We just spoke about this case, in
`general, yesterday in preparation for today's
`deposition.
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`So you spent time -- and, again, I'm not
`asking you to reveal the details of any, you know,
`attorney-client discussions, but you spoke yesterday
`and was that with the Unified attorneys on the
`record here today?
`A.
`Yes, it was.
`Q.
`That includes Ms. Aspen?
`A.
`It does.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 7 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`That includes Mr. Barazesh?
`Q.
`It does.
`A.
`Anybody else?
`Q.
`We had another attorney that was on the
`A.
`call too, Roshan Mansinghani.
`Q.
`You mentioned spending time yesterday
`preparing and you mentioned the three attorneys.
`Did you do anything else to prepare for
`today's deposition besides the time spent yesterday
`with those attorneys?
`A.
`Not that I can recall.
`Q.
`Was that in person or over the phone or
`remote?
`It was remote.
`A.
`It was remote?
`Q.
`It was.
`A.
`I understand you have been deposed many
`Q.
`times before; is that right?
`A.
`I don't know the exact number, but I've
`been deposed many times.
`Q.
`Two more questions, actually, to
`backtrack. Have you discussed this deposition with
`any Apple employees or Apple attorneys?
`A.
`I have not.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 8 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 9
`Have you discussed this deposition with
`Q.
`any Samsung employees or Samsung attorneys?
`A.
`I have not.
`Q.
`Have you discussed this case with any
`Samsung employees or Samsung attorneys?
`A.
`We have not discussed this case with
`Samsung attorneys.
`Q.
`Have you discussed this case with any
`Samsung -- I'm referring to verbal conversations.
`Have you discussed this case, and by that
`I mean this PTAB proceeding, with any Samsung
`employees?
` MS. ASPEN: Objection. Asked and answered.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`We have not discussed this case with
`anyone from Samsung or Apple.
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`The reason I went back and asked that,
`you started with just saying employees in your
`answer -- attorneys. I wanted to make sure that
`included others within Apple or Samsung.
`Just to confirm, whether it's employees
`or attorneys, it's your testimony that you have not
`discussed this PTAB proceeding with anybody from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 9 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Apple or Samsung, correct?
`A.
`That's right. We produced e-mail
`communication with Samsung.
`
`Page 10
`
` We have not talked to
`anyone at either company about this proceeding.
`Q.
`I'm not sure we need to mark it as an
`exhibit, but I did review your LinkedIn profile and
`I wanted to go through a few basics.
`It looks to me that in or around 1997
`after you finished with your mechanical engineering
`degree, presumably, you worked as an engineer at
`Northrop Grumman; is that right?
`A.
`I did. It was TRW at the time but now
`it's Northrop Grumman.
`Q.
`It looks like that ended in the year
`2000?
`That sounds about right.
`A.
`It appears that you became a patent
`Q.
`examiner around that time frame, between 2000 and
`2002?
`Yes.
`A.
`Did you finish -- I also understand that
`Q.
`you received your JD from George Washington
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 10 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 11
`University. Can you recall for us, approximately,
`when you received your -- you completed law school?
`A.
`2004.
`Q.
`You were a patent examiner without a law
`degree, but you were practicing as a patent
`examiner, right?
`A.
`I was -- most patent examiners are not
`lawyers. The vast, vast majority of them are not
`lawyers. So the answer to that, I think, is yes.
`Q.
`Then it appears that you finished your
`law degree and you practiced at Howrey for a period
`of time; is that right?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`You focused on prosecution and
`litigation?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`Then you continued in private practice
`with Kaye Scholer; is that right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Until, approximately, November 2009?
`A.
`That sounds about right.
`Q.
`Then you went to Intuit and you were
`working in house?
`A.
`I did.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 11 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 12
`And then it appears that in 2012 Unified
`Q.
`Patents was launched by you?
`A.
`Correct.
`Q.
`Why did you launch Unified Patents?
`A.
`So my experience at Intuit and as a
`litigator and even as a patent prosecution attorney,
`and even going back to being an examiner, I guess my
`time at Intuit showed me that there were lots and
`lots of NPE litigation that I was taking care of and
`responsible for as an attorney at Intuit.
`I basically felt like joint defense
`groups at the time were wildly inefficient and very,
`like, nothing could honestly get done.
`The other thing that I noticed when I was
`there was that Intuit was getting sued along with a
`bunch of other companies that all cared about the
`same set of technologies.
`And then in addition to that, I also --
`Intuit participated in RPX and did a licensing deal
`with RPX and then there was a bunch of additional
`litigation that Intuit saw from kind of the same
`attorneys and things at the time that were related
`to the RPX activity.
`So you kind of add all of my experiences
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 12 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 13
`up at the time, and I decided that I thought it made
`sense to create a company that would work on behalf
`of technology areas to try and deter NPEs from
`thinking that those technology areas were good
`places to buy patents and try to monetize those
`patents.
`
`So I went through a process of launching
`Unified Patents to try and do that deterrence work
`on behalf of these technology areas. They were
`originally called micro-pools, which was my idea for
`the name, and then I think we generalized the term a
`little bit to avoid confusion and eventually started
`calling them zones.
`That's a reasonable summary of the
`process that I kind of went through at the time for
`launching Unified Patents.
`Q.
`You said you were at Intuit between --
`around the 2009 through mid-2012 time frame,
`correct?
`Yes.
`A.
`During your time with Intuit, you
`Q.
`interfaced with RPX?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`What type of relationship -- sorry.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 13 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 14
`Did Intuit and RPX form a relationship
`during your time there?
` MS. ASPEN: Objection to form. Relevance.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`I guess "form a relationship," I don't
`know, really, what that means, but I think, in
`general, Intuit became, I think, what they referred
`to as a member or --
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`You sign an agreement and you are a
`participant in the RPX business model.
`Q.
`Did Intuit become a member while you
`were -- withdraw.
`Did Intuit become an RPX member while you
`were at Intuit?
` MS. ASPEN: Same objection. Can I have a
`standing objection for this line of questioning as
`to relevance?
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`Yes, Intuit became a member while I was
`at Intuit.
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`Were you among the decision-makers that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 14 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 15
`determined whether or not it made business sense for
`Intuit to become an RPX member?
`A.
`I was one of the attorneys in the IP
`department that was part of the decision-making
`process for joining RPX and Intuit.
`Q.
`Did you perceive that Intuit would
`receive any benefits from becoming an RPX member?
`A.
`I don't know that I would say it like
`that. I don't know that I can give the details of
`this without exposing privileged information.
`I was an attorney working at Intuit doing
`legal work, so I don't think I can discuss any of
`the specifics of the legal decisions that Intuit
`made at the time without waiving privilege.
`Q.
`Let me ask you this as a general premise.
`Was Intuit, at least to your -- at a high level was
`Intuit satisfied with being a member of RPX?
` MS. ASPEN: Objection to form and still to
`relevance.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`I don't know that I can answer that
`without waiving privilege either as to whether or
`not Intuit was happy or satisfied with its
`membership in RPX.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 15 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`When I asked you about -- let me back up
`for a moment.
`You are a founder of Unified Patents,
`
`right?
`I am, yes.
`A.
`Are you the only founder?
`Q.
`Probably not in a -- I founded the
`A.
`company. There was -- after running the company for
`a few years -- not a few years, a few months, I had
`a gentleman named Brian Hinman who joined me for, I
`think he was with the company for about nine months.
`At the time we called him a cofounder
`even though we didn't really start the company
`together. He left Unified and went to Phillips and
`at that time Shawn Ambwani joined Unified, kind of
`replaced Brian Hinman and we, basically, then called
`Shawn a founder even though -- again, Shawn didn't
`really -- wasn't really there strictly at the
`beginning, but we have called him a founder over
`time as well.
`Q.
`It sounds to me like in the early days
`the primary work in deciding to launch Unified came
`from you, right?
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 16 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Correct. Yes.
`A.
`When I asked you why you formed Unified,
`Q.
`you did bring up RPX, your experience with RPX at
`Intuit, right?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`Did your experience at Intuit bear any
`relationship to your decision to launch Unified?
`A.
`Yes. I did not think -- this is my
`personal opinion and not related to any specific
`things that would waive privilege related to Intuit,
`but my opinion was that RPX was settling litigations
`on behalf of a group of companies and in doing so
`NPEs were making money and as a result of that they
`were incentivized to go buy more patents and sue
`companies again and that RPX was -- you know, was
`kind of a synergistic part of a larger ecosystem
`related to NPE activity.
`Q.
`Did you believe that you could provide
`services with Unified that differed from that when
`you elected to launch Unified?
`A.
`Yeah. My version of what Unified would
`be was intended from the beginning to be a
`completely different beast, completely different
`thing than RPX.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 17 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`In what ways?
`Q.
`In lots of ways. Not going to ever buy
`A.
`licenses. We're never going to try and solve the
`specific litigation for companies, to not be
`attorneys kind of -- we don't work on behalf of
`companies. We work on behalf of zones and the idea
`was to do deterrence from the beginning, not to try
`to solve litigation.
`I've said this many times. I do not
`believe and do not consider us to be a litigation
`solution and so we -- we're not attorneys working on
`behalf of companies. We don't consider ourselves to
`be working underneath any attorney-client privilege
`at any of the companies that are members of ours, as
`opposed to RPX, they do have conversations with
`attorneys that they consider to be attorney-client
`privileged communications and all that stuff.
`I wanted to have a company that was
`independent and could go out and do whatever it
`wanted and could work to create deterrence on behalf
`of key technology areas.
`So my concept for this was to be very
`different than what RPX was doing. RPX doesn't
`really have zones or anything. Everyone just joins
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 18 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`as a member and then they basically -- they buy
`patents off the secondary market. That's one thing
`that they do, and if you're a member at the time,
`you get licenses to that.
`The other thing they do is they buy
`licenses to patents that are being currently used in
`litigation. Buying licenses to patents in
`litigation, in particular, I think just incentivizes
`more litigation.
`This was -- for lots of reasons. There's
`probably more that I'm not thinking of, as well. I
`intended Unified to be a very different kind of
`animal.
`We've seen in the declaration that
`Q.
`Unified has a number of Unified members, right?
`A.
`We have members in Unified Patents that
`belong to specific zones.
`Q.
`Does every member belong to a zone?
`A.
`Every member belongs to a zone, yes.
`Q.
`Some might belong to more than one zone?
`A.
`Correct.
`Q.
`Has Unified ever asserted common interest
`privilege in relation to a discovery request that
`concerns one of its members?
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 19 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` MS. ASPEN: Counsel, as we get into a more
`specific line of questioning about the structure of
`Unified Patents, I'd like to take a moment to mark
`the entire transcript highly confidential,
`attorneys' eyes only.
`You can answer, Kevin.
` MR. WERBER: Yeah. No objection.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`We have
`
` -- I can't remember exactly
`what you said. It doesn't matter what it's related
`to. We've
`
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`To your recollection, have any of your
`members
`
`?
`Not to my knowledge.
`A.
`I have another small topic and then I
`Q.
`might need a quick break for tea for my voice.
`There was a brief document production or
`a small document production of 12 documents. Did
`you assist with the search for documents that
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 20 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 21
`resulted in the production of documents, roughly,
`last week?
`I actually did the search personally.
`A.
`You said you did the search personally.
`Q.
`Did any other Unified attorneys or employees assist
`you in doing the search?
`A.
`I don't know what you mean by "assist."
`There was key words and information that was worked
`on collaboratively with everyone and then those key
`words and searches were done by me across all the
`custodians in the company.
`Q.
`By you, you said, across the custodians
`in the company?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`So it was not just Mr. Jakel's inbox that
`was searched, but it would have been the custodial
`e-mails of other potentially relevant custodians at
`your company also, right?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`To your recollection, were there any hits
`on responsive e-mails that were not produced?
`A.
`There were, I guess, hundreds of
`responsive e-mails that were not produced because
`the key words show up on internal e-mails that are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 21 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`privileged among all of the company.
`So yes, there was lots of communications,
`but all of those communications that were responsive
`hits that were external to the company, my
`understanding is we produced those documents that
`were responsive to your request. Those were all
`produced.
`Just to confirm, if it was an e-mail
`Q.
`between you and an in-house attorney and it did not
`involve anybody from the outside world, you withhold
`that on the basis of privilege, correct?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`But if it was a hit that happened to
`involve somebody from Apple or Samsung, for example,
`you would produce those and that was the 12 -- that
`set is the 12 that you guys -- documents that you,
`ultimately, produced, right?
`A.
`Every document that was responsive to the
`document request was produced, yes.
`Q.
`In this proceeding, and I believe it was
`submitted with your second declaration, Unified
`produced and filed copies of a Samsung membership
`agreement. Does that sound familiar?
`A.
`Correct. Yes.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 22 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`And then also an Apple membership
`
`Q.
`agreement?
`I believe that's true. Yep.
`A.
`We'll walk through those sometime a
`Q.
`little bit later today.
`To your recollection, were there any
`other agreements or contracts between Unified and
`Apple that you have not produced and, of course,
`that's excluding the membership agreement that you
`already have produced?
`A.
`With respect to Unified Patents? With
`respect to Unified Patents, we have produced not
`only the membership agreements
` with respect to Unified
`Patents. We have produced those, is my
`understanding.
`Q.
`The same with regard to Samsung. To your
`recollection, what was produced with your second
`declaration that comprised the entirety of
`agreements with Samsung?
`A.
`Yes. For Unified Patents,
`
`.
`For Unified Patents, we have produced all
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 23 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 24
`of the membership agreements between Unified Patents
`and Samsung.
` MR. WERBER: Thank you.
`If it's okay, we'll just take a quick
`break. Is ten minutes okay?
` MS. ASPEN: That's fine with me.
`Kevin, is that fine?
` THE WITNESS: Ten minutes is fine.
` MR. WERBER: We'll call it 10:25 Central.
`(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
`
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`We are going to continue to talk about
`Unified, in general. Can you tell me who the
`current owners of Unified are.
`A.
`Current owners of Unified, we have a
`private equity investor of Unified called Westview
`Partners out of Boston.
`Q.
`Can you say that again.
`A.
`Westview Partners.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 24 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 25
`You mentioned Shawn Ambwani. Is that how
`Q.
`you pronounce it, again?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Is he an employee of Unified today?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`I have looked at some of your court
`filings. There is -- I have seen a couple entities
`or holding companies mentioned, like UP Hold Co,
`Inc. Does that sound familiar, at all? Or that
`might be dated.
`A.
`Forgive me if I get this wrong because
`all these entities were created at the time we took
`an investment from the private equity group,
`Westview, so it's all tax driven, the structure.
`
`.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 25 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`.
`
`When did Westview invest in Unified?
`Q.
`At the very end of 2019.
`A.
`Did Westview -- do you recall what the
`Q.
`size of the investment was?
`A.
`They are right around
`ownership.
` Q.
`A.
`Yeah.
`Unified.
`Q.
`Withdraw.
`
`Does Westview have -- just one moment.
`
` ownership in
`
`Does Westview -- strike that.
`Does Westview work with Unified in making
`business decisions about the company?
` MS. ASPEN: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A.
`
`1 2 3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 26 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 27 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`in that ballpark.
`Q.
`How many of those employees are
`attorneys?
`I don't have an exact count. My guess is
`A.
`maybe slightly over 50 percent is my guess.
`Q.
`Do you have a
` MS. ASPEN: Object to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`Not exactly. I mean, we have a budget
`
`?
`
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`Do you send -- and I could have asked a
`better question. Do you send work to outside
`counsel?
`Yes. Some of the work we do is done with
`A.
`outside counsel and some of it is done in house.
`Q.
`Do you use -- have you used outside
`counsel to help with IPR or PGR filings?
`A.
`We have.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 28 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 29
`Have you used outside counsel to help
`Q.
`with prior art searching?
`A.
`My guess is almost certainly, over the
`years.
`Let me go back to something you said.
`Q.
`Sometimes you do send work to outside counsel. Is
`it fair to say you do so if there is more work than
`you have in-house counsel to finish it?
` MS. ASPEN: Object to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A.
`So the specifics of this, I think,
`honestly, touch on privileged information so the
`selection of counsel for any given action we take
`depends on a whole bunch of different things and
`many of that decision-making matrix would be
`privileged information, but -- so lots of different
`reasons would go into the selection of counsel for
`any given matter.
`BY MR. WERBER:
`Q.
`You may have said this before, but I want
`to -- forgive me if you reminded me. Do you have an
`approximate count of the number of members Unified
`currently has?
`A.
`So we have both free members, we also
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1031
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 29 of 179
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2055
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Page 30
`have paid members, and we also have members who come
`in through a couple kind of trade associations that
`we have as well.
`In the total number, we know that it's a
`really, really big number, 3,000 plus. We have
`companies who joined Unified as paid members.
`Off the top of my head, I don't know how
`many that is right this moment, but -- and then we
`also have a group of companies that make less than
`20 million in revenue and those companies get to
`participate for free.
`We have a bunch of different kind of
`categories of companies and all of them are members.
`Q.
`But you said the total is north of 3,000?
`A.
`That's right. Those are -- this is
`members across all zones, not necessarily any one
`zone.
`Yeah.
`Q.
`We have OIN members that are members that
`A.
`get into Unified and OIN members have -- there's a
`lot of very small companies that are involved in
`open source and they are all participants in our
`zones as well.
`Q.
`You just said the letter O-I and N?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2036
`Unifi
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
