MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`Page 1
`
`Page 3
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`2 (All parties appearing remotely.)
`3 For Petitioner Samsung:
`4 BY: CHRISTOPHER O. GREEN, ESQ.
` FISH & RICHARDSON LLP
`5 1180 Peachtree Street NE
` 21st Floor
`6 Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` 404.724.2777
`7 cgreen@fr.com
`8 -and-
`9 BY: HYUN JIN IN, ESQ.
` FISH & RICHARDSON LLP
`10 1000 Maine Avenue SW
` Washington, D.C. 20024
`11 202.626.7765
` in@fr.com
`12
` -and-
`13 BY: JONG KYU CHOI, ESQ.
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`14 Samsung Electronics US R&D Center
` 665 Clyde Avenue
`15 Suite 402
` Mountain View, California 94043
`16 408.529.3122
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`3 4
`
` APPLE INC.,
`5 Petitioner,
`6 IPR2022-00031
` vs. U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`
` MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`
`7
`
`8
`
` Patent Owner.
`9 __________________________________
`10 -AND-
` __________________________________
`11
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. ET AL.
`12
` Petitioner,
`13
` IPR2022-00222
`14 vs. U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`15 MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`16 Patent Owner.
` __________________________________
`17
`18 - HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY -
`19 DEPOSITION REMOTELY TAKEN VIA ZOOM CONFERENCE OF
`20 KEVIN JAKEL
`21 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
`22
`23 Stenographically Reported by:
` Linda E. Marquette
`24 RPR, CLR, CA CSR No. 11874
`25 Job No. 10126423
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`2 (All parties appearing remotely.)
`3 For Petitioner Apple Inc.:
`4 BY: JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQ.
` BY: MATTHEW MAHONEY, ESQ.
`5 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
`6 Washington, D.C. 20005
` 202.736.8914
`7 jkushan@sidley.com
` mmahoney@sidley.com
`
`8
`
` -and-
`9 BY: J. STEVEN BAUGHMAN, ESQ.
` GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN & STONE LLP
`10 801 17th Street NW
` Suite 1050
`11 Washington, D.C. 20006
` 202.505.5832
`12 steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
` -and-
`13 BY: JEFF QUILICI, ESQ.
` ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`14 300 West 6th Street
` Suite 1850
`15 Austin, Texas 78701
` 512.582.6916
`16 jquilici@orrick.com
` -and-
`17 BY: RAISA NOOR AHMAD, ESQ.
` APPLE INC.
`18 9455 Towne Centre Drive
` 3039-2SD
`19 San Diego, California 92121
` 602.785.7722
`20 602.758.7722 fax
` -and-
`21 BY: LEIF E. PETERSON, II, ESQ.
` SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`22 One South Dearborn
` Chicago, Illinois 60603
`23 312.853.7190
` leif.peterson@sidley.com
`24
`25
`
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`3 4
`
` APPLE INC.,
`5 Petitioner,
`6 IPR2022-00031
` vs. U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`
` MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`
`7
`
`8
`
` Patent Owner.
`9 __________________________________
`10 -AND-
` __________________________________
`11
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. ET AL.
`12
` Petitioner,
`13
` IPR2022-00222
`14 vs. U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`15 MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`16 Patent Owner.
` __________________________________
`17 - HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY -
`18 DEPOSITION REMOTELY TAKEN VIA ZOOM CONFERENCE OF
`19 KEVIN JAKEL, taken on behalf of Patent Owner, with
`20 everyone appearing at their remote addresses, and the
`21 witness appearing at Chevy Chase, Maryland, commencing
`22 at 9:25 a.m. (EST), and concluding at 6:48 p.m., (EST)
`23 on Thursday, September 7, 2023, before Linda E.
`24 Marquette, RPR, CLR, CA Certified Shorthand Reporter
`25 No. 11874.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`
`Page 5
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`NO.
`Exhibit APPLE EX2073/SAMSUNG EX2067
`
`PAGE
`55
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`(All parties appearing remotely.)
`For: Unified Patents, LLC:
`BY:
`ROSHAN MANSINGHANI, ESQ.
`BY: MICHELLE ASPEN, ESQ.
`BY:
`.J. MURPHY, ESQ.
`UNIFIED PATENTS LLC
`4445 Willard Avenue
`.
`Suite 600
`Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815
`925.434.8754
`roshanéunifiedpatents.com
`michelle@unifiedpatents.com
`
`For Patent Owner MemoryWeb, LLC:
`BY: MATTHEW WERBER, ESQ.
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue
`-
`Suite 4100
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`213.629.6170
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`
`—and-
`
`PETER KRUSIEWICZ, ESQ.
`BY:
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`70 West Madison Street
`Chicago, Illinois
`60602
`312.977.4473
`pkrusiewicz@nixonpeabody.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`Chris Landrum, Zoom Host
`Ryan Asanas, Zoom Host
`
`WITNESS:
`KEVIN JAKEL
`
`INDEX
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`ll
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`4
`5
`
`Bates UNIFIED_500032 to 500047
`Exhibit APPLE EX2074/SAMSUNG EX2068
`
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`
`|. Dates UNIFIED_000001
`Exhibit APPLE EX2075/SAMSUNG EX2069
`List of email address; Bates
`UNIFIED000003 to 000005
`Exhibit APPLE EX2076/SAMSUNG EX2070
`Unified Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent 10,621,228 (104 pages)
`Exhibit APPLE EX2077/SAMSUNG EX2071
`Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Jakelj;
`Bates UNIFIED500001 to 500013
`‘Exhibit APPLE EX2078/SAMSUNG EX2072
`Unified Patents News Update "“MemoryWeb
`Patent Likely Invalid; Bates
`UNIFIED_000002
`_
`Exhibit APPLE EX2079/SAMSUNG EX 2073
`List of email addresses; Bates
`UNIFIED000006 to 000008
`Exhibit APPLE EX2080/SAMSUNG EX2074
`Order Identifying Real
`Party-in-Interest; Bates UNIFIED_500479
`to 500513
`Exhibit APPLE EX2081/SAMSUNG EX2075
`pe
`a ee © Bates
`APL-MW228_00000210
`22
`Exhibit APPLE EX2082/SAMSUNG EX2076
`Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices
`(4 pages)
`
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
`PAGE
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`EXHIBITS CONTINUED
`DESCRIPTION
`NO.
`Exhibit APPLE EX2083/SAMSUNG EX2077
`
`7 Bates
`
`EXAMINATION BY MR. WERBER 12 iEXAMINATION BY MR. KUSHAN
`
`i
`137
`EXAMINATION BY MR. GREEN
`179
`:
`UNIFIED_000009 to 000047
`eURWHEREen TNAWTONBYMRWERBER
`ote
`‘
`Exhibit APPLE EX2084/SAMSUNG EX2078
`7
`UNIFIED000049
`8
`Exhibit APPLE EX2085/SAMSUNG EX2079
`
`FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. MANSINGHANI
`
`NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`245
`
`PAGE
`
`22
`
`; Bates APL-MW22800000083
`
`10
`Exhibit APPLE EX2068/SAMSUNG EX2062
`i
`Transcript of Kevin Jakel from May 26,
`11
`2022; Bates UNIFIED_500104 to 500282
`10
`12
`Exhibit APPLE ExX2065
`25
`Exhibit APPLE EX2086/SAMSUNG EX2080
`127
`
`Screenshot "Success at Challenging Bad il|re
`Patents” (3 pages)
`13
`7 Bates
`Exhibit APPLE EX2069/SAMSUNG EX2063
`14
`35
`12
`__ APL-MW228—-00000165
`a 13
`Exhibit APPLE EX2087/SAMSUNG EX2081
`130
`Bates UNIFIED500014 to 500031
`1
`Top 20 Petitioners (3 pages)
`15
`42
`16
`Exhibit APPLE EX2070/SAMSUNG EX2064
`Exhibit APPLE EX2088/SAMSUNG EX2082
`po 15
`- ee aS
`Es Bates
`16
`00000194
`18
`APL-MW228_00000040 with attachments to
`17
`Exhibit APPLE Ex1094
`APL-MW228_00000071
`Declaration of Kevin Jakel
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`18
`
`Exhibit APPLE Ex1095
`
`(7 pages)
`
`49
`Exhibit APPLE EX2071/SAMSUNG EX2065
`a 18
`. ee
`= EE 22¢2:
`APL-MW22800000072
`22
`Exhibit APPLE EX2072/SAMSUNG EX2066
`
`} Bates APLmwl26_Sgouerel to
`20
`sieeee?
`21
`Exhibit APPLE Ex1096
`ee
`| es*°
`
`so
`
`~
`po 23
`pO Exhibit APPLE EX1097
`
`0
`
`= ee 24Teppommanayrecono EEE|SY Bates APL-MW22800000019 to
`
`00077
`to
`APL-MW228
`25
`00000037
`25
`
`
`emoryWebEx.2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`58
`
`59
`
`64
`
`66
`
`67
`
`67
`
`70
`
`73
`
`80
`
`Page 8
`PAGE
`94
`
`94
`
`122
`
`133
`
`137
`
`148
`
`149
`
`154
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

` 1
`
`EXHIBITS CONTINUED
`DESCRIPTION
`NO.
`Exhibit APPLE Ex1098
`
`2
`3
`
`7 Bates
`APL-MW22800000079
`Exhibit APPLE Ex1099
`
`4
`5
`
`1 EE
`APL-MW22800000166
`
`Exhibit APPLE Ex1100
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`w
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`Bates APL-MW22800000193
`
`to 00000194
`Exhibit MEMORYWEB EX2052
`Weekly Newsletter regarding petition
`filing (2 pages)
`Exhibit MEMORYWEB EX2053
`Summary Report for UP_Newsletter_Sept9
`
`Exhibit APPLE ExX2089
`
`WENN Betes UNIFIED000048
`Exhibit APPLE EX2090
`
`ee
`Bates UNIFIED_000050 to 000052
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`DESCRIPTION
`NO.
`Exhibit APPLE ExX2058
`Article titled "3 Questions for Unified
`Patents CEO Post-Oil States (Part II)
`(3 pages)
`
`Page 9
`PAGE
`155
`
`ASe©Monoannkon=
`
`171
`
`220
`
`221
`
`PAGE
`
`—-oonkWM
`
`— oO
`_ ~
`
`—_-oOo©
`
`SRS
`
`Page 11
`
`Austin on behalf of Apple.
`With meare Leif Peterson and Matt Mahoney
`from Sidley and Steve Baughman from Groombridge.
`Wealso have Raisa Ahmad from Apple and
`Jeff Quilici from Apple.
`MR. GREEN: Good morning. My name is
`Christopher Green.
`I'm with Fish & Richardson and
`I'm appearing today on behalf of Samsung.
`With me today is my colleague HyunJin In
`andalso appearing at the deposition is Samsung
`in-house counsel, Jong Choi.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Good morning. This is
`Roshan Mansinghani appearing on behalf of Unified
`Patents.
`
`With me as well are Michelle Aspen and
`T.J. Murphyalso from Unified Patents.
`COURT REPORTER:Is that everyone?
`(No response.)
`COURT REPORTER:Doall counselagreethat
`| may swearin the witness remotely?
`MR. WERBER:Agreed.
`MR. KUSHAN: Yes.
`
`/i/
`
`/i/
`/I/
`
`
`Page 10
`DEPOSITION REMOTELY TAKEN VIA ZOOM CONFERENCE
`
`T URSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
`
`9:25 A.M. (EST) to 6:48 P_M.(EST)
`
`KEVIN JAKEL,
`having beenfirst duly administered an oath
`remotely, was examined andtestified as follows:
`
`Page 12
`
`COURT REPORTER: Okay. Weare now on the
`record. Todays date s Thursday, September7,
`2023, and the tme s 9:25 a.m. Eastern.
`
`COURT REPORTER: Counsel may begin.
`
`EXAMINATION
`
`Ths s the remote depos ton of Kevn
`
`BY MR. WERBER:
`
`Jake va Zoom v deoconference be ng taken n the
`matter of App e vs MemoryWeb IPR2022-00031 and
`
`Samsung vs MemoryWeb IPR2022-00222.
`
`The wtness s appear ng remote y from
`
`Chevy Chase, Mary and.
`It s mperat ve that everyone speak s ow y,
`= on ceary, and one atatme. Over app ng speakers are
`not d scern b e over Zoom and cannotbe reported.
`
`Q. Yeah. Good morning. Could you please
`state and spell yourfull name for the record and
`remind meof the pronunciation of your last name?
`A. Sure. Kevin Jakel. First nameis
`
`K-E-V-I-N. Last nameis Jakel, J-A-K-E-L.
`like Jake with an L at the end.
`
`It's
`
`Q. Thank you. And a momentagoyoustated to
`the court reporter that youarein, is it Chevy
`Chase, Maryland?
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Okay. During the break -- or before we
`started you should see on the Zoom chat two
`deposition notices. Let me knowif you're able to
`download them.
`
`My name s Lnda Marquette, appear ng for
`Aptus Court Report ng, ocated at 401 West A Street,
`
`Su te 1680, San D ego, Ca forna.
`
`W counse pease dent fy yourse ves
`and anyonew th you, and state whom you represent,
`
`start ng w th the tak ng attorney.
`
`MR. WERBER: Matt Werber of N xon Peabody
`
`here on beha f of MemoryWeb,patent owner.
`
`©OANDOOfFwWNH
`—-oeeooe-OM+CO
`B®Sears
`
`NMMNao&Ww
`
`| have -- | was able to
`A. Allright.
`downloadthefirst one for Apple. Do you want meto
`downloadboth of them?
`MR.KUS AN: Jeff Kushan from Sd ey
`
`
`emoryWebEx.2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`1 Q. Sure.
`2 A. Okay.
`3 Q. So at the witness's request parties from
`4 two different IPRs are participating at this
`5 deposition. You'll notice that this Apple notice
`6 corresponds to IPR 2022-00031 where Apple has
`7 challenged the claims of the '228 patent for today.
`8 Could we call that the "Apple IPR" for short?
`9 A. Sure.
`10 Q. Okay. Take your time.
`11 A. Yeah, that's fine.
`12 Q. Yeah. So again, you'll see a case
`13 captioned with Apple and I want to refer to that,
`14 you know, for shorthand as the Apple IPR.
`15 Now the Samsung notice corresponds to
`16 IPR2022 -- just one moment. The Samsung notice
`17 corresponds to IPR 2022-00222, and can we call that
`18 the Samsung IPR for short?
`19 A. Yes, we can.
`20 Q. And during the testimony today we may be
`21 referring to a third IPR, and I believe that number
`22 is IPR2022-01413 -- strike that.
`23 The third IPR we may be referring to is
`24 IPR2021-01413. You may recall that IPR case number.
`25 That is the -- that is the IPR where Unified
`
`Page 15
`
`1 MR. WERBER: All right. We're pasting one
`2 more thing to the chat.
`3 COURT REPORTER: Are you marking these as
`4 exhibits?
`5 MR. WERBER: These are not going to be
`6 exhibits yet. These are legal pleadings.
`7 BY MR. WERBER:
`8 Q. Feel free to download.
`9 A. Yeah. Okay. I've got this document
`10 downloaded.
`11 Q. Yes. And so you may or may not recognize
`12 this, but this is an order referring to discovery to
`13 be taken in relation to the Apple case. A similar
`14 order was issued in relation to the Samsung IPR.
`15 And you'll notice, just to confirm, there's a
`16 reference to a related proceeding challenge Claims 1
`17 through 7 of the '228 patent and that's the Unified
`18 IPR, and you'll see the case number there.
`19 A. Okay.
`20 Q. Does that make sense?
`21 A. That does.
`22 Q. Did you do anything to prepare for today's
`23 testimony, Mr. Jakel?
`24 A. I met with counsel to prepare for this for
`25 a few hours for a few days over the -- well, the
`
`Page 14
`1 challenged claims of the '228 patent. Can we refer
`2 to that as the "Unified IPR"?
`3 A. Yes. Absolutely. I don't have that
`4 number in front of me, so I just trust that you got
`5 it right.
`6 Q. Okay. Yeah. And we'll look at a few
`7 things from that.
`8 These are deposition notices asking you to
`9 appear and testify under oath in relation to the
`10 matters that we've just discussed. I'm sure you
`11 understand the routine because you have been doing
`12 this -- you've done this a few times but I'll walk
`13 through a few things to be sure.
`14 You're here to testify about -- under oath
`15 in relation to these two cases, the Apple IPR and
`16 the Samsung IPR?
`17 A. Yes, I am.
`18 Q. You understand you're here to provide
`19 truthful and accurate answers in response to my
`20 questions?
`21 A. I am.
`22 Q. Is there anything you can think of that
`23 may prevent you from hearing and understanding my
`24 questions today?
`25 A. I don't think so.
`
`Page 16
`
`1 last couple of weeks because this was originally
`2 scheduled for a couple weeks ago and then it got
`3 rescheduled. So there was some prep before and then
`4 a little bit of prep over the last couple of days.
`5 Q. And you spoke with -- you spoke with your
`6 outside counsel?
`7 A. I think in one case outside counsel was
`8 on. Most of the depo prep was done with in-house
`9 counsel.
`10 Q. With in-house counsel.
`11 MR. WERBER: Is John on? I'm not seeing.
`12 MR. MANSINGHANI: Jonathan Strang is not
`13 appearing today on behalf of Unified. Just the
`14 in-house counsel. They are also counsel of record
`15 in the case.
`16 MR. WERBER: I got it. I got it.
`17 BY MR. WERBER:
`18 Q. So the -- can you remind me which -- which
`19 attorney is representing you today, your lead
`20 attorney representing you today?
`21 MR. WERBER: Is that you, Roshan?
`22 MR. MANSINGHANI: Yeah, this is Roshan
`23 Mansinghani from Unified Patents.
`24 MR. WERBER: I got you.
`25 ///
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`1 BY MR. WERBER:
`2 Q. So in preparing for today's deposition you
`3 spoke with in-house counsel, that includes
`4 Mr. Mansinghani?
`5 A. Yes.
`6 Q. Okay. And any others?
`7 A. T.J. Murphy and Michelle Aspen. And in
`8 prep John Strang was also on at least one of the
`9 prep sessions as well.
`10 Q. Did you speak with any attorneys from
`11 Sidley?
`12 A. I did not.
`13 Q. Any attorneys you believe may represent
`14 Apple?
`15 A. No. I did not speak to any attorneys
`16 other than the ones that I've listed.
`17 Q. Okay. We -- you and I have spoken before,
`18 maybe about a year and a half ago. But I just want
`19 to refresh and recall some of our -- some items from
`20 your background.
`21 Is it correct that you were a patent
`22 examiner?
`23 A. That is correct.
`24 Q. And then you became an attorney and you
`25 went to private practice and you practiced at
`
`Page 19
`1 the leading objection just because you don't say it
`2 every time.
`3 MR. GREEN: Thank you.
`4 BY MR. WERBER:
`5 Q. So then you moved on to Kaye Scholer,
`6 correct?
`7 A. I was an attorney at Kaye Scholer, yes.
`8 Q. And then you were an in-house attorney at
`9 Intuit; is that right?
`10 A. That's correct.
`11 Q. And over -- during this course of
`12 employment you gained experience with patent
`13 prosecution, correct?
`14 A. Over the course of my employment I
`15 gained -- I mean, sure, yes, I have some experience
`16 with patent prosecution.
`17 Q. Including not just the law firms I
`18 referenced but also as a patent examiner, right?
`19 A. As a patent examiner I obviously gained
`20 some experience about patent prosecution.
`21 Q. And you also gained experience as a
`22 litigator, correct?
`23 A. I was a litigator at Howrey, at Kaye
`24 Scholer and at Intuit.
`25 Q. You've been deposed many times before,
`
`Page 18
`
`1 Howrey; is that correct?
`2 A. I did.
`3 Q. And then --
`4 MR. KUSHAN: Sorry, sorry. I'm just going
`5 to make an objection to the form of these questions.
`6 These are all leading and I think you should avoid
`7 leading questions.
`8 BY MR. WERBER:
`9 Q. You can answer.
`10 MR. KUSHAN: Go ahead.
`11 BY MR. WERBER:
`12 Q. Then you moved on to Kaye Scholer?
`13 A. I was an attorney at Kaye Scholer.
`14 MR. GREEN: Mr. Werber, that first
`15 objection prompts me to state something for the
`16 record, and I apologize for interrupting your
`17 examination. For the sake of efficiency, can we
`18 reach an agreement that an objection lodged by any
`19 party should stand for all parties? And that way we
`20 don't have a course of objections to every -- every
`21 instinct that the attorneys have.
`22 MR. WERBER: You mean you don't want to
`23 keep the witness here until 10:00 p.m.? No, that's
`24 fine. And that's agreed. I won't -- we won't -- we
`25 won't -- we won't assert that you guys have waived
`
`Page 20
`
`1 correct?
`2 A. I don't know the exact number but I've
`3 been deposed probably 15 to 20 times, if not maybe
`4 more.
`5 Q. Okay. Now we're getting into something
`6 where we might want to sort out something about
`7 confidentiality, so maybe we could just go off the
`8 record for a moment.
`9 COURT REPORTER: Off the record at
`10 9:38 a.m.
`11 (Discussion off the record.)
`12 COURT REPORTER: Back on the record at
`13 9:41 a.m.
`14 MR. WERBER: So during the brief break we
`15 sorted out a couple confidentiality issues. I may
`16 try to summarize and prompt a couple others to speak
`17 up if I have it incorrect.
`18 We are introducing into the record a
`19 transcript that was marked confidential in the
`20 Unified IPR. It was also a production document.
`21 The transcript was produced by third-party Unified
`22 in these two Samsung IPR proceedings and the Apple
`23 IPR proceedings.
`24 And my understanding is the in-house
`25 attorneys have been instructed not to download the
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
`1 that deposition. Does that sound correct?
`2 A. Sure. That sounds about right.
`3 Q. And if we flip to page 142, which is one
`4 of the final pages, let us know when you're there.
`5 A. All right. I'm at 142.
`6 Q. Yeah. Around line 3 -- or line 4,
`7 Ms. Aspen speaks that there are no more questions.
`8 I state the same. And then the court reporter asks
`9 Ms. Aspen if she is reserving signature and she says
`10 correct.
`11 I just want to confirm that you knew that
`12 you had an opportunity to review the transcript that
`13 we've marked as Exhibit 2068, right?
`14 A. Yes.
`15 Q. And the -- I do not recall seeing -- you
`16 also had an opportunity to make any necessary
`17 corrections, right?
`18 A. I assume we did have that opportunity.
`19 Q. Okay. And, for the record, I do not
`20 recall that we ever received an errata.
`21 A. I don't believe so.
`22 Q. Okay. Moving on. You can set that aside.
`23 The -- can you please tell us who the
`24 owners of Unified are?
`25 A. The owners of Unified.
`
`1
`
`Page 24
`
`8 Q. And maybe my memory is failing me but I
`9 do -- can you tell me about Jonathan Stroud?
`10 A. Jonathan Stroud is --
`11 Q. In terms of his ownership?
`12 A. Jonathan Stroud is currently the general
`13 counsel here at Unified Patents.
`14
`
`17
`
`Page 21
`1 exhibit. But as we're speaking about the transcript
`2 verbally, we -- I'll try to do my best to warn the
`3 witness if I'm getting into the details of what
`4 might be in the document. I'm going to do my best.
`5 I also want to state for the record that I might not
`6 have the greatest read on what each individual party
`7 considers confidential, including Unified.
`8 So -- but none of -- if there's a slipup
`9 of any sort of the testimonies proceeding, I don't
`10 want any of it to be considered, you know, a breach
`11 of the protective order, at least that's our
`12 position. None of it's intentional. We were
`13 originally anticipating this would be an
`14 outside-attorney deposition.
`15 If, Jeff, you want to say anything else or
`16 any of the other counsel, feel free to state so and
`17 then we'll move on.
`18 MR. KUSHAN: I think your summary is
`19 generally accurate. I -- this is Jeff Kushan.
`20 The -- we don't view the inadvertent disclosure of
`21 information via waiver of any of the confidentiality
`22 or other rights that Unified has or its confidential
`23 information.
`24 MR. GREEN: Matt, to the extent you need
`25 this, this is Chris Green on behalf of Samsung. We
`
`Page 22
`1 would likewise not treat any inadvertent disclosure
`2 of confidential or designated information as a
`3 waiver.
`4 MR. WERBER: Okay. So I believe we -- did
`5 you do the transcript? I got it.
`6 BY MR. WERBER:
`7 Q. So the witness, feel free to download the
`8 exhibit. This is Apple EX2068. And if we have our
`9 counting correct, this would be Samsung
`10 Exhibit 2062.
`11 (Exhibit APPLE EX2068/SAMSUNG EX2062
`12 marked for identification by the
`13 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
`14 BY MR. WERBER:
`15 Q. Let us know when you have it downloaded.
`16 MR. KUSHAN: We're going to object to this
`17 as hearsay.
`18 Jeff Kushan for Apple.
`19 A. I have it downloaded.
`20 BY MR. WERBER:
`21 Q. Okay. So the first page, lower right
`22 corner, you'll see -- you'll see a case No. IPR
`23 2021-01413. That's the Unified IPR, correct?
`24 A. Correct.
`25 Q. Ms. Aspen of Unified represented you at
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`1
`
`Page 25
`
`4 Q. And speaking of employees, I believe you
`5 testified in 2022 that Unified has approximately --
`6 had approximately 21 to 22 employees. Is that still
`7 accurate today?
`8 A. I believe that's about it. Maybe -- maybe
`9 a little bit more. Maybe -- maybe 22, 23. I don't
`10 know but it's in the same ballpark.
`11 MR. WERBER: We're posting another
`12 exhibit.
`13 (Exhibit APPLE EX2065 marked for
`14 identification by the Certified
`15 Shorthand Reporter.)
`16 A. Okay.
`17 BY MR. WERBER:
`18 Q. Do you -- just one second. And by the
`19 way, this is -- do you recognize this as an -- as a
`20 screenshot from -- or a printout from your website?
`21 A. I believe this is maybe, like, a post to
`22 our -- our -- our, you know, website blog.
`23 Q. Okay. And in this -- in this exhibit, and
`24 this is -- the content was authored by Unified,
`25 correct?
`
`Page 26
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. And you state here on page 1:
`3 "Unified" --
`4 Second paragraph:
`5 "Unified has filed more patent
`6 challenges than all other
`7 third-party petitioners combined."
`8 That was correct at the time of this -- of
`9 this post, correct?
`10 A. That's what document says. And I assume
`11 it was correct at the time.
`12 Q. And then it says:
`13 "Unified was the No. 6 most
`14 prolific all time PTAB petitioner
`15 and No. 3 for 2019."
`16 A. That's what the document says.
`17 Q. And you have no reason to dispute that was
`18 correct, right?
`19 A. Not at this time.
`20 Q. Okay. And if you turn to page 2 there's a
`21 reference to Unified having filed 185 IPRs since
`22 2012. No reason to dispute that was true when this
`23 document was created?
`24 A. No reason to dispute it.
`25 Q. And then also a 95 percent success rate.
`
`Page 27
`1 And that's written in the pie chart. It refers to a
`2 95 percent success rate in 2020 and there's a pie
`3 chart showing that visually, correct?
`4 A. That appears to be what the document
`5 shows.
`6 Q. Now, moving on to later years. Does
`7 Unified still remain in the top ten in terms of top
`8 PTAB petitioners and that might include all
`9 different categories of PTAB challenges?
`10 A. Off the top of my head, I -- I don't know
`11 what the current status of the -- the filing records
`12 are.
`13 Q. Okay. Just one moment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22 Do you recall that?
`23 A. I don't recall it but if the -- I mean,
`24 that was a few years ago or a year and a half ago.
`25 But that doesn't sound -- that doesn't sound crazy.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1 Q. Okay. Let me ask you today,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16 Q. Okay. And each paying member belongs to
`17 at least one zone, correct?
`18 A. At least one zone, correct.
`19 Q. And can you share, again, what "zones"
`20 are?
`21 A. I mean, a zone is just a technology area
`22 and, you know, we see it as -- as everything from,
`23 you know, anyone whose kind of participating in
`24 that -- that -- that technology area from component
`25 manufacturers to device, you know, manufacturers,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`Page 29
`1 OEMs, consumers buying, you know, products in that
`2 space. It's a technology area that includes kind of
`3 every -- everyone up and down that kind of vertical
`4 integration.
`5 Q. Just one moment.
`6 In 2022 you testified that you believe
`7 the -- that Unified's total revenue was
`8
`, in that ballpark?
`9 MR. MANSINGHANI: Sorry, I'm going to have
`10 interrupt. If you're getting into the financials of
`11 Unified, we would ask that counsel move to a
`12 breakout room.
`13 MR. WERBER: My apologies.
`14 MR. MANGSINGHANI: This is Roshan
`15 Mansinghani on behalf of Unified Patents.
`16 MR. WERBER: Has everybody moved to their
`17 breakout rooms?
`18 MR. KUSHAN: Yeah, I think all of the
`19 Apple people have left.
`20 BY MR. WERBER:
`21
`
`Page 31
`
`1 A. I mean, this looks to be the transcript
`2 from my deposition.
`3 BY MR. WERBER:
`4 Q. Okay. And do you have any reason to doubt
`5 this is the transcript from your deposition?
`6 A. Not at this time.
`7 Q. And I'll also -- if you look in the lower
`8 right corner, you'll see a Bates number, correct?
`9 A. I see an exhibit number in reference to
`10 the IPR.
`11 Q. And then at the very bottom you'll see a
`12 Unified Bates number. Unified -- on this page is
`13 Unified underscore 500139. Do you see that?
`14 A. I see that as well, yes.
`15 Q. And so, just to confirm, do you have any
`16 reason to doubt this was produced by Unified?
`17 A. I have no reason to doubt that.
`18 Q. Okay. Now, the -- on page 36 around
`19 line 4 I asked a question.
`20
`
`1
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`Page 32
`
`17 Q. Okay. Let's turn to -- just one moment.
`18 Okay. Let's turn to page 36 of Exhibit 2068.
`19 That's the transcript.
`20 A. Sorry, you said what page?
`21 Q. Thirty-six. And, again, Exhibit 2068,
`22 that is the transcript of the deposition, the
`23 testimony that you gave in May 2022, correct?
`24 MR. KUSHAN: I'm sorry. Objection,
`25 leading.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`1
`
`Page 33
`
`Page 35
`1 landscaping tool. We have something called Open,
`2 which is a tool related to the standard setting body
`3 and all the submissions that are made for those.
`4
`
`8 Q. And does analyzing those portfolios
`9 include any invalidity analysis?
`10 A. I don't believe it includes any invalidity
`11 analysis.
`12 Q. Let's turn to -- I want to introduce
`13 Apple's membership agreement.
`14 (Exhibit APPLE EX2069/SAMSUNG EX2063
`15 marked for identification by the
`16 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
`17 MR. KUSHAN: Matt?
`18 MR. WERBER: Yes.
`19 MR. KUSHAN: If you're going to go through
`20 a few questions on this, I would suggest that the
`21 Apple folks can come back in from the breakout room
`22 unless --
`23 MR. WERBER: That's fine.
`24 MR. KUSHAN: -- Roshan has a problem with
`25 this.
`
`1
`
`Page 34
`
`6 Q. You refer to data services and tools. You
`7 referred to that a few moments ago. Does that refer
`8 to prior art data services?
`9 A. No. It refers to, you know, kind of
`10 portfolio tools and, you know, the -- our portal.
`11 There are people who ask for tools and data and
`12 stuff coming from our -- our kind of data that we
`13 generate from -- from our portal.
`14 Q. And what are your tools and data used for?
`15 A. There's landscaping tools. There's
`16 reports. There's all kind of information that's
`17 available kind of on our portal.
`18 Q. You referred to some consulting work.
`19 What do you consult on at Unified?
`20 A. The consulting work is done by Craig
`21 Thompson. Craig Thompson does consulting work
`
`24 We have landscaping tools. We have
`25 something called -- which is called Opal. It's a
`
`Page 36
`
`
`
`1 MR. MANGSINGHANI: This is Roshan
`2 Mansinghani for Unified. If the line of questioning
`3 is about the Apple membership agreement, then we
`4 don't have a problem with Apple counsel coming back
`5 in.
`6 MR. KUSHAN: All right.
`7 BY MR. WERBER:
`8 Q. We just marked what is Apple Exhibit 2069.
`9 Let me know when you have it downloaded.
`10 A. I've downloaded it.
`11 Q. And this document was produced at Unified
`12 Bates No. 500014. Do you recognize the document
`13 you're looking at as -- as the membership agreement
`14 Unified has executed with Apple?
`15 A. It would appear so.
`16 Q.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2129
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`Page 37
`
`
`
`
`1 Q
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17 Q. That wasn't my question.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 A. I believe that does sound right.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21 Q. Regardless of the specific time frame when
`22 zones might have been added, is it correct that over
`23 time you added more zones to offer to paying
`24 members?
`25 A. That is correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 39
`1 Q. And so the numbers of zones has increased
`2 over time, correct?
`3 A. That is correct.
`4 Q.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 40
`
`1 Q.
`
`
`