ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 1
`
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 1
`
`
`
`1
`
`·1· · · · · UNITED STATES PATIENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3
`· · ·ERICSSON, INC.,· · · · · · · :· ·Case No.
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :· ·IPR2022-00068
`· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · · :
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :· ·U.S. Patent No.
`· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · ·:· ·9,549,426
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :
`· · ·KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,· · · · :
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· · :
`·8· ·------------------------------X
`·9
`10
`11· · · · · · · · · · ORAL DEPOSITION OF
`12· · · · · · · ·RADOSTIN A. PACHAMANOV, Ph.D.
`13
`14· · · · · · · · · · Conducted Remotely
`15· · · · · · · · · · Monday, February 27, 2023
`16· · · · · · · · · · ·10:01 a.m. (EST)
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23· ·Stenographically remotely reported by:
`24· ·Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR/CCR
`25· ·Job No.: 884736
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 2
`
`
`
`2
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · REMOTE APPEARANCES
`·2
`·3· ·For Petitioner:
`·4· · · · · ·BAKER BOTTS LLP
`· · · · · · ·BY: CHAD C. WALTERS, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · ·2001 Ross Avenue - Suite 900
`· · · · · · ·Dallas, Texas 75201
`·6· · · · · ·214.953.6511
`· · · · · · ·Email:· chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`·7
`·8· ·For Patent Owner:
`·9· · · · · ·HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
`· · · · · · ·BY: KEITH J. WOOD, ESQ.
`10· · · · · ·155 Seaport Boulevard
`· · · · · · ·Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`11· · · · · ·617.607.5949
`· · · · · · ·Email:· keith.wood@hbsr.com
`12
`13
`14· · · · · · · · · · · · ---o0o---
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 3
`
`
`
`3
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`·2
`· · ·WITNESS:· RADOSTIN A. PACHAMANOV, Ph.D.
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`· · ·EXAMINATION
`·4
`· · ·BY MR. WALTERS ............................· · 4
`·5
`·6
`· · ·MOTIONS TO STRIKE:· · · · · · · · · · · ·None
`·7
`· · ·INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER:· · · · · · · None
`·8
`· · ·DOCUMENT/INFORMATION REQUESTS:· · · · · ·None
`·9
`10
`11· ·-------------- IPR EXHIBITS REFERENCED ------------
`12· ·EXHIBIT· · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`13· ·Exhibit 22· · · Revised Non-Contingent· · · · · 35
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Motion to Amend
`14
`· · ·Exhibit 1001· · U.S. Patent 9,549,426· · · · · ·22
`15
`· · ·Exhibit 1007· · European Patent Application· · ·13
`16· · · · · · · · · ·EP 1 065 904, Aerts, et al.
`17· ·Exhibit 1048· · ETSI 300 974 GSM 0902_552· · · · 9
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Standard - Mobile
`18· · · · · · · · · ·Application Part messages
`19· ·Exhibit 1049· · 3GPP TR 23.912 v3.1.0· · · · · ·11
`· · · · · · · · · · ·(2001-12) Technical report
`20· · · · · · · · · ·on super-charger
`· · · · · · · · · · ·(Release 1999)
`21
`· · ·Exhibit 2012· · Declaration of Radostin· · · · ·28
`22· · · · · · · · · ·Pachamanov, Ph.D.
`23
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
`24
`25
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 4
`
`
`
`4
`
`·1· · · ·DEPOSITION OF RADOSTIN A. PACHAMANOV, Ph.D.
`·2· · · · · · · · · · ·February 27, 2023
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · ---------------
`·4· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· I'm going to ask that
`·5· ·you, please, raise your right hand.
`·6· · · · · · · ·Do you solemnly swear under penalty of
`·7· ·perjury that you are Dr. Radostin Pachamanov, and
`·8· ·the testimony you are about to give in the matter
`·9· ·now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
`10· ·nothing but the truth?
`11· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I swear.
`12· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Counsel, the witness has
`13· ·been sworn.· We may proceed.
`14· · · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Thank you.
`15· · · · · · · · · · ·----------------
`16· · · · · · · ·RADOSTIN A. PACHAMANOV, Ph.D.
`17· · · having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
`18· · · · · · · · · · ·----------------
`19· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`20· ·BY MR. WALTERS:
`21· · · · ·Q.· · Good morning, Dr. Pachamanov.
`22· · · · ·A.· · Good morning.
`23· · · · ·Q.· · Could you, please, state your name for
`24· ·the record.
`25· · · · ·A.· · My name is Radostin Pachamanov.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 5
`
`
`
`5
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· · And where are you physically located
`·2· ·right now?
`·3· · · · ·A.· · I'm in Boston, Massachusetts.
`·4· · · · ·Q.· · You've been deposed before?
`·5· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`·6· · · · ·Q.· · How many times?
`·7· · · · ·A.· · Three.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · And were all those depositions in IPR
`·9· ·proceedings?
`10· · · · ·A.· · Yes, they were.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · You understand you've been sworn to
`12· ·testify truthfully to the best of your ability
`13· ·today?
`14· · · · ·A.· · Yes.· I understand.
`15· · · · ·Q.· · Is there any reason you cannot testify
`16· ·truthfully today?
`17· · · · ·A.· · No.
`18· · · · ·Q.· · What did you do to prepare for today's
`19· ·deposition?
`20· · · · ·A.· · I mostly reviewed my declaration. I
`21· ·reviewed the -- some documents, and I -- I had a
`22· ·short call with Mr. Keith Wood on Thursday, I think.
`23· · · · ·Q.· · Was that call just with Mr. Wood?
`24· · · · ·A.· · Yes, it was.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · And how long did that call last?
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 6
`
`
`
`6
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· · I would say 45 minutes maybe to an hour.
`·2· · · · ·Q.· · At what rate are you being compensated
`·3· ·for your time in this matter?
`·4· · · · ·A.· · So I'm not personally compensated.· My
`·5· ·company is compensated for $550 an hour.
`·6· · · · ·Q.· · And is that for your testifying time
`·7· ·today as well?
`·8· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`·9· · · · ·Q.· · Are you familiar with the GSM standard?
`10· · · · ·A.· · I am.· Yes.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · In what capacity?
`12· · · · ·A.· · During my studies, I -- my thesis for
`13· ·bachelor's degree was on GSM.· And then at that time
`14· ·when I started studying with my Ph.D., actually, it
`15· ·was a standard which was getting old so I switched
`16· ·to other standards.· But I have extensive experience
`17· ·with GSM in particular because I read a lot, and I
`18· ·studied it during my bachelor's study.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · And how long have you been familiar with
`20· ·the GSM standard?
`21· · · · ·A.· · So I would say since 1999 maybe, around
`22· ·that time.· I started -- started my bachelor's
`23· ·degree in 1998.· And in the second year, we started
`24· ·having dedicated courses in mobile technologies, and
`25· ·GSM in particular.· And then I started reading the
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 7
`
`
`
`7
`
`·1· ·standards; I started working with certain things.
`·2· · · · · · · ·I actually worked on some -- outside of
`·3· ·the university, I was helping with GSM modems,
`·4· ·actually programming GSM modems to transfer the
`·5· ·information.· So that's why I -- I would say 1999
`·6· ·and 2000.
`·7· · · · ·Q.· · Are you familiar with 3GPP standards?
`·8· · · · ·A.· · Yes, I am.
`·9· · · · ·Q.· · In what capacity are you familiar with
`10· ·3GPP standards?
`11· · · · ·A.· · So 3GPP, if you work in
`12· ·telecommunications, you need to be familiar with
`13· ·them.
`14· · · · · · · ·As part of my employment with Ericsson,
`15· ·like, back in the days, we had clients who, for
`16· ·example, were complaining about certain
`17· ·functionalities or required some functionalities.
`18· ·And we were directing them -- we had to -- to be
`19· ·familiar with the standards pertaining to certain
`20· ·messages that are being exchanged, so we actually
`21· ·explored these standards in detail.· And then as my
`22· ·work as a consultant, as part of my -- the work as
`23· ·consultant, I had to review all the standards for
`24· ·litigation purposes mostly.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · Is it fair to say that the '426 patent
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 8
`
`
`
`8
`
`·1· ·at issue in this IPR proceeding relates to
`·2· ·subscriber data management in telecommunication
`·3· ·systems?
`·4· · · · ·A.· · I wouldn't define it as subscriber data
`·5· ·management.· I would say, more -- more broadly,
`·6· ·access control rather than just subscriber data
`·7· ·management.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · Can you describe your experience with
`·9· ·access control in telecommunication systems?
`10· · · · ·A.· · This is an important component.· So
`11· ·my -- my specific experience is that I've -- I just
`12· ·studied about it; I know about it.· I -- we -- we
`13· ·were offering systems that established access
`14· ·control, so I know the principles and I know how it
`15· ·works.
`16· · · · ·Q.· · Who is "we"?
`17· · · · ·A.· · "We," my colleagues and I when I worked
`18· ·as part of Ericsson in their office in Bulgaria.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · What specific systems were you offering?
`20· · · · ·A.· · So Bulgaria was a relatively small
`21· ·office where we had, I would say, maybe like 50
`22· ·colleagues, and we were offering every single thing
`23· ·that Ericsson had on the market just because we
`24· ·had -- in Bulgaria we had like three major telecom
`25· ·carriers, and two out of the three were using the
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 9
`
`
`
`9
`
`·1· ·standard for content.
`·2· · · · · · · ·So, yes.· We had MSCs, we had VLRs, we
`·3· ·had the NSS GSNs, or depending on the technology and
`·4· ·everything; we had billing systems; we had mediation
`·5· ·systems, we had -- let me think.· Anything you can
`·6· ·think of, more or less, with Ericsson heading the
`·7· ·portfolio back in 2007, 2008, 2010.
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · Do you have access to exhibits and
`·9· ·documents that are used in this IPR?
`10· · · · ·A.· · Yes.· I received the list, and I -- I
`11· ·downloaded two of them.· Hopefully, I didn't miss
`12· ·anything.· So I should -- I should have them in
`13· ·front of me.
`14· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1048 referenced.)
`15· ·BY MR. WALTERS:
`16· · · · ·Q.· · Okay.· I'd like you to pull up
`17· ·Exhibit 1048, if you would.
`18· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · What is Exhibit 1048?
`20· · · · ·A.· · So this is the ETSI standard about
`21· ·Mobile Application Part messages.· So, more or less,
`22· ·this is the standard recommendation for the mobile
`23· ·part of the Signaling System 7.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · Have you seen Exhibit 1048 or worked
`25· ·with Exhibit 1048 before this IPR?
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 10
`
`
`
`10
`
`·1· · · · ·A.· · I have definitely seen it in regards to
`·2· ·some messages which are part of the protocol.· As I
`·3· ·told you, like, we were receiving only -- I
`·4· ·explicitly remember a situation which one of our
`·5· ·clients complained that the MSC was not working
`·6· ·according to their expectations, and then we had to
`·7· ·dig into this.· I'm not sure if it was this version
`·8· ·or not.· It probably wasn't.
`·9· · · · · · · ·But we dug the into the standard, and we
`10· ·actually showed them the specific message was not
`11· ·supposed to -- to have this field and was not
`12· ·supposed to transmit this information.· So, yes,
`13· ·I've seen this in the past.· Maybe not this
`14· ·particular version, but I've seen a version of this.
`15· · · · ·Q.· · When would that have been?
`16· · · · ·A.· · I would say like 2009, 2010, maybe.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · Is it your understanding that
`18· ·Exhibit 1048 published in October of 1997?
`19· · · · ·A.· · That's what it says, it says there.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · Do you believe that to be the case?
`21· · · · ·A.· · Yes.· I don't have any reason to doubt
`22· ·this.
`23· · · · ·Q.· · Is it your understanding that
`24· ·Exhibit 1048 was publicly available before 2013?
`25· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 11
`
`
`
`11
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1049 referenced.)
`·2· ·BY MR. WALTERS:
`·3· · · · ·Q.· · Can you pull up Exhibit 1049.
`·4· · · · ·A.· · Sure.· Yes.
`·5· · · · ·Q.· · What is Exhibit 1049?
`·6· · · · ·A.· · So this is part of the 3GPP proceedings.
`·7· ·It's a technical report on the supercharger concept.
`·8· · · · · · · ·The idea of this technical report is
`·9· ·that different groups that belong to different
`10· ·parties submit reports to the 3GPP standardization
`11· ·body, and more or less they describe their -- their
`12· ·ideas; the ideas that they have about specific
`13· ·technology.· This is being analyzed by -- by the
`14· ·3GPP specific body, maybe a group within 3GPP, and
`15· ·some of these reports may end up in the standard at
`16· ·a certain point of time.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · And is the technical report TR 23.912?
`18· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · Had you seen Exhibit 1049 before this
`20· ·IPR?
`21· · · · ·A.· · No, I have not.
`22· · · · ·Q.· · Do you know when Exhibit 1049 was
`23· ·released?
`24· · · · ·A.· · It has here in the name of the exhibit
`25· ·that it was written 2001, December 2001.· So I
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 12
`
`
`
`12
`
`·1· ·believe this is true.
`·2· · · · ·Q.· · Is it your understanding that
`·3· ·Exhibit 1049 was publicly available before 2013?
`·4· · · · ·A.· · I would -- I would think it was publicly
`·5· ·available, yes.
`·6· · · · ·Q.· · The substitute claims proposed by the
`·7· ·Patent Owner in this IPR require a partial transfer
`·8· ·indication, correct?
`·9· · · · ·A.· · Yes.· That's per -- that's what the
`10· ·substantive claim says, states.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · What is a partial transfer indication as
`12· ·it's used in the substitute claims?
`13· · · · · · · ·MR. WOOD:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`14· ·conclusion.
`15· · · · ·A.· · I can give you my explanation about it.
`16· ·I'm not -- I'm not saying that this is the ultimate
`17· ·one.· But if can we refer to the claim itself?
`18· · · · · · · ·So it says "a request containing a
`19· ·partial transfer indication."· So my understanding
`20· ·about this is that some node in the
`21· ·telecommunication network should rec -- should send
`22· ·a request which should contain an indication to the
`23· ·recipient of this request if the full subscriber
`24· ·information or partial subscriber information should
`25· ·be transmitted from that node and received by the
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 13
`
`
`
`13
`
`·1· ·node which sends the request.· So that's my -- my
`·2· ·understanding of it.
`·3· · · · ·Q.· · What is that understanding based on?
`·4· · · · ·A.· · The plain and ordinary meaning of the
`·5· ·words in the claim.
`·6· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1007 referenced.)
`·7· ·BY MR. WALTERS:
`·8· · · · ·Q.· · Can you turn to the Aerts reference,
`·9· ·which is Exhibit 1007.
`10· · · · ·A.· · Right.· I have the exhibit in front of
`11· ·me.
`12· · · · ·Q.· · What is "roaming restriction
`13· ·information"?
`14· · · · ·A.· · So I -- I need to explain in a bit why
`15· ·the way, I would say, draw the way.
`16· · · · · · · ·So you may have a mobile phone, you are
`17· ·a subscriber of a mobile network, and you more or
`18· ·less move throughout the network everywhere, you may
`19· ·move in a different country, you may move somewhere
`20· ·outside of this network.· So this is called net --
`21· ·this is called -- the term for this is "roaming."
`22· ·So, more or less, you move around the network.
`23· · · · · · · ·There are situations in which, for
`24· ·example, you move from one country to another.· This
`25· ·is the clearest example of roaming.· And, for
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 14
`
`
`
`14
`
`·1· ·example, you may not have this activated as part of
`·2· ·your subscription; therefore, you go to a different
`·3· ·country, you turn on your phone, and you can't use
`·4· ·the service.· So that's a roaming restriction.
`·5· · · · · · · ·There are other situations in which, for
`·6· ·example, carriers in a country, as United States,
`·7· ·for example, have signed agreements to help each
`·8· ·other in case there is no good coverage if one or
`·9· ·the other network in certain geographical areas.
`10· · · · · · · ·So, for example, you may be a T-Mobile
`11· ·subscriber, you go somewhere in the mountains where
`12· ·for some reason Verizon has better coverage.· If
`13· ·there is such roaming agreement between the two
`14· ·carriers, then your phone can use the services of
`15· ·the other network, can switch and connect to the
`16· ·other network.
`17· · · · · · · ·So roaming restriction, more or less,
`18· ·would mean if you're allowed or not to connect to
`19· ·that network.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · Okay.· Is it fair that roaming
`21· ·restriction information can be used by a system
`22· ·outside of an actual call?
`23· · · · ·A.· · I don't -- I'm not sure I understand the
`24· ·question.
`25· · · · ·Q.· · If no call is made -- if no call is made
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 15
`
`
`
`15
`
`·1· ·by a subscriber, can the system still benefit from
`·2· ·the roaming restriction information?
`·3· · · · ·A.· · So it can.· For the reason that -- so
`·4· ·the roaming restriction, again, it tells you -- it
`·5· ·tells the network if that particular subscriber has
`·6· ·the right to connect to the network, connect or use
`·7· ·the services of the network.
`·8· · · · · · · ·So if there's a roaming restriction, I
`·9· ·would say that transmitting this information and
`10· ·having this information handy when -- when a
`11· ·subscriber attempts to connect to the network is
`12· ·actually useful.· Because why would you connect,
`13· ·attach this subscriber to the network if they would
`14· ·not be allowed to use the services after that?
`15· · · · · · · ·So I would say it is important
`16· ·information, yes.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · Is it important information to have
`18· ·after a call has been completed?
`19· · · · ·A.· · To the extent that -- let me just think
`20· ·about it.· So I would say it's important information
`21· ·in general.· But once you -- once the network has
`22· ·decided if you should be connected to the network or
`23· ·not, based on that information, and if you're not
`24· ·allowed to be connected to the network, then there
`25· ·is no situation in which you're going to have a
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 16
`
`
`
`16
`
`·1· ·call, I would say.· So it's just hypothetical
`·2· ·situation you're describing.
`·3· · · · · · · ·Is this information relevant, if you're
`·4· ·not allowed to make any calls?· It was relevant when
`·5· ·the decision is taken initially.· But then you --
`·6· ·you would not be allowed to actually make a call or
`·7· ·connect to the network if you have roaming
`·8· ·restriction.· So at that point of time, this
`·9· ·information becomes obsolete because you are not
`10· ·allowed, so why -- why would we store it after that?
`11· · · · · · · ·But if the next time you try to make a
`12· ·call it has to be verified again, so I guess it's
`13· ·important after that if you're allowed to -- to make
`14· ·roaming.
`15· · · · · · · ·So generally speaking, imagine you
`16· ·have -- you have a subscriber who connects to the
`17· ·network, does some calls, in the meantime, like it's
`18· ·in the end of the month or something like that,
`19· ·their subscription changes, or they are a prepaid
`20· ·subscriber and for some reason they exhausted the
`21· ·data that they have.
`22· · · · · · · ·So this information, the roaming
`23· ·restriction information, can be updated in the
`24· ·meantime after they initially connected to the
`25· ·network so it could still be important information
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 17
`
`
`
`17
`
`·1· ·afterwards.· It's -- it's a hard question to answer,
`·2· ·if you understand what I mean.
`·3· · · · ·Q.· · That was a very long-winded answer.· But
`·4· ·what I think I heard you say was that the roaming
`·5· ·restriction information can still be beneficial to
`·6· ·the network after a call has been completed?
`·7· · · · · · · ·MR. WOOD:· Objection.· Foundation.
`·8· · · · ·A.· · I would say that it may change.· So
`·9· ·that's why I may be requested again when a call was
`10· ·submitted.
`11· · · · · · · ·Is it -- is it beneficial to have it all
`12· ·the time?· It depends on the -- the way the system
`13· ·is implemented.· It depends on restrictions of
`14· ·the -- of the available space and it depends on how
`15· ·the design of the system would want to do it.
`16· · · · · · · ·Any subscription information is
`17· ·important because it is needed for the system to
`18· ·manage the subscriber.· At some point of time, some
`19· ·of this information may not be relevant.· Is the
`20· ·roaming information like that?· I have -- I have to
`21· ·see a specific scenario to be able to answer to you.
`22· ·Maybe in a specific scenario, I'll be able to give
`23· ·you a more, more specific answer.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · At least in some circumstances, roaming
`25· ·restriction information is beneficial for the system
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 18
`
`
`
`18
`
`·1· ·after a call has been completed?
`·2· · · · ·A.· · It will be beneficial the next time a
`·3· ·call is attempted to be established.· That's what I
`·4· ·would say.
`·5· · · · ·Q.· · What is regional subscription
`·6· ·information?
`·7· · · · ·A.· · So regional subscription information, I
`·8· ·guess, is something that's used in particular in
`·9· ·Aerts.· I'm not familiar with this particular term
`10· ·from -- based on standards, per se.· But I would
`11· ·assume that this is, again, something relevant to
`12· ·restrictions on -- on using the services in specific
`13· ·geographical areas.· Regions, I guess.
`14· · · · ·Q.· · And what is its purpose?
`15· · · · ·A.· · Similar to the roaming restrictions, I
`16· ·would -- I would think.· So just it's -- is a
`17· ·specific mobile subscriber allowed to connect to the
`18· ·network in a specific region?
`19· · · · · · · ·I can imagine situations in which I
`20· ·remember this was widely spread in the -- in the
`21· ·past.· So mobile operators tend -- had this systems
`22· ·where they were trying to stimulate subscribers to
`23· ·use their phones, the service of the network in --
`24· ·around their phone area.
`25· · · · · · · ·So, for example, if you were registered
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 19
`
`
`
`19
`
`·1· ·that you live in this particular area, then you use
`·2· ·the service with lower rate.· So moving to a
`·3· ·different area would change this, and, presumably,
`·4· ·this should be an example for some regional
`·5· ·restrictions which Aerts talks about.
`·6· · · · · · · ·That's why I said, it should be similar
`·7· ·to the roaming restriction but focused on specific
`·8· ·regions rather than networks or large geographical
`·9· ·areas.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · And would regional subscription
`11· ·information be beneficial to the network after a
`12· ·call has been completed?
`13· · · · ·A.· · I would say it would.· Again, it's the
`14· ·same, the same situation we have with the roaming
`15· ·restriction information.· It may be relevant; it may
`16· ·not be relevant.· But it will depend on the specific
`17· ·situation.· And if you give me an example, I can try
`18· ·to -- to tell if this -- if it's relevant or not.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · What is "subscriber identification
`20· ·information"?
`21· · · · ·A.· · So each subscriber has a specific number
`22· ·which is I -- called IMCI [sic], international
`23· ·mobile subscriber identification, I think.· So each
`24· ·of -- so that's the way that the network can
`25· ·differentiate between subscribers.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 20
`
`
`
`20
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·Each subscriber is assigned such number;
`·2· ·usually the SIM card stores this number.· And this
`·3· ·number is used when initially the subscriber
`·4· ·attempts to connect to the network; it is used for
`·5· ·authentication purposes; and it is used to, more or
`·6· ·less, map the subscriber information to that
`·7· ·particular device or user who tries to attempt --
`·8· ·who tries to connect to the network.· So each
`·9· ·subscriber has this unique identification.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · Is subscriber identification information
`11· ·useful to the network after a call has become
`12· ·completed?
`13· · · · ·A.· · It is, yes.· This -- this information is
`14· ·stored there all the time.· And, actually, it is the
`15· ·first thing that is transmitted together with the
`16· ·request.
`17· · · · ·Q.· · Aerts describes a "location update
`18· ·message," correct?
`19· · · · ·A.· · Correct.
`20· · · · ·Q.· · And that location update message
`21· ·triggers the HLR to transfer only the first set of
`22· ·subscription data, correct?
`23· · · · ·A.· · That message triggers the HLR to
`24· ·transmit the first set of subscription information
`25· ·because that -- that's how it is configured, and
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 21
`
`
`
`21
`
`·1· ·that's what Aerts proposes.· But, yes, it is
`·2· ·correct, that's what it does.
`·3· · · · ·Q.· · Are you familiar with claim construction
`·4· ·in interpreting patents?
`·5· · · · ·A.· · I mean, to say that I'm familiar, I
`·6· ·have -- yes, to some extent, I'm familiar.
`·7· · · · · · · ·I'm not a lawyer, so claim construction
`·8· ·is something that -- I'm familiar with this
`·9· ·particular discussions about -- about the meaning of
`10· ·certain claims here in particular for this patent.
`11· · · · ·Q.· · You have a section on claim construction
`12· ·in your Declaration; is that right?
`13· · · · ·A.· · That's right.· That's my understanding
`14· ·of claim construction.· It's summarized there.
`15· · · · ·Q.· · You do not provide an explicit
`16· ·construction of "partial transfer indication" in
`17· ·your Declaration, do you?
`18· · · · ·A.· · No, I have not.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · Are you interpreting "partial transfer
`20· ·indication" according to its plain and ordinary
`21· ·meaning?
`22· · · · · · · ·MR. WOOD:· Objection.· Calls for
`23· ·speculation.
`24· · · · ·A.· · I'm interpreting it as part of the claim
`25· ·together with the rest of the claim which says
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 22
`
`
`
`22
`
`·1· ·"containing partial transfer indication."
`·2· · · · · · · ·So "partial transfer indication" has a
`·3· ·plain and ordinary meaning.· And then the substitute
`·4· ·claim specifically states "a request containing
`·5· ·partial indication."· So I'm interpreting it
`·6· ·together with the rest of the claim.
`·7· · · · ·Q.· · I'd like to now turn to the '426 patent,
`·8· ·so it may be worth bringing that up.
`·9· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`10· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1001 referenced.)
`11· ·BY MR. WALTERS:
`12· · · · ·Q.· · Can you point me to support in the '426
`13· ·patent for the claim term "partial transfer
`14· ·indication" as it's used in the substitute claims?
`15· · · · · · · ·MR. WOOD:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`16· ·conclusion.
`17· · · · ·A.· · So this was explicitly pointed out in
`18· ·the Patent Owner motion to amend, revised motion to
`19· ·amend.· So if you try to -- if you're trying to test
`20· ·my memory, I -- I can try to find it.
`21· · · · · · · ·But -- but if you're interested in this
`22· ·particular things, I -- I agree with the Patent
`23· ·Owner.· These were the places in the patent which
`24· ·were actually discussing that particular
`25· ·functionality.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 23
`
`
`
`23
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·And I don't know, if you want me, I can
`·2· ·try to read through the patent, I can try to find
`·3· ·these places, or we can just open my Declaration and
`·4· ·see what I stated there or what the Patent Owner
`·5· ·said in the motion to amend.
`·6· · · · ·Q.· · Yes.· I'm certainly not trying to test
`·7· ·your memory, so you can open whatever would be
`·8· ·helpful for you.
`·9· · · · ·A.· · Okay.
`10· · · · ·Q.· · I mean, I could start with a certain
`11· ·portion of the '426 patent specification, if it
`12· ·might help.
`13· · · · ·A.· · Yeah.· Let's do that.
`14· · · · ·Q.· · And that's Column 11 at lines 55 to 63.
`15· · · · ·A.· · Yes.· 55 through 63.· Okay.
`16· · · · ·Q.· · Yes.· And at the end of that paragraph,
`17· ·starting in line 60, it states:
`18· · · · · · · ·"In each of the embodiments, the HLR
`19· · · · ·has or receives a partial transfer indication
`20· · · · ·triggering the HLR to transfer only the first
`21· · · · ·set 1 of subscription data to the SGSN."
`22· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`23· · · · ·A.· · Yes, I see it.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · Is that sentence consistent with the use
`25· ·of "partial transfer indication" in the substitute
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 24
`
`
`
`24
`
`·1· ·claims?
`·2· · · · · · · ·MR. WOOD:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`·3· ·conclusion.
`·4· · · · ·A.· · This sentence explains that either the
`·5· ·HLR receives an indication it has to transmit only
`·6· ·the first set or it already knows that it's to
`·7· ·transfer the first set.
`·8· · · · · · · ·So this particular sentence, out of the
`·9· ·context, that's what it says.· If we consider the
`10· ·rest, the next few paragraphs, then we're going
`11· ·to -- to see that the patent keeps
`12· ·explaining that -- technical specifications keeps
`13· ·explaining that the request should actually indicate
`14· ·that only a partial transfer indication is required
`15· ·or the full set of subscription information is
`16· ·required.
`17· · · · · · · ·This particular exhibit you point me to,
`18· ·it says exactly that.· So if you -- if the node, the
`19· ·attach control node would request just partial
`20· ·subscription information, we read only partial
`21· ·subscription information.· This -- it will indicate
`22· ·this to the HLR, and the HLR will respond
`23· ·accordingly.· Or the HLR actually may know -- this
`24· ·is a different embodiment.· The HLR may know that
`25· ·just partial information should be transmitted.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 25
`
`
`
`25
`
`·1· · · · ·Q.· · I think you said -- in the next few
`·2· ·paragraphs after this portion at column 11, did you
`·3· ·suggest that the patent contemplates that the full
`·4· ·set of subscription information is required?
`·5· · · · ·A.· · It doesn't say that.· It says that the
`·6· ·VLR or the attach control node, as it is described
`·7· ·in the '426 patent, the VLR can decide either a full
`·8· ·set of subscription information is needed or a
`·9· ·partial set of information is needed.· And,
`10· ·therefore, this has to be indicated to the HLR
`11· ·through the request.· The request should point out
`12· ·if partial or full set of information is needed.
`13· · · · ·Q.· · Can you turn to column 13, lines 8
`14· ·to 10.
`15· · · · ·A.· · Yes.
`16· · · · ·Q.· · That sentence states:
`17· · · · · · · ·"In each of the embodiments of
`18· · · · ·Figures 5A to 5C, the HLR has or receives a
`19· · · · ·partial transfer indication triggering the
`20· · · · ·HLR to transfer only the first set 1 of
`21· · · · ·subscription data to the SGSN."
`22· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`23· · · · ·A.· · I see that, yes.
`24· · · · ·Q.· · Is that sentence consistent with the use
`25· ·of "partial transfer indication" in the substitute
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 26
`
`
`
`26
`
`·1· ·claims?
`·2· · · · · · · ·MR. WOOD:· Objection.· Calls for a legal
`·3· ·conclusion.
`·4· · · · ·A.· · Again, together with the rest of the
`·5· ·disclosure of the -- in this technical
`·6· ·specifications, it is consistent.· Because the VLR
`·7· ·may request only partial, partial subscription
`·8· ·information or may request the full transfer of
`·9· ·subscription information.· For that reason, it has
`10· ·been indicated in some way to the HLR.
`11· · · · · · · ·So this particular paragraph here,
`12· ·actually, a couple of sentence here, covers the
`13· ·situation where only partial information is
`14· ·requested, and this is indicated in the request.
`15· ·And the HLR understands that only partial
`16· ·transfer -- partial subscription information has to
`17· ·be provided in response to this request rather than
`18· ·the full subscription information.
`19· · · · ·Q.· · Does the '426 patent ever describe a
`20· ·request containing a dedicated field that's used in
`21· ·particular for requesting only the first set of
`22· ·subscription information?
`23· · · · ·A.· · So it comes to the way how -- how you
`24· ·would -- how you make a request to contain a partial
`25· ·indication.· Right?· So it is the same request.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1050
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.
`IPR2022-00068, Page 27
`
`
`
`27
`
`·1· ·It's not a different request.
`·2· · · · · · · ·So the '426 doesn't really talk about
`·3· ·sending different requests.· It is th
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
