8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Case IPR2022-00179
`Patent 9,648,132 B2
`
`Page 1
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`TRILLER, INC., )
` Petitioner, )
`V.
`)
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD., )
` Patent Owner. )
`___________________)
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`TRILLER, INC., )
` Petitioner, )
`V. )
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD., )
` Patent Owner. )
`___________________)
`
`Case IPR2022-00180
`Patent 9,992,322 B2
`
`ORAL AND VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF
`MICHAEL SHAMOS, Ph.D.
`AUGUST 1, 2022
`(Reported remotely.)
`
`____________________________________________________
`DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
`1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`1
`
`TIKTOK 2006
`Triller v. TikTok
`IPR2022-00180
`
`
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Case IPR2022-00179
`Patent 9,648,132 B2
`
`Page 1
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`TRILLER, INC., )
` Petitioner, )
`V.
`)
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD., )
` Patent Owner. )
`___________________)
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`TRILLER, INC., )
` Petitioner, )
`V. )
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD., )
` Patent Owner. )
`___________________)
`
`Case IPR2022-00180
`Patent 9,992,322 B2
`
`ORAL AND VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF
`MICHAEL SHAMOS, Ph.D.
`AUGUST 1, 2022
`(Reported remotely.)
`
`____________________________________________________
`DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
`1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`1
`
`TIKTOK 2006
`Triller v. TikTok
`IPR2022-00180
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 2
`
` ORAL AND VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF
`MICHAEL SHAMOS, Ph.D., produced as a witness at the instance
`of the Patent Owner, taken in the above-styled and
`-numbered cause on the 1st day of August, 2022, A.D.,
`beginning at 9:58 a.m. EDT to 11:40 a.m., before Kelly
`Hassell, RPR, CLR, CSR, in and for the State of Texas,
`located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the agreement
`hereinafter set forth.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`2
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 3
` R E M O T E A P P E A R A N C E S
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` MR. CHAD NYDEGGER, ESQ.
` Workman Nydegger
` 60 East South Temple
` Suite 1000
` Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
` (801) 533-9800
` cnydegger@wnlaw.com
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` MR. PATRICK J. BISENIUS, ESQ.
` MR. CRAIG A. DEUTSCH, ESQ.
` Fish & Richardson P.C.
` 3200 RBC Plaza
` 60 South Sixth Street
` (612) 335-5070
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` bisenius@fr.com
` deutsch@fr.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`3
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
` I N D E X
`
`Page 4
`
`Direct Examination by Mr. Bisenius............ Page 6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`No Exhibits Marked.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`4
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE COURT REPORTER: The time on the record
`is 9:58 a.m. Eastern Time.
` If counsel could please state their
`appearances for the record.
` MR. BISENIUS: Patrick Bisenius and Craig
`Deutsch, from Fish & Richardson, repping Patent Owner,
`TikTok Pte. Ltd.
` MR. NYDEGGER: And Chad Nydegger, from
`Workman Nydegger, representing the Petitioner, Triller.
` THE COURT REPORTER: I'm Kelly Hassell,
`Certified Shorthand Reporter, located in Dallas, Texas.
`The witness is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
` If you could raise your right hand,
`please.
` (The witness was duly sworn.)
` THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
` You may proceed.
` MICHAEL SHAMOS, PhD,
`having been first duly cautioned and sworn to testify the
`truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified
`on his oath as follows:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`5
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 6
`
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BISENIUS:
` Q We are here today regarding IPR proceeding
`IPR2022-00179 involving U.S. Patent Number 9,648,132 and
`IPR proceeding IPR2022-00180 involving U.S. Patent
`Number 9,992,322.
` Do you understand that you are under oath?
` A Yes.
` Q Is there any reason that you cannot give truthful
`and accurate testimony today?
` A I don't think so.
` Q To ensure clarity, I will define several terms
`that will be used throughout this deposition. When I use
`the term "Patent Owner" or "TikTok," I'm referring to
`TikTok Pte. Ltd.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q When I use the term "Triller" or "Petitioner,"
`I'm referring to Triller, Inc.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q When I use the term "'132 patent," I'm referring
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`6
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 7
`
`to U.S. Patent Number 9,648,132.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q When I use the term "'322 patent," I'm referring
`to U.S. Patent Number 9,992,322.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q When I use the phrase "these IPRs" or "these
`proceedings," I'm referring to the IPR Proceeding
`Numbers IPR2022-00179 and IPR2022-00180.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q When I use the acronym "POSITA," I'm referring to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`alleged invention.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q Can you please describe how you prepared for
`today's deposition.
` A I prepared principally by reviewing my
`declarations, the patents, the prior art that was relied
`upon, and I had a meeting, a Zoom meeting, with counsel.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`7
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 8
`
` Q Approximately how much time did you spend
`preparing for today's deposition?
` A I think it was in the range of eight to ten
`hours.
` Q What documents did you review in your preparation
`for today's deposition?
` A Well, as I just said, my declarations, the
`patents, the asserted -- or the relied-upon prior art, and,
`you know, some selection of other documents that were filed
`in the IPRs.
` Q Did you conduct any independent searches, such as
`searches on the Internet, in preparing for today's
`deposition?
` A Yes.
` Q What did you search on the Internet in
`preparation for this deposition?
` A I searched about the history of smartphones, cell
`phones, browsers on cell phones, just to get some idea of
`the timeline.
` Q When were you first contacted by someone on
`behalf of Triller?
` A I think it was in March of 2021.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`8
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 9
`
` Q Do you remember who contacted you?
` A I believe I was contacted by an expert witness
`agency, who gave me some details of the case and asked
`whether I was interested and whether I wanted to be
`submitted as a potential expert.
` Q What did you do, if anything, before agreeing to
`be retained on behalf of Triller?
` A Okay. So in the original -- I think the original
`engagement -- I can take a look at my engagement letter,
`actually.
` So the original engagement had to do with
`the -- the underlying litigation in the Western District of
`Texas and IPR2021-00099. After I was engaged, I
`subsequently then became involved in the IPRs that are the
`subject of today's deposition.
` Q When was the first time that you had heard of
`Triller?
` A My recollection is when I was contacted to become
`an expert.
` Q Were you aware of the '132 patent or the
`'322 patent prior to starting work on your declaration
`here?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`9
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 10
`
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection.
` A I don't -- I don't think I was. I have no
`recollection that I was.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) Are you aware if the '132
`patent and the '322 patent are currently involved in any
`District Court litigation between TikTok and Triller?
` A Yes.
` Q Were you aware of this litigation when you
`prepared your declaration?
` A Yes.
` Q When preparing your declaration, did you ever
`communicate with any of the named inventors of the
`'132 patent or the '322 patent?
` A I don't -- I don't think so, but let me -- I'm
`going to review the face of the patents just to look at
`their names. Hang on a second.
` No, I've never been in contact with any of
`those people.
` Q Did you have anyone, such as an assistant, help
`you with your declaration for this IPR?
` A No.
` Q When I use the phrase "your declaration" or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`10
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 11
`"Shamos declaration," I'm referring to Exhibit Number 1025
`in both the proceedings IPR2022-00179 and IPR2022-00180.
` Do you understand?
` A Yes.
` Q And your declaration covered three petitions
`filed by the Petitioner; is that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Were you aware that the petition for the
`IPR2022-00181 proceeding, involving U.S. Patent
`Number 9,294,430, was denied institution by the PTAB?
` A I am aware of that, yes.
` Q In forming your opinions in these IPR cases, did
`you rely on any assumptions that are not identified in your
`declaration?
` A Ooh. That would be really difficult to answer.
`I mean, I know a lot of stuff. I've been around a long
`time. My head's filled with ideas. I -- if there was any
`assumption that I thought was important to point out, I
`would have pointed it out. But I -- I really can't give
`you a good answer to that question.
` Q Has anything happened since you prepared your
`initial declaration that changes any of the opinions you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`11
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 12
`
`provided in that declaration?
` A Not that I'm aware of.
` Q Are you currently aware of any errors that exist
`in your initial declaration?
` A No.
` Q During your career, approximately how many times
`have you been retained as an expert in litigation matters,
`either as a testifying expert or a non-testifying expert?
` A About 330.
` Q During your career, approximately how many times
`have you been deposed as an expert?
` A I can give you an approximate answer. This is
`the 140th case in which I have been deposed. So the answer
`is at least 140. But in some cases, I get deposed multiple
`times, and I don't count those separately.
` Q Can you give an approximate estimation of how
`many of those cases have been IPR cases?
` A In cases in which I have been deposed?
` Q Yes.
` A I'm not -- I'm not sure I can. We might be able
`to make an estimate, though, by -- I have some statistics
`in my CV. So I'm looking at Page 151 of Exhibit 1025. It
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`12
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 13
`says that I've participated in three reexams, five PGRs,
`74 IPRs and 22 CBMs. That's over a hundred, but I -- I
`wasn't deposed in every one of them.
` Q Okay.
` A However, it is possible, by going through my CV,
`to make this determination, because when I get deposed --
`so for every case, there's a little squib that describes
`the case, the parties. And then after it, there are one or
`more of three letters: D, R and T. D means I was deposed,
`R means I submitted a report of declaration, and T means
`testimony at trial.
` So we could actually mechanically go through
`the CV and compute the exact number of IPRs in which I have
`been deposed.
` Q That's fine. I don't think we need to do that
`today.
` I'm glad that you pulled up your
`declaration. That's what I was going to start with. So we
`are looking at Exhibit Number 1025, and I would like you to
`turn to Page 52, which is the section titled "Background of
`Multitasking and Multithreading."
` A That's -- wait.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`13
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 14
`
` Q It starts at Paragraph 116.
` A Yeah, paragraph numbers are better, because there
`are inconsistent page numbers. So there's a page number at
`the center of the bottom of each page, but then there is
`another notation that says Triller Exhibit 1025- and it
`gives a supposed page number that happens to be different
`from the page number that is on the actual page.
` So I'm -- you said paragraph which?
` Q 116.
` A Oh, okay.
` Yes. I'm there.
` Q Is it your opinion that this section of your
`declaration describes background knowledge that a POSITA
`would have had prior to the priority dates of the '132 and
`'322 patents?
` A Yes.
` Q All right. I'm going to turn to Paragraph 119.
` A Okay.
` Q Here you state that, quote, The Java platform
`supported and encouraged both multitasking and
`multithreading, end quote.
` How is multitasking different from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`14
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 15
`
`multithreading?
` A So I think I've explained in the declaration that
`multiple tasks is running multiple programs at the same
`time. Multithreading is a finer concept than that, which
`is running multiple programs within the same process,
`called threads.
` Q Going back up to Paragraph 116, you address a
`section of the '132 patent and the '322 patent common
`specification that discusses the use of Java; is that
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Is there any express discussion in the Abrams
`reference, which is Exhibit 1009, of using Java to
`implement the browser described by Abrams?
` A Oh, I'll have to take a look at that.
` The letters J-A-V-A do not occur in Abrams.
` Q So you're relying on the teachings of the
`'132 patent and the '322 patent for -- as allegedly
`providing this knowledge that software applications would
`have been beneficially implemented using multithreading and
`multitasking?
` A Of course not.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`15
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 16
`
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` A Of course not. I'm not relying on the patents
`for that. I'm relying on the ubiquity of Java as a
`cross-platform programming system that was virtually
`universally used.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) Why would a POSITA have
`implemented Abrams browser using Java rather than another
`software platform?
` A Because of the portability of Java programming.
`It wouldn't be necessary to create a different version of
`the software to run on a different -- on different device.
`And at the time, there were a plethora of wireless
`communication devices. That's only increased since then.
` Q Is there any express discussion in Abrams of
`multitasking or multithreading?
` A So there -- when you talk about an express
`disclosure -- so I believe the phrase "multitasking" is not
`used and the phrase "multithreading" is not used. However,
`there is a discussion in Paragraph 82 of Abrams -- I'll
`read a sentence from the middle of Paragraph 82.
` "The operating system controls allocation of
`system resources and performs tasks such as processing,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`16
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 17
`scheduling, memory management, networking and IO services
`among things." Maybe he meant "among other things."
` So there's no need for scheduling unless
`you're multitasking. There's nothing to schedule.
` Q So is it your opinion that any disclosure of
`scheduling in a computer system would indicate
`multitasking?
` A Yes. Well, in that -- not -- not mere presence
`of the word "scheduling," but in this context about what
`the operating system controls. The operating system
`controls scheduling. For example, I could -- I could write
`a software program to compute airline schedules. But just
`because I use the word "scheduling" doesn't mean it would
`be multitasking. But in this context, it does mean that.
` Q Is the use of multithreading or multitasking
`exclusive to Java?
` A No.
` Q What are other programming platforms that
`facilitate multithreading or multitasking?
` A Oh. Gee, I can't -- I can't give you a -- any
`kind of comprehensive list offhand. But multitasking and
`multithreading existed long before Java.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`17
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 18
` Q So is it your opinion that implementing a
`multithreaded or multitasking architecture in Java or one
`of these other software platforms would have been readily
`within the scope of POSITA?
` A Yes.
` Q I'm going to move forward to Paragraph 124 of
`your declaration.
` A I'm there.
` Q Here, you address the disclosures in the Java
`Threads reference regarding, quote, the use of
`multithreading to balance bandwidth demands in a media
`application, end quote. Correct?
` A Yes.
` Q What do you mean by "balancing bandwidth
`demands"?
` A So if I'm -- let's suppose I'm communicating with
`two different servers from the same device and I'm
`downloading material from each of those servers. The
`question is how much of the bandwidth that's available to
`me am I going to allocate to Server 1 versus Server 2. And
`that's going to depend at the rate -- the rate at which
`data is coming and the total amount of data I expect.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`18
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 19
` Q What do you mean by the term "media application"
`in this sentence?
` A So I think -- I think media generally would refer
`to audio and video. And, typically, audio and video have
`certain transmission requirements; namely, that delay in
`transmission is not tolerable because it would break up the
`audio, it would break up the video. Whereas, if I want to
`download a PDF, I don't care if it's broken up during
`transmission as long as I receive the entire PDF. There's
`no time sensitivity to it.
` Q Would you consider a generic Web browser to be a
`media application?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` A Yeah, I'm -- I'm not sure that we would
`necessarily agree on what a generic browser is. But if a
`generic browser has a -- for example, a video player and
`audio player, then it would -- it can handle media
`applications.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) What are factors that could
`increase bandwidth demands, that balancing of such demands
`would be beneficial?
` A I'm sorry. I need more context for that. You
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`19
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 20
`
`mean in general?
` Q In general.
` A Context of media in the context of these patents?
`Or what?
` Q In the context of the Java Threads reference that
`you're referring to here.
` A Oh. Well, I think the Java Threads reference is
`pretty clear. He's talking about this media tracker
`object, and it says, "The Java API allocates four threads
`and retrieves images registered in the media tracker object
`four at a time." And then, having boldfaced the quote,
`This limits the load the program places on the server
`supplying the images as well as the bandwidth that the
`program will require in order to load the images.
` So here, we're talking -- we're talking
`about what are apparently still images. And still images
`can have different sizes, and a large image is going to
`require a large number of bytes to be -- to be transmitted.
` Q So here, you're really focusing on using
`multithreading in the context of downloading media files;
`is that correct?
` A Well, in -- when you say "me," this is a quote
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`20
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 21
`from -- from the Java Threads book. So that's one of the
`quotes that I'm relying on to show that in media
`applications it was well-known to use multithreading.
` Q What about outside of the context of downloading
`media files, would multithreading or multitasking be useful
`for non-communication-related functions?
` A Yes.
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) Would a computing device
`that's executing a large number of programs run more
`efficiently through the use of multitasking or
`multithreading?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` A Yeah. Please just repeat the first part of the
`sentence -- first part of the question.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) Yeah. Would a computing
`device that's executing a relatively large number of
`programs run more efficiently through the use of
`multitasking or multithreading?
` A Well, if --
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` A If it is running multiple programs -- I assume
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`21
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 22
`
`you meant at the same time.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) Correct.
` A Yeah. And if it's -- if it's running multiple
`programs at the same time, it is multitasking
`automatically. It's not automatically multithreading,
`just -- just based on that premise.
` Now, when you say "efficiently," there are
`various different measures of efficiency. I gave some
`simple examples in the declaration. For example, let's
`suppose I have a program that is asking the user to supply
`some input. And so it displays a text box on the screen,
`along with a message saying, you know, please enter your
`name and address.
` One way of programming that is to sit there
`and wait until the user has finished entering the data and
`has hit enter. If you sit there and wait, then no other
`programs are executing during that time. On the other
`hand, if you -- if the operating system senses that you're
`in a wait state, that is, you're not requiring CPU, it can
`allocate the CPU to other threads or to other tasks that
`are contemporaneously running, and so you're not blocking
`other tasks from being performed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`22
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 23
` Now, you're never increasing -- you can't
`speed up the multitasks beyond what the processor load
`requires. So if I have two programs, each of which takes a
`half an hour to run, no matter how I divide up the time,
`they can't both finish in less than an hour. On the other
`hand, it might not be necessary to make one guy wait half
`an hour, until the first program finishes, to begin running
`his program.
` So I need to understand better what you mean
`by "efficient."
` Q So you mentioned that if one task is in a paused
`state, multithreading would allow the device to perform
`other tasks. Would those other tasks be tasks for the same
`program or for a different program?
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` A Oh, if it's multithreading, it's going to be for
`the same program. If it's multitasking, it's going to be
`for a different program.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) All right. I'm going to move
`ahead to Paragraph 128 of your declaration.
` A I'm there.
` Q This paragraph, you are discussing Exhibit 1017,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`23
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 24
`which is U.S. Patent Number 6,567,974, to -- Czajkowski, I
`believe, is how you pronounce that -- Czajkowski; is that
`correct?
` A Probably Czajkowski, but I don't know. Or,
`actually, Czajkowski.
` Q Yeah, maybe Czajkowski. I'll go with that.
` Here, you assert that Czajkowski, quote,
`discloses the use of multitasking and multithreading
`specifically in music applications, end quote. Correct?
` A Yes, and I back that up with actual citations.
` Q Is it your opinion that the disclosures of
`Czajkowski that you reproduced here would have been part of
`the background knowledge of a POSITA?
` A Yes.
` Q You've reproduced a section of Czajkowski in
`Paragraph 128, and this section discusses a computer
`running Java and using that to perform several functions
`simultaneously, including, quote, run animations and play
`music while scrolling the page and downloading a text file
`from a server, end quote, using multithreading; is that
`correct?
` A Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`24
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 25
` Q So is it your opinion that when Java is used to
`execute multiple functions simultaneously, a POSITA would
`have recognized this would have been performed using
`multithreading or multitasking?
` A A POSITA would have recognized that it would be
`beneficial to use multitasking and multithreading to do
`such a thing.
` Q Would a POSITA have recognized that this use of
`multithreading allows for the computing device to balance
`the computational demands of these different functions?
` A Yes.
` Q Is that essentially the purpose of multithreading
`and multitasking?
` A It's one of the purposes. It doesn't have to be
`used for that purpose.
` Q And now I would like to turn to Paragraphs 130
`and 131 of your declaration.
` A I'm there.
` Q Here, you're discussing Exhibit 1018, which is
`U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0192818 to
`Bourges-Sevenier; is that correct?
` A Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`25
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 26
` Q Here, you reproduce a few different paragraphs of
`Bourges-Sevenier that address Java and multithreading; is
`that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q You reproduce these paragraphs side by side in
`your declaration, but these different paragraphs are
`actually quite spread out throughout the specification of
`the Bourges-Sevenier reference; is that correct?
` A Yes. And I think I was clear about citing the
`exact paragraph numbers. I don't think I misrepresented
`that these were consecutive in the document.
` Q And moving ahead to Paragraph 132, you cite to a
`single disclosure of using digital rights management, or
`DRM, controls. And this appears over 50 paragraphs after
`the last discussion of multithreading in Bourges-Sevenier;
`is that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q So this reference doesn't actual expressly
`discuss applying multithreading to digital rights
`management control; isn't that true?
` A Well, I don't think that's -- I don't think
`that's really right, if one takes the entire import of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`26
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 27
`
`document.
` So let's look at the material quoted in
`Paragraph 132. It says, "DRM controls digital rights
`management" -- "DRM controls-Digital Rights Management is
`orthogonal to the processing media and often act as a
`barrier to the media flow."
` Well, the whole idea of multithreading is
`that you get around barriers. And so it's balancing a
`computational demand of DRM with other functions that are
`being performed by the program.
` Q Would it also be balancing functions performed by
`other programs?
` A Multithreading wouldn't. Multitasking would be.
` Q So is it your opinion that when software is
`implemented using multithreading or multitasking
`functionality of Java, that means that the software is
`balancing the computational needs of these functions?
` A No. I think --
` MR. NYDEGGER: Objection; form.
` A No. I think I answered that earlier. I said
`it's one of the uses of multitasking and multithreading.
`It's not a required use. Sometimes people write programs
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`27
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 28
`that are multithreaded simply so that they can keep logical
`track of differing computation flows or different
`computation paths through their program. They don't really
`care about whether -- whether processor allocation or
`processor usage is balanced.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) All right. I'm going to turn
`to Paragraphs 148 and 149 of your declaration.
` A I'm there.
` MR. NYDEGGER: I'm sorry. What -- was that
`148?
` MR. BISENIUS: Yes.
` MR. NYDEGGER: Thank you.
` Q (BY MR. BISENIUS) Here, you opine that, quote,
`It would have been obvious to implement the disclosures of
`Abrams using multitasking and multithreading, end quote,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And here, you include an abbreviated claim chart,
`in Paragraph 149, that addresses Claims 2 and 27 of the
`'132 patent; is that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And is it correct that here, it's your view that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
`
`202-232-0646
`
`28
`
`
`
`8/1/2022
`
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte. Ltd.
`
`Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`Page 29
`the additional functionality recited by Claims 2 and 27
`would have been obvious based on the knowledge of a POSITA,
`in light of the discussion in your multitasking and
`multithreading section?
` A Y
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
