HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` CASE NO. IPR2022-00413
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` -vs-
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` REMOTE TESTIMONY OF GERALD W. SMITH
`
` November 14, 2022 - 9:30 A.M. EST
`
`Reported by:
`
`S. Arielle Santos
`
`Job No. 6030
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 001
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` CASE NO. IPR2022-00413
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` -vs-
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` REMOTE TESTIMONY OF GERALD W. SMITH
`
` November 14, 2022 - 9:30 A.M. EST
`
`Reported by:
`
`S. Arielle Santos
`
`Job No. 6030
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 001
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 2
`
` NOVEMBER 14, 2022
`
` 9:30 A.M. EST
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION of GERALD W. SMITH,
`
`before S. Arielle Santos, Certified Court
`
`Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter and Notary
`
`Public.
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 002
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 3
`
`COUNSEL FOR APPLE:
`
`BY - PAUL HART, ESQ.
`
`ERISE IP, PA
`
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 200
`
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`
` paul.hart@eriseIP.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR RFCYBER:
`
`BY - VINCENT RUBINO, ESQ.
`
`FABRICANT LLP
`
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South
`
`Rye, NY 10580
`
` vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 003
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` INDEX
`
`Page 4
`
` GERALD SMITH 5
`
` MR. RUBINO 5
`
` EXHIBITS REFERENCED - PREVIOUSLY MARKED
`
` Exhibit 1001 55
`
` Exhibit 1003 57
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 004
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 5
`
`GERALD SMITH, Testifies under penalty of
`
`perjury as follows:
`
` THE WITNESS: I do.
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Good morning.
`
` Can you please state your full
`
`name for the record?
`
` A My mute takes a little bit of
`
`time. Can you hear me okay?
`
` Gerald William Smith.
`
` Q Mr. Smith, for whom do you
`
`currently work?
`
` A I work in actually two places:
`
`ID Technology Partners, which is where
`
`this work was done through back in 2020,
`
`2021, and I also have my own entity
`
`called Generic Smart Cards LLC.
`
` Q And so "this work," what do you
`
`mean by "this work"?
`
` A What I mean by that is what I
`
`currently do to earn a living, which is I
`
`am a smart card professional, primarily
`
`consulting at my age now to various
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 005
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`organizations like Homeland Security and
`
`other agencies, as well as building
`
`things like diagnostic gear and stuff on
`
`a one-off basis.
`
` Q Are you familiar with something
`
`called mobile payments, generally, the
`
`concept?
`
` A I am familiar with mobile. I am
`
`familiar with payments. And payments
`
`over mobile devices, if that's what is
`
`your definition of mobile payment.
`
` Q So have you heard of a product
`
`called Samsung Pay, for example?
`
` A If I can get the mute button to
`
`work -- I am familiar with Samsung Pay
`
`and other names in front pay or
`
`equivalence, yes.
`
` Q So you'd also be familiar with
`
`Google Pay, right?
`
` A Yes, I am familiar with Google
`
`Pay, the name at least, yes, and its
`
`general aspects.
`
` Q So are you familiar more than at
`
`a general level, are you familiar with
`
`the technical workings of Samsung Pay?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 006
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A The particulars of things like
`
`Samsung Pay or Google Pay, even others, I
`
`see through the eyes of payments because
`
`I sit on various standards boards, not to
`
`the level I did in the period, but I
`
`would see it through things like EMVCo or
`
`some of the European Telecom Standards
`
`Entity Standards, ISO 8583 traffic. I
`
`see it through that kind of nuts and
`
`bolts level versus a user level.
`
` I don't believe -- actually, I
`
`know I don't use any of those myself. I
`
`am still -- I am still a card-based guy
`
`in the end of the day. But I think -- I
`
`have some awareness of the concept.
`
` Q Are you aware of any of the
`
`security issues that have been prevalent
`
`with Samsung Pay and Google Pay?
`
` MR. HART: Objection.
`
` Relevance.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q You can answer if you know, sir.
`
` A I do not know. I don't --
`
`since -- I am in the identity space now
`
`more than payments, I don't follow
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 007
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`such -- such issues. So no, I am not
`
`familiar with specifics on any of these
`
`payment mechanisms.
`
` Q But you generally are aware that
`
`there have been security issues in the
`
`media, in news articles about Samsung Pay
`
`and Google Pay, right?
`
` MR. HART: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I do not recall
`
` if I saw those or I put them to
`
` memory. I would say in my
`
` recollection, no, I have not
`
` followed that at all because it's
`
` not relevant to what I do in the
`
` identity space.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Are you aware of any
`
`transmission of credit card information
`
`as plain text over the internet by Google
`
`Pay or Samsung Pay leading to security
`
`issues?
`
` MR. HART: Objection,
`
` relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I am not.
`
` Again, I am not familiar with the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 008
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` specific mechanisms of those
`
` offerings.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Who are you working for in this
`
`case, sir?
`
` A In this particular case? If you
`
`could rephrase the question so I
`
`understand what you mean who I am working
`
`for.
`
` Q I would like to know. I don't
`
`know how to make it more specific.
`
` Who are you working for -- Erise
`
`IP, the court reporter, me?
`
` Who are you working for?
`
` A Well, in this particular
`
`instance, I am representing -- I support
`
`the Erise IP team.
`
` Q Is there a party -- specific
`
`party you are working for?
`
` A I work for Erise IP, which my
`
`understanding -- and I am not a lawyer, I
`
`think I stated that in the declaration --
`
`I thought represented Apple in this
`
`particular case.
`
` Q Do you also work for Samsung?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 009
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A I have not -- no, I do not work
`
`for Samsung. As I stated previously, I
`
`work for ID Technology Partners and some
`
`additional work at Generic Smart Cards
`
`LLC. I don't deal with the West Coast
`
`firms, no. No, not at this time.
`
` Q Didn't you submit a declaration
`
`on behalf of Samsung in an IPR proceeding
`
`earlier last year?
`
` A Well, to clarify, I thought you
`
`meant at this moment. I was retained as
`
`an expert witness through a different
`
`legal team, I think it was GT Law to
`
`represent Samsung, yes. I didn't
`
`consider that -- I believe the terms of
`
`my contract was I was not or will ever be
`
`an employee of Samsung. That's my
`
`understanding. And when that resolved
`
`itself however it resolved itself, I am
`
`no longer associated with that.
`
` So it was only in this type of
`
`domain that I was associated with
`
`Samsung.
`
` Q So if I say "this case," are you
`
`familiar with the IPR proceedings
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 010
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`IPR2022-412 and 413?
`
` A I would have to see the actual
`
`work to understand if I am familiar with
`
`that, whether that is the Apple stuff
`
`or -- sounds like it's newer. I think
`
`all my stuff is 2021 stuff under Samsung.
`
`That is the most I know of particular
`
`numbers without seeing the document.
`
` Q So you submitted two
`
`declarations, one in each of the
`
`proceedings we are here to talk about
`
`today, right?
`
` Is that right, sir?
`
` A That's correct. One for the
`
`'787 and one for the '009, which I think
`
`start out saying Samsung.
`
` Q And you submitted those
`
`declarations while you were doing work
`
`for Samsung in 2021, right?
`
` A That work started in 2020 and I
`
`believe, yeah, they were submitted
`
`sometime mid-2021. I would have to see
`
`the dates but that was for through GT Law
`
`to Samsung, yes, sir.
`
` Q And then sometime later you
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 011
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`started working with Apple and submitted
`
`what is essentially the identical
`
`declaration in the Apple proceedings,
`
`right?
`
` A I don't know the procedural
`
`aspects of this but the same declaration
`
`applies, is my understanding. So that is
`
`the best I can answer that particular
`
`question.
`
` Q So you didn't change any
`
`positions between the Samsung proceeding
`
`and the Apple proceeding, right?
`
` It's all the same positions you
`
`have taken?
`
` A As of today, even my opinion
`
`remains the same on what I disclosed in
`
`those declarations.
`
` Q When you were working for
`
`Samsung, you were actually representing
`
`or you submitted declarations for four
`
`proceedings, right?
`
` A As I recall -- again, this is
`
`two years ago, talking about a time
`
`period that's almost 20 years now, well,
`
`15-plus -- I do remember creating or
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 012
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`crafting four different declarations,
`
`although I think there were more IP than
`
`that at the time. But that sounds
`
`correct that there were four, in fact.
`
` Q I am going to say some patent
`
`numbers here.
`
` Are you familiar with the '218
`
`patent?
`
` A I am familiar with the '218
`
`patent and I believe I crafted a
`
`declaration for that particular patent.
`
` Q And you're also familiar with
`
`the '855 patent as well, right?
`
` A I believe I call that out
`
`specifically in the -- it's like the
`
`'787. But, yes, I am familiar with an
`
`'855 declaration as well.
`
` Q And you understand that we are
`
`here today because the PTAB, P-T-A-B has
`
`instituted IPR proceedings for the '009
`
`and '787 patents, right?
`
` A That is my understanding, that
`
`that was -- what you people call a
`
`decision, okay, from a -- I think it is a
`
`three judge panel, if I understand the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 013
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`process, I am not a lawyer.
`
` So yes, we are here because we
`
`are moving forward on '009 and the '787,
`
`that's my understanding.
`
` Q And you understand that there's
`
`a decision called an institution decision
`
`in those proceedings where the patent
`
`office, the PTAB, discusses the merits of
`
`the proceeding, right?
`
` A I have -- I have -- I understand
`
`what a decision document is which I think
`
`they discuss whether something should
`
`move forward or not, that is the best I
`
`can really ferret that out as a
`
`technologist.
`
` Q Have you read them?
`
` A I have read the decision
`
`documents for both the '787 and the '009,
`
`yes, sir.
`
` Q And you're also aware the patent
`
`office declined to proceed in the
`
`proceedings where you submitted a
`
`declaration for the '218 and the '855
`
`patents, right?
`
` A Under Samsung, yes, the decision
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 014
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`from the PTAB was not to institute trial
`
`on either of those matters. And that
`
`was -- as far as I was concerned, that's
`
`-- you know, I had done my job and moved
`
`on.
`
` Q Did you read the decisions in
`
`those cases?
`
` A Yes, I read both decisions
`
`because it's -- these type of -- this
`
`type of work is always, if nothing else,
`
`an educational moment for me of should I
`
`continue to go down this line of work, I
`
`want to try to improve my prose, if
`
`nothing else.
`
` But, yes, I did receive -- I
`
`did -- maybe I didn't fully understand
`
`them, but I did read those decisions.
`
` Q And so I want to make sure I
`
`understand the timing right.
`
` You submitted declarations on
`
`behalf of Samsung for the '218, '855,
`
`'787 and '009 patents sometime in the
`
`2020-2021 timeframe, right?
`
` A The work was done starting in --
`
`I mean, I got involved in late 2020, and
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 015
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I remember -- my recollection is that all
`
`those filings were over the summer, maybe
`
`slightly into the fall of 2021 for
`
`Samsung.
`
` Q And so you put declarations
`
`together.
`
` They were ultimately submitted
`
`sometime in the fall of 2021 for Samsung
`
`for all four patents, right?
`
` A That's my recollection, yeah,
`
`there were four things submitted. Again,
`
`most of that was other machinery tourney
`
`with respect to the PTAB and all that.
`
`But I remember doing work for four
`
`declarations, and my understanding is
`
`they were all submitted, yes.
`
` Q And then sometime in early -- or
`
`sometime in late 2021, early 2022, you
`
`became aware that the patent office
`
`denied institution, declined to proceed
`
`with the proceedings on the '218 and the
`
`'855 patent, right?
`
` A I was informed and I did read,
`
`as I said earlier, in I think it was
`
`early 2022, that two, the '787, '009,
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 016
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`there was -- to proceed and institute to
`
`trial, and the '218 and the '855 were
`
`declined by the PTAB.
`
` That's -- that's my recollection
`
`of how things more or less ended at that
`
`point with my work with Samsung based on
`
`subsequent legal maneuverings and all
`
`that.
`
` Q Are you aware one way or the
`
`other whether Samsung took a license to
`
`the patents?
`
` A I --
`
` (Simultaneous Crosstalk.)
`
` MR. HART: Objection.
`
` Relevance.
`
` Go ahead, Gerry.
`
` THE WITNESS: Sorry, I didn't
`
` mean to cut you off their, Paul.
`
` No, I never -- in the work I
`
` have done so far, depending
`
` whoever I am representing, I never
`
` know the outcome nor do I really
`
` want to know the outcome, it's
`
` none of my business, really.
`
` But no, I have no idea what
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 017
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` happened when things -- what
`
` happened after the PTAB decisions.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Would it surprise you to learn
`
`that Samsung took a license to the
`
`RFCyber patents?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Surprise might
`
` be too strong a word. Again, I
`
` wasn't privy to what actually
`
` happened other than my contract
`
` terminated at that point because
`
` my services were no longer needed.
`
` I am not surprised because
`
` that is -- to me, that's one
`
` possible outcome. You take a
`
` license or you agree on an amount
`
` from an award chest and you move
`
` on, okay, from at least my prior
`
` life experience in these areas.
`
` But surprise is -- I think might
`
` be a little too strong a word.
`
` But I wasn't aware that they took
`
` a license. That much is true.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 018
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So based on the fact that you
`
`rendered opinions that you believe all
`
`these patents are invalid, would it
`
`surprise you at all to learn that Samsung
`
`paid for a license to these patents?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would repeat
`
` the same response, that it's
`
` just -- to me, these things are
`
` business decisions on the
`
` commercial side sometimes -- in my
`
` opinion, in my experience.
`
` So same basic response as
`
` before; surprise is a strong word,
`
` but it's -- it's one possible
`
` outcome. That is the most I can
`
` say there.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Do you think Samsung would have
`
`paid for invalid patents -- a license to
`
`invalid patents?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, same
`
` response as before. I considered
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 019
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` it a business decision really at
`
` that point, and nothing more than
`
` that. And validity didn't really
`
` play into that. Just a business
`
` decision of do you keep going, at
`
` what cost, versus you settle.
`
` It's just that within this
`
` case, you're telling me a
`
` license -- which I cannot confirm
`
` by the way, maybe there is a way
`
` to confirm it, but I don't know
`
` how to do that.
`
` So same basic theme that
`
` surprise is a strong word but the
`
` merits of invalidity or not,
`
` debate was stopped really at that
`
` point at Samsung.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Would it surprise you to learn
`
`that Samsung paid $5 million for a
`
`license to these patents?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I never know
`
` dollar amounts nor are they
`
` relevant to my contributions to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 020
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` that particular effort.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Based on your understanding from
`
`your time in the industry and your
`
`professional career, don't you think
`
`paying $5 million for invalid patents
`
`would be a lot of money if those patents
`
`were invalid?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, I
`
` restate about projections of
`
` what's it take to get to the end,
`
` what is the certainty it's going
`
` to get to the end, especially with
`
` some PTAB decisions versus
`
` basically cut losses in the matter
`
` and move on. To me, it's a
`
` business decision.
`
` It hasn't -- again, in my
`
` mind has nothing to do with the
`
` invalidity, especially when you
`
` look at all the arguments and
`
` hundreds and hundreds of pages
`
` that I know I performed under
`
` Samsung, okay, with respect to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 021
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` those four matters.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q I will ask you something that is
`
`a little outlandish here then.
`
` Let's say you certainly do agree
`
`that if someone paid close to $30 million
`
`for a license to these patents, that, you
`
`know, they wouldn't be paying $30 million
`
`for license to invalid patents -- we will
`
`get back to the $5 million range in a
`
`second -- but let me rephrase that.
`
`Okay?
`
` A Please.
`
` Q So you told me what you think
`
`about the $5 million range but I want to
`
`ask you about something that is a little
`
`more outlandish.
`
` So let's say someone paid
`
`$30 million for a license to these
`
`patents.
`
` You wouldn't think someone would
`
`be paying $30 million for a license to
`
`invalid patents, right?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 022
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, first,
`
` that is a hypothetical and I --
`
` with all due respect, I don't do
`
` hypotheticals. But I reaffirm
`
` where my head is on this and that
`
` is if it's a $3 trillion market,
`
` for example, if you're -- in your
`
` hypothetical $30 million might be
`
` a very reasonable way out in this,
`
` without considering invalidity. I
`
` think that is the point I want to
`
` make is if somebody pays for
`
` something, it doesn't transfer, in
`
` my mind, whether the patent is
`
` valid or not.
`
` Just because, again, I am not
`
` a lawyer. But that's my
`
` understanding, it's strictly in
`
` the realm of a business decision,
`
` the entity, the corporation.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Have you ever rendered an
`
`opinion that a patent is valid?
`
` A I have done a few of these.
`
`That's a difficult question for me
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 023
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`because I did some work 2000 -- I want to
`
`say 2009 -- on a smart card matter, where
`
`I believe I did represent the plaintiff
`
`as an expert witness. I -- that never
`
`got to a declaration phase.
`
` So I think I have answered my
`
`own question. No, I don't think I am on
`
`the record for arguing that no, indeed, a
`
`patent is invalid. I have -- I don't
`
`think there's anything on the record in
`
`that regard.
`
` Q So to confirm, you've only ever
`
`submitted declarations or given sworn
`
`testimony proceedings arguing that
`
`patents are invalid.
`
` You have never argued in a
`
`declaration or in a sworn proceeding that
`
`a patent is valid, correct?
`
` A That is my recollection, yes.
`
` Q Other than the proceedings
`
`related to the Samsung RFCyber case and
`
`the Apple RFCyber case, how many other
`
`IPR proceedings have you been involved
`
`in?
`
` A This may not be an accurate
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 024
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`number because one of my clients over the
`
`years has been the Department of Justice,
`
`their IP division.
`
` I believe there's at least
`
`one -- two, in fact, I have done in the
`
`past. I don't remember the exact merits
`
`of that case. I did not prepare for that
`
`today. But I would say at least two
`
`where -- not counting this case, two
`
`additional, okay.
`
` And again, I think both of
`
`those -- three, actually, because there
`
`is one also that I think I did write a
`
`declaration for -- for the SEC. I was
`
`retained as an expert witness there on a
`
`particular smart card matter as well.
`
` So I would say in the universe
`
`of these kind of things, not counting
`
`Samsung or this proceeding, I would say
`
`three additional.
`
` Q Now, back to the Samsung
`
`institution decisions we discussed.
`
` After you read the decisions
`
`denying institution for the '218 and '855
`
`patents where the patent office decided
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 025
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`not to proceed based on your
`
`declarations, after reviewing those
`
`decisions, you didn't make any changes to
`
`any declaration in the Apple proceedings,
`
`right?
`
` MR. HART: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can only talk
`
` to the '787 and '009. But the
`
` opinions I rendered there, even in
`
` consideration of the two that were
`
` not moved forward, which I read it
`
` carefully enough to know it was a
`
` different board, different set of
`
` people, that I apparently did
`
` not -- I was not persuasive on my
`
` side I guess.
`
` No, my opinions stay the way
`
` they are and did not impact my
`
` '787 or '009 hundreds of pages of
`
` disclosure. No, I am sticking to
`
` my guns on that, because it's what
`
` I believe and -- for the time
`
` period, and there was -- in my
`
` opinion, there's no reason to
`
` change any opinions in that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 026
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` regard.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So in other words, if the patent
`
`office said certain things in the
`
`institution decisions denying institution
`
`for the '218 and '855 patents, you are
`
`not changing any of your opinions with
`
`regard to the '787 and '009 patents,
`
`right?
`
` You think you have said enough;
`
`you don't need to add anything to them;
`
`they stand on their own.
`
` Is that your testimony?
`
` A That's effectively my testimony,
`
`yes. Because -- and I think it is out of
`
`scope to bring in my own -- how I am
`
`educated on the '218 and '855 in that
`
`regard. So I am not going to talk about
`
`that.
`
` But there's nothing that changes
`
`what I know was what was happening and my
`
`best knowledge and experience there's no
`
`need for me to make any changes, I
`
`believe, in either the '787 or the '009.
`
` Q Are you familiar with the term
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 027
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`"secure element"?
`
` A I would need you to clarify what
`
`you mean by that term. I come out of the
`
`specifications and standards and
`
`business, so I would -- I am a little
`
`confused on context.
`
` Do you mean with respect to the
`
`'009 patent?
`
` Q Let's talk about the term secure
`
`element with regard to any of the RFCyber
`
`patents.
`
` You are familiar with the term
`
`in the context of the patents, right?
`
` A I am familiar with the term as
`
`used in the '009, because that's top of
`
`my head right now, which stipulates in
`
`the specifications -- it's probably the
`
`wrong wording in the legal context -- but
`
`it says in the specifications, somewhere
`
`in column 6, I believe, I could be off
`
`there, I don't have, I would have to go
`
`look precisely -- that a secure element
`
`may be in the form of a smart card, which
`
`that's what I use, then, to engage my
`
`expertise for the balance of at least the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 028
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`'009 in that regard.
`
` And I do not recall the use of
`
`secure element. It may be there, okay,
`
`in the '787 or I would have to go and
`
`look for it. But the '009 certainly
`
`brings in smart cards as a definition.
`
` Q You are aware that in the '218
`
`and '855 proceedings, the proceedings
`
`related to those two patents, that the
`
`patent office declined to proceed because
`
`the prior art that you cited to in those
`
`proceedings, they didn't believe it
`
`disclosed a secure element, right?
`
` MR. HART: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, I did
`
` not really prepare for the '218
`
` and '855 today in scope for me
`
` today, I'm a very big guy on scope
`
` because I am trapped by it all the
`
` time in some of my work.
`
` I don't remember exactly the
`
` detail on those arguments. What I
`
` do remember is in the '009, a
`
` secure element can come in the
`
` form of a smart card. And that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 029
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` was sufficient in my technical
`
` mind to proceed along the
`
` grounds -- the lines that I did,
`
` and ultimately my '009
`
` declaration.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q I am only asking about what the
`
`board said when it declined to institute.
`
`You said you looked at those decisions
`
`and you learned from them.
`
` I'm asking you whether you are
`
`aware that in the decisions denying
`
`institution, the board at the PTAB found
`
`that the references you cited to didn't
`
`have the secure element of the '218 and
`
`'855 patents.
`
` Do you know that or do you not
`
`know that?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I consider that
`
` out of scope for today. I just
`
` would need to go back and see that
`
` language and see how it applies --
`
` applies here.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 030
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` I am not exactly sure why
`
` you're asking that question, when
`
` it's very obvious certainly in the
`
` '009, where you define the term to
`
` be or at least a realm of that
`
` term for use which I did use,
`
` okay, in my declaration.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So you are telling me in this
`
`proceeding, you don't plan to talk about
`
`at all what the patent office said about
`
`secure element in its decision denying
`
`institution for the '218 patent and '855
`
`patent.
`
` Is that what you are telling me?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can't really
`
` answer that. I can't predict the
`
` future of what I am going to say,
`
` depending on how events unfold.
`
` What I have said in the
`
` declaration is what I am sticking
`
` to, as I have said in the opening
`
` of these proceedings.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00413
`Page 031
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So whateve
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
