UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`ZOOM DEPOSITION OF RAJENDRA SHAH
`(Reported Remotely via Video & Web Videoconference)
` Indianapolis, Indiana (Deponent's location)
`Monday, October 10, 2022
`Volume 1
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR, CCR
`California CSR No. 12546
`Nevada CCR No. 827
`Oregon CSR No. 20-0466
`Washington CCR No. 3491
`JOB NO. 5520973
`PAGES 1 - 73
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 1
`
`
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`ZOOM DEPOSITION OF RAJENDRA SHAH
`(Reported Remotely via Video & Web Videoconference)
` Indianapolis, Indiana (Deponent's location)
`Monday, October 10, 2022
`Volume 1
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR, CCR
`California CSR No. 12546
`Nevada CCR No. 827
`Oregon CSR No. 20-0466
`Washington CCR No. 3491
`JOB NO. 5520973
`PAGES 1 - 73
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _______________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _______________
`
` GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _______________
`
` IPR2022-00538
`
` Patent No. 9,194,597
`
` DEPOSITION OF RAJENDRA SHAH, taken on
`
`behalf of the Patent Owner, with the deponent
`
`located in Indianapolis, Indiana, commencing at
`
`10:59 a.m., Monday, October 10, 2022, remotely
`
`reported via Video & Web Videoconference before
`
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, a Registered Professional
`
`Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Certified
`
`Court Reporter.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 2
`
`
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`(All parties appearing via Web videoconference)
`
`For the Petitioner:
`
` SMITH BALUCH LLP
`
` BY: ELIZABETH A. LAUGHTON
`
` Attorney at Law
`
` 1100 Alma Street
`
` Suite 109
`
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
` (703) 585-8839
`
` laughton@smithbaluch.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
`
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
` BY: JONATHAN LINK
`
` Attorney at Law
`
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`
` 12th Floor
`
` Los Angeles, California 90025
`
` (310) 826-7474
`
` jlink@raklaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Steven Togami, Videographer
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 3
`
`
`
` I N D E X
`
`DEPONENT EXAMINATION
`
`RAJENDRA SHAH PAGE
`
`VOLUME 1
`
` BY MR. LINK 8
`
` E X H I B I T S(premarked)
`
`NUMBER PAGE
`
` DESCRIPTION
`
`Exhibit 1001 US Patent 9,194,597 B2;
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Rajendra Shah;
`
`Exhibit 1004 US Patent Application
`
` Publication 2004/0117330 A1;
`
`Exhibit 1005 US Patent Application
`
` Publication 2005/0040250 A1;
`
`Exhibit 1017 Initial Determination.
`
`/////
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 4
`
`
`
` Indianapolis, Indiana; Monday, October 10, 2022
`
` 10:59 a.m.
`
` ---o0o---
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record 10:59:12
`
`at 10:59 a.m. on October 10th, 2022.
`
` Please note that this deposition is being
`
`conducted virtually. Quality of recording depends
`
`on the quality of camera and Internet connection of
`
`participants. What is seen from the witness and 10:59:32
`
`heard on-screen is what will be recorded.
`
` Audio and video recording will continue
`
`to take place unless all parties agree to go off
`
`the record.
`
` This is Media Unit No. 1 of the 10:59:46
`
`video-recorded deposition of Rajendra Shah taken by
`
`counsel for the patent owner EcoFactor, Inc. in the
`
`matter of Google LLC versus EcoFactor, Inc. filed
`
`before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, 11:00:13
`
`IPR 2022-00538.
`
` This deposition is being conducted
`
`remotely using virtual technology. My name is
`
`Steven Togami representing Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`and I am the videographer. The court reporter is 11:00:41
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`Rebecca Romano from the firm 11:00:43
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions.
`
` I and not related to any party in this
`
`action nor am I financially interested in the
`
`outcome. 11:00:54
`
` If there are any objections to
`
`proceeding, please state them at the time of your
`
`appearance. At this time will counsel and all
`
`present please state their appearances and
`
`affiliations for the record starting with the 11:01:05
`
`noticing party.
`
` MR. LINK: My name is Jonathan Link of
`
`the law firm of Russ August & Kabat on behalf of
`
`patent owner EcoFactor, Inc.
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: This is Elizabeth Laughton 11:01:18
`
`with the law firm of Smith Baluch LLP representing
`
`the petitioner Google LLC.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: At this time, I will
`
`ask counsel to agree on the record that there is no
`
`objection to this deposition officer administering 11:01:34
`
`a binding oath to the deponent via remote
`
`videoconference, starting with the noticing
`
`attorney, please.
`
` MR. LINK: No objection.
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: No objection. 11:01:44
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 6
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. If you could 11:01:44
`
`raise your right hand for me, please.
`
` THE DEPONENT: (Complies.)
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: You do solemnly
`
`state, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony 11:01:45
`
`you're about to give in this deposition shall be
`
`the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
`
`truth?
`
` THE DEPONENT: I do.
`
`/////
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 7
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`Page 7
`
`
`
` RAJENDRA SHAH, 11:02:04
`
`having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION 11:02:04
`
`BY MR. LINK:
`
` Q. Excellent.
`
` Good morning, Mr. Shah.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. We -- we've done this a number of times, 11:02:11
`
`so I won't go through all of the rules.
`
` But probably just a good reminder, as
`
`always, you know, if you have any questions about
`
`my question, if it's unclear, let me know, let's
`
`figure out so that we can get a good answer. 11:02:23
`
` If you need a break, just ask. Obviously
`
`if I have a question pending, I want that answer.
`
`But then, you know, I want to be considerate if
`
`you -- if you need a break or anything, just let me
`
`know. 11:02:35
`
` Mr. Shah, are there any reasons you can't
`
`give truthful testimony today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. No medication, no medical issues,
`
`anything like that? 11:02:46
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`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
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` A. No. 11:02:50
`
` Q. Okay. Do you have any notes with you
`
`right now?
`
` A. No, nothing in front of me.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you have hard copies of the -- 11:02:56
`
`of your declaration or any exhibits with you, or
`
`are you going to be relying just on the electronic
`
`versions?
`
` A. I don't have hard copies.
`
` Q. Okay. 11:03:07
`
` A. I do have all the electronic versions of
`
`the declaration and all the exhibits available to
`
`me on my computer.
`
` Q. Okay. Excellent.
`
` I've also put some of them in the Exhibit 11:03:15
`
`Share under the "Marked" there. If you need them,
`
`if you need anything else of that nature, let me
`
`know, we can get that in front of you.
`
` Is there anyone else in the room with
`
`you? 11:03:29
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. Great.
`
` What did you do to prepare for your
`
`deposition today?
`
` A. I obviously reviewed my declaration and 11:03:46
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 9
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`all the referenced documents that the declaration 11:03:48
`
`was referring to to remind me of what we had done
`
`when we did the declaration. You know, that's
`
`basically what I did.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you meet with Ms. Laughton to 11:04:04
`
`prepare for your deposition today?
`
` A. We -- we did have a discussion together
`
`on the declaration, yes.
`
` Q. About how long -- about how long did you
`
`have that discussion with Ms. Laughton? 11:04:16
`
` A. I think it was about four hours, give or
`
`take.
`
` Q. Did you look at any materials other than
`
`your declaration or the exhibits that you reference
`
`in your declaration? 11:04:33
`
` A. I believe just those.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you write your declaration?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: Basically, I reviewed it
`
`and read detail with attorneys and made some 11:04:56
`
`suggestions and comments on certain aspects of it.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay.
`
` A. I did not actually write it.
`
` Q. Okay. About how long did you spend in
`
`the preparation of, I guess we'll say, reviewing 11:05:14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 10
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`and finalizing your declaration before you signed 11:05:22
`
`it?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: This was several months
`
`ago, so I'm not sure I remember exactly. But 11:05:31
`
`typically it would have been somewhere around, I
`
`would say, 20 to 30 hours.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. You cite a number
`
`of -- let me strike that and start again.
`
` You cite to a number of references or 11:05:59
`
`documents in your declaration. Did you identify
`
`them for purposes of including them in your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. I think we had, you know, the attorneys
`
`help with all that. And I might have also 11:06:18
`
`identified a document or two, and I don't remember
`
`for sure. But it was a combination effort with the
`
`attorney.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to turn to your
`
`declaration now, and that would be Exhibit -- it's 11:06:36
`
`marked as Exhibit 1002, if you could -- it's there
`
`in the Exhibit Share or if you -- if it's easier
`
`for you to pull up an electronic copy that you have
`
`there on your computer. Let me know if you --
`
` A. I just opened the Exhibit Share. Seems 11:06:53
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 11
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`fine. 11:06:55
`
` Q. Wonderful.
`
` And I'd like to turn to paragraph 15 in
`
`your declaration. That's at page 8.
`
` Let me know when you get there. 11:07:13
`
` A. Yes, I'm there.
`
` Q. Okay. Great.
`
` And in the second sentence, you say, "I
`
`understand that 'inherent' disclosure means that
`
`the claim element, although not expressly described 11:07:25
`
`by the prior art reference, must necessarily be
`
`present based on the disclosure."
`
` Do you see that sentence?
`
` A. Yeah, I see the sentence.
`
` Q. Okay. What do you mean by "necessarily 11:07:47
`
`be present" in that sentence?
`
` A. It means, you know, to anybody, a POSITA,
`
`or looking at that, the -- the claim element has to
`
`be present necessarily in order to make own claims
`
`and make any sense. 11:08:14
`
` Q. Okay. When you say "has to be present,"
`
`you mean that -- that there would be no doubt at
`
`all that it would -- would a hundred percent be
`
`present based on that disclosure.
`
` Would that be an accurate way of saying 11:08:31
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 12
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`it? 11:08:33
`
` A. I say that from the perspective of a
`
`person looking at it, you know. And -- and in this
`
`case, I would say a POSITA looking at it, it would
`
`be necessary for that comment to be present. 11:08:45
`
` Q. Okay. In the next sentence in that
`
`paragraph, you say, "I understand that a mere
`
`probability that the element is present is not
`
`sufficient to qualify as 'inherent disclosure.'"
`
` Do you see that? 11:08:59
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. Okay. What do you mean by "mere
`
`probability"?
`
` A. It's what it says. It means that it's
`
`not a hundred percent sure. There's some 11:09:10
`
`probability or good chance that the element is
`
`present based on everything else, but it's not
`
`certain.
`
` Q. Okay. So in this case, if a POSITA would
`
`look at a particular teaching and say that there 11:09:27
`
`was a high likelihood that a particular element is
`
`present, that is not sufficient to qualify as an
`
`inherent disclosure; is that accurate?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I think, from the best I 11:09:44
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 13
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`understand, that that's correct. The POSITA, if 11:09:45
`
`they feel like they're in a high likelihood but not
`
`certainty, then it would not be an anticipating
`
`disclosure, as opposed to, you know, it could be
`
`obvious from it but not anticipatory. 11:10:01
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. Great.
`
` I'd like jump now to page 12 of your
`
`report where you talk about the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
` A. Okay. 11:10:27
`
` Q. And in paragraph 27 there, you -- as part
`
`of your opinions on the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, you talk about that person having "at
`
`least five years of professional experience in
`
`building energy management and controls." 11:10:41
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. So, first, I want to break it down
`
`a little bit to just better understand.
`
` Are you saying "building energy 11:10:50
`
`management" and then "and controls," that is,
`
`controls is separate from building energy
`
`management, or are you saying, you know,
`
`building -- controls or building energy controls
`
`or -- or -- if you could help me parse that last 11:11:05
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 14
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`portion there, that would helpful. 11:11:10
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I don't know -- in the
`
`context of this, I would say "and" means both.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. So building energy 11:11:30
`
`is also modifying the term "controls"? That is --
`
`let me strike that.
`
` Could I rewrite this to say building
`
`energy management and building energy controls and
`
`that would still convey what you intended? 11:11:40
`
` A. I think controls are also related to the
`
`building but not -- but could go beyond energy
`
`management, so I -- I think controls is separate.
`
` Q. Okay. So I would write -- so would a way
`
`to write this and still convey what you intended be 11:12:04
`
`building energy management and building controls?
`
` A. Yeah, that -- that could be.
`
` Q. Okay. What are some examples of building
`
`energy management or building controls that you
`
`think would encompass what you've written here? 11:12:28
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I think if we look at
`
`the -- the '597 patent which we are about -- which
`
`talks about thermostatic controls for HVAC systems,
`
`you know, I think that that's the general area that 11:12:56
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 15
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`controls buildings, you know. And there may be 11:13:01
`
`energy implications to it, but there's also the
`
`control of the building in the HVAC system.
`
` So that's kind of the general area that
`
`this patent deals with. 11:13:16
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) That's fine.
`
` Are you aware of any torts that have
`
`ruled on the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`associated with the '597 patent?
`
` A. No, I'm not. 11:13:52
`
` Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other
`
`government agencies that have ruled on the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art associated with the
`
`'597 patent?
`
` A. I don't believe so. 11:14:05
`
` Q. Okay. Do you know of any courts or
`
`government agencies that have ruled on the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art on patents that are
`
`related to the '597 patent?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form. 11:14:20
`
` THE DEPONENT: I vaguely recollect there
`
`may have been something, but I don't remember.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. If I could have you
`
`turn to the first page of the '597 -- and,
`
`actually, let me -- let me step back. 11:14:42
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 16
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` The patent that is subject to this 11:14:46
`
`IPR 2022-00538 and is -- that is the subject to
`
`your -- of your declaration is U.S. Patent
`
`9,194,597, correct?
`
` A. Yes. 11:15:06
`
` Q. Okay. So if we call that the
`
`"'597 patent," we're referring to that patent.
`
` Is -- is that an understanding we can
`
`have?
`
` A. Yes. 11:15:13
`
` Q. Okay. Good.
`
` All right. So if I -- you have listed
`
`the '597 patent and have that as Exhibit 1001 to
`
`your declaration.
`
` If you can pull that up and go to first 11:15:25
`
`page, or the cover page, I should say.
`
` A. Okay. I'm there.
`
` Q. And about halfway down on the left side,
`
`there is a heading that says, "Related U.S.
`
`Application Data." 11:15:39
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And it says that the '597 patent is a
`
`"Continuation of application 12-778,052, filed on
`
`May 11, 2010, which is now Patent No. 8,596,550." 11:15:51
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 17
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`[as read] 11:15:57
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So you agree that the '597 patent
`
`claims priority to the '550 patent, right? 11:16:01
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I -- the best I understand
`
`is the continuation of the application that led to
`
`the '550 patent.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. So the '550 patent 11:16:16
`
`and the '597 patent are related patents; you would
`
`agree with that, though, right?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: Yes.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. Are you aware that 11:16:27
`
`the '550 patent was involved in an investigation at
`
`the International Trade Commission?
`
` A. Best of my knowledge, I don't think I'm
`
`aware of it.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you aware that an 11:16:49
`
`administrative law judge at the
`
`International Trade Commission issued a termination
`
`about the level of ordinary skill in the art for
`
`the '550 patent?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form. 11:17:01
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 18
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` THE DEPONENT: I'm not aware. 11:17:04
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. So if that were
`
`accurate that an administrative law judge issued a
`
`determination about the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art for the '550 patent, you didn't consult 11:17:14
`
`that determination or include it in your opinions
`
`here for this declaration for the '597 patent, did
`
`you?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I just based it on my 11:17:29
`
`experience and knowledge about the subject matter
`
`and the contents of the '597 patent as we discussed
`
`earlier.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay.
`
` Okay. I'd like to move now, excuse me, 11:17:41
`
`in your declaration to paragraph 44 which deals
`
`with claim interpretation, and that's at page 19.
`
` If you can let me know when you get
`
`there.
`
` A. Yeah, I'm page 19. And you -- which 11:18:20
`
`paragraph?
`
` Q. Paragraph 44.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Okay. Great.
`
` And in paragraph 44, you compare a 11:18:30
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 19
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`section of the claim language of the '597 patent to 11:18:32
`
`some of the claim language in U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,018,371.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes. 11:18:45
`
` Q. Okay. Is that '371 patent that you have
`
`there related to the '597 patent?
`
` A. I'm not sure what you mean by "related,"
`
`but it's certainly got a lot of common features,
`
`including the -- you know, a lot of the disclosure 11:19:05
`
`and even some of the claims.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you make a comparison between
`
`the disclosure of the '371 and the disclosure of
`
`the '597 patent?
`
` A. I've looked at -- 11:19:20
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I have looked at -- I have
`
`looked at the '371 disclosure and -- and the '597 I
`
`looked at. They're very, very similar.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Do you list the 11:19:30
`
`'371 patent as one of the exhibits that you
`
`reviewed for this -- for your declaration here?
`
` A. I think it's Exhibit 1017.
`
` Q. Well, if you turn to page 7 in your
`
`declaration under your materials reviewed, 11:19:52
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 20
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`Exhibit 1017 is the ITC initial determination and 11:19:54
`
`not the '371 patent.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Oh, okay. If we look up on the list of
`
`exhibits, maybe we can find it. 11:20:11
`
` You want to look at the Exhibit list?
`
` Q. Yeah, if you would, please.
`
` A. Okay. I -- yeah, I -- I mis- -- thought
`
`there was a '186 patent. The '371 was not listed
`
`as an exhibit when we did this declaration. 11:20:40
`
` Q. Okay. Staying there at -- or, I guess,
`
`maybe going back to paragraph 44 here -- actually,
`
`I -- let's skip down to paragraph 45, and you state
`
`that -- you -- you describe an EcoFactor argument
`
`there at paragraph 45. 11:21:23
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And your description of
`
`EcoFactor's argument was "that the 'detecting a
`
`manual setpoint change' limitation was met when the 11:21:47
`
`relevant comparison was carried out, regardless of
`
`whether the system had previously detected a
`
`setpoint change, and regardless of whether the
`
`system could retrieve complete manual setpoint
`
`change information from its memory." 11:22:03
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 21
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` Do you see that? 11:22:06
`
` A. Yes, I see that.
`
` Q. Okay. And for this you, cited to
`
`Exhibit 1017 which is that ITC initial
`
`determination. 11:22:17
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm going to -- and you -- you
`
`cite to pages 396 to 402.
`
` So I'd like to go that Exhibit 1017 and 11:22:25
`
`page 396, if you would.
`
` A. Is that on the -- do I need to redo this?
`
` Q. Well, it -- I will throw it into the
`
`exhibit file share, if that's helpful for you.
`
` A. I could open it up from mine. 11:22:55
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Either way.
`
` Q. Whichever is faster for you.
`
` A. Okay. I -- I have the document in front
`
`of me. 11:23:14
`
` Q. Okay. You -- and this is probably useful
`
`just so that we're -- we're on the same -- you
`
`know, we're talking about the same thing.
`
` You cite to page 396 in your declaration
`
`of 396 to 402 with respect to Exhibit 1017. And 11:23:28
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 22
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`you're referring to the page numbers that were 11:23:37
`
`added by Google in filing this document in this IPR
`
`and not to the internal page numbers; is that
`
`right?
`
` A. I -- I believe so, yes. 11:23:45
`
` Q. Okay. All right. So it's this --
`
`page 396, it's under section 7, which section 7
`
`says, "Detecting a manual change to the first
`
`automated setpoint by determining whether the at
`
`least one of the actual setpoints in the first 11:24:00
`
`automated setpoint are the same or different."
`
` Do you see that, section 7?
`
` A. Just give me a second.
`
` Q. Oh, sure.
`
` A. Okay. So right on top of 396 is 11:24:20
`
`section 7. That's what you're talking about?
`
` Q. Yes. Yeah, I just want to make sure that
`
`we're starting at the right -- at the same page on
`
`this document so that there's no confusion.
`
` A. Okay. 11:24:43
`
` Q. Yeah. You're there? Excellent.
`
` Where in this document does it say that
`
`detecting a manual change limitation was met when
`
`the relative comparison was carried out regardless
`
`of whether the system had previously detected a 11:24:54
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 23
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
`setpoint change and regardless of whether the 11:24:56
`
`system could retrieve complete manual setpoint
`
`change information from its memory?
`
` A. As far as I know, there's a lot of
`
`redactions on this document. 11:25:10
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I was told that that was in there, but --
`
`so we were, you know, trying to use that part
`
`that's probably redacted now.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever seen an unredacted 11:25:26
`
`version of this document?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. So you don't know what's behind
`
`these redactions; is that accurate?
`
` A. That is accurate. 11:25:37
`
` Q. Okay. Going back to your declaration,
`
`Mr. Shah, at paragraph 46 -- so that's at page 20.
`
` Let me know when you're there.
`
` A. Okay, paragraph 46.
`
` Q. Great. 11:26:34
`
` You say -- it's just a one-sentence
`
`paragraph. It says, "In the proceeding, I apply
`
`the IT's apparent construction of the 'detecting a
`
`manual change to the first automated setpoint'
`
`limitation." [as read] 11:26:44
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 24
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` Do you see that? 11:26:45
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. What is that apparent
`
`construction?
`
` A. Well, that is what we had in the other 11:26:52
`
`paragraph we talked about, that the detection --
`
`you know, in terms of what the claim language is
`
`saying about the detection, as long as you are on
`
`that, even if you had already detected it by some
`
`other means, it would still meet this element. 11:27:16
`
` Q. Okay. But you can't -- and -- and
`
`turning to the ITC's initial determination that was
`
`Exhibit 1017, you can't point to a section of what
`
`you cited to that describes this apparent
`
`construction, can you? 11:27:43
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE DEPONENT: I think what -- what I'm
`
`looking at and what we applied in this declaration
`
`is the -- is the definition where the detection is
`
`done per the claim elements regardless of whether 11:27:58
`
`anything else was done prior to that that might
`
`have already detected it or not.
`
` That's -- that's how we applied the --
`
`the claim elements and as we understood its
`
`interpretation. 11:28:19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`Page 25
`
`GOOGLE v. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2012
`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
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. Did using this 11:28:19
`
`claim construction that you state is the ITC's
`
`apparent construction, did that change your
`
`opinions in this IPR?
`
` MS. LAUGHTON: Objection. Form. 11:28:33
`
` THE DEPONENT: I don't -- I don't believe
`
`so.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Link) Okay. So if you had not
`
`used this construction, you still would have come
`
`to the conclusions that the claims of the 11:28:44
`
`'597 patent are invalid over this cited prior art?
`
` A. Right. In my opinion, the Ehlers '330
`
`teaches the claim elements as they are written
`
`regardless of whether or not other things it does.
`
`It's still the claim elements are either taught by 11:29:07
`
`or are obvious over or rendered obvious by the
`
`Ehlers
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
