`_______________
`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