CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· ·________________________________________________________
`
`·4· · ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., ASSA ABLOY RESIDENTIAL
`· · · GROUP, INC., AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL CORPORATION,
`·5· · · · · · · ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`
`·8· · · · · · · CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`· · ·________________________________________________________
`10
`· · · · · ·Case IPR2022-01006 (US Patent No. 9,665,705)
`11· ·________________________________________________________
`
`12
`· · · · · · · · · VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`13
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · STUART LIPOFF
`14
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·VOLUME 2
`15
`· · · · · · · · · INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
`16
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ASSA ABLOY AB
`17
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · June 28, 2023
`18
`· · · · · · Page 39 - 74· · · · 12:00 p.m. - 1:07 p.m.
`19
`
`20
`
`21· ·REPORTED BY:
`· · ·Tamara L. Houston
`22· ·CA CSR No. 7244, RPR, CCRR No. 140
`· · ·Job Number 125834
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 2
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · ·REMOTE VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
`·5· ·STUART LIPOFF, taken on behalf of the Patent Owner,
`
`·6· ·commencing from 12:00 p.m. to 1:07 p.m., Wednesday,
`
`·7· ·June 28, 2023, before Tamara L. Houston, CSR No. 7244,
`
`·8· ·CCRR, RPR.
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 3
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL:
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW V. DEVKAR, ESQ.
`·5· · · · · · ·2049 Century Park East
`· · · · · · · ·Suite 700
`·6· · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90067
`· · · · · · · ·(310) 255-9070
`·7· · · · · · ·andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`·8
`· · · · · On behalf of the Patent Owner and Witness:
`·9
`· · · · · · · ·CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`10· · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW C. RYAN, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · STEVEN M. COYLE, ESQ.
`11· · · · · · ·20 Church Street
`· · · · · · · ·22nd Floor
`12· · · · · · ·Hartford, Connecticut 06103
`· · · · · · · ·860) 286-2929
`13· · · · · · ·ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`· · · · · · · ·scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 4
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · WITNESS:
`
`·3· ·EXAMINATIONS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·4· ·Mr. Ryan.........................................· ·44
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · Page· · ·Line
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·None
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 5
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·STUART LIPOFF
`
`·3· · ·ASSA ABLOY AB vs. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·June 28, 2023
`
`·5· · · TAMARA L. HOUSTON, CSR No. 7244, CRR No. 140, RPR
`
`·6
`
`·7· ·EXHIBIT· · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · None marked.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · --o0o--
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 6
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · Wednesday, June 28, 2023, 12:00 p.m.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·--o0o--
`
`·3· · · · · · · · All counsel present stipulate
`
`·4· · · · · ·that the witness shall be sworn remotely
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · by the court reporter
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · * * *
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · (Whereupon STUART LIPOFF, having been
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · called as a witness was sworn to
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · tell the truth, the whole truth,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · nothing but the truth.)
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · --o0o--
`
`12· · · · · · ·CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. RYAN:
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Good morning, Mr. Lipoff.
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Good morning, Mr. Ryan.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·So we're here today to talk about your second
`
`16· ·declaration that's been submitted in each of the IPRs
`
`17· ·involving the '705 and '208 patents.
`
`18· · · · · · ·Is that your understanding?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's my understanding.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·So do you agree that the three versions of
`
`21· ·your second declaration that have been submitted in the
`
`22· ·various IPRs are substantively the same?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·And would you agree that your answer for one
`
`25· ·IPR would be the same for the others as concerns your
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 7
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·second declaration?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes, as long as we stay within the second
`
`·3· ·declaration.· Yes.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And if there's an instance where that
`
`·5· ·wouldn't be the case, can you please let me know?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Do you have any documents with you now?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Can you tell me what you have with you?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I have a witness book that Counsel sent
`
`11· ·me.· It has my declaration, the references.· They're all
`
`12· ·documents of record.· I think there is also -- just give
`
`13· ·me a second here while I look at the Table of Contents
`
`14· ·that was in front of the witness book --
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Sure.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·-- so I can give you a complete answer.
`
`17· · · · · · ·Yeah, so it's got the petition in it.· It's
`
`18· ·got the '705 Burke patent.· It's got the prior art
`
`19· ·exhibits that were in my declaration.· It has my second
`
`20· ·declaration, the one that we're talking about today,
`
`21· ·copy of the Institution decision, Petitioner's reply to
`
`22· ·the POR, and the second declaration.· And it's got that
`
`23· ·for all three -- three IPRs.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have anything else with you, any
`
`25· ·handwritten notes or anything like that?
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 8
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·No.· I did take the -- I did take some of the
`
`·2· ·documents out of the binder, though, so that I could
`
`·3· ·refer to them --
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·-- quickly.· I left some of them in the
`
`·6· ·binder.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So if I ask you about any of those
`
`·8· ·documents yet, you should feel free to refer to those
`
`·9· ·hard copies.· There is probably no need to put anything
`
`10· ·up on the screen, although when I refer to something,
`
`11· ·I'll put it into the Dropbox so you can just open it.
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·So when I refer to your second declaration, I
`
`14· ·am going to be using the one directed to the '705 patent
`
`15· ·in the 01006 IPR.· Is that okay with you?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes.· That's fine.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And like we said, your testimony with
`
`18· ·respect to that declaration would be identical for
`
`19· ·the -- for the other --
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yeah, with the --
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·-- two declarations?· Right.
`
`22· · · · A.· ·With the exception of the cover page, yes.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Correct, correct.· All right.
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· So for the record, Mr. Lipoff,
`
`25· ·second declaration directed to the '705 patent was filed
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 9
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·as Exhibit 1029 in IPR 202201006.
`
`·2· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·So, Mr. Lipoff, I want to talk initially about
`
`·4· ·how your second declaration was prepared.· Without
`
`·5· ·revealing communications you may have had with Counsel,
`
`·6· ·can you -- can you outline for me the process by which
`
`·7· ·the second declaration was prepared?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yes.· I read Dr. Russ's -- I guess I would
`
`·9· ·call it his -- his rebuttal and the points that he
`
`10· ·raised.· And then I reviewed my previous declaration,
`
`11· ·the Burke patent, and the references, and I responded to
`
`12· ·what I believe were each of the issues that Dr. Russ
`
`13· ·raised in his rebuttal.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Are you able to tell me how the issues raised
`
`15· ·in your second declaration were identified without
`
`16· ·revealing attorney communications?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Well, they -- they were the -- they were
`
`18· ·the -- I guess I would say in the Table of Contents of
`
`19· ·my second declaration, I enumerated what I understood to
`
`20· ·be the issues, and I was asked by counsel to respond to
`
`21· ·my understanding of -- of Dr. Russ's rebuttal points.
`
`22· · · · · · ·So the -- the Table of Contents of my second
`
`23· ·declaration basically lists what I understand to be
`
`24· ·his -- his essential points.· The instruction of
`
`25· ·biometric signal and whether or not the Mathiassen and
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 10
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·Bianco combination reads on the biometric signal
`
`·2· ·limitation and reads on the mapping of the series of
`
`·3· ·biometric signals and tone instruction.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·And, finally, I addressed the issue of
`
`·5· ·motivation that combined Bianco with Mathiassen.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Did you physically draft the entire
`
`·7· ·declaration yourself or was there any draft language
`
`·8· ·prepared for your review?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I -- all of the opinions that are in the
`
`10· ·declaration are my own.· I -- I wrote some of it by
`
`11· ·typing it into the computer myself, and I had some
`
`12· ·interactions with counsel where I provided my opinions
`
`13· ·and had some interaction with them where -- where they
`
`14· ·may have physically typed some of the text that's in
`
`15· ·there, but all of the opinions in there are mine.· Mine
`
`16· ·alone.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Did you do anything to prepare for today's
`
`18· ·deposition?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.· I -- I reviewed my declaration
`
`20· ·and the references that Mathiassen and Bianco
`
`21· ·references.· And also -- pretty much what I did the last
`
`22· ·couple days, I -- when I first got Dr. Russ's report, I
`
`23· ·read that as well.· The last couple days I hadn't --
`
`24· ·hadn't looked at that because I -- I believe I captured
`
`25· ·his rebuttal points in my declaration.· So I didn't feel
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 11
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·the need to review it the last couple of days.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Did you speak with counsel in preparation for
`
`·3· ·the deposition?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·And when was that?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yesterday.· Yesterday afternoon for a few
`
`·7· ·hours.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Was anybody with -- was that Mr. Devkar on
`
`·9· ·that call with you?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Just him.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with anybody else about this
`
`12· ·deposition?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·I have not.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Have you spoken with anybody other than
`
`15· ·counsel about this matter in general?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·No, I -- no, I don't believe so.· No.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So, Mr. Lipoff, just with respect to
`
`18· ·the '705 and '208 patents -- and sometimes I may just
`
`19· ·refer to the '705 patent, but when I do, I intend it to
`
`20· ·apply equally to the '208 patent.
`
`21· · · · · · ·Is that okay with you?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·So would you agree that the overall purpose of
`
`24· ·the '705 patent is to allow access to a secure system?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 12
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Do you understand my question, Mr. Lipoff?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Yes, I do.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you agree with that statement?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I'm just -- want to make sure I give you a
`
`·6· ·complete and accurate answer.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I didn't mean to rush you.· Take your
`
`·8· ·time.
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·So the abstract of the '705, the patent
`
`10· ·discloses it's -- it's disclosed providing secure access
`
`11· ·to a controlled item, but the specification of the
`
`12· ·patent also describes the -- and the claims that are at
`
`13· ·issue -- providing an instruction as part of the overall
`
`14· ·process where the instruction is -- is -- well, in the
`
`15· ·case of Claim 1 is based on a series of entries of
`
`16· ·biometric signal being characterized at least to one of
`
`17· ·a number of entries in duration.
`
`18· · · · · · ·So it's -- it's -- the purpose is for
`
`19· ·providing secure access involving both authentication
`
`20· ·and also providing instructions.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And the purpose of the instructions are
`
`22· ·linked to the overall purpose of allowing access to a
`
`23· ·secure system; isn't that right?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, the specific claim at
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 13
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·issue is more specific than just a secure system.· It --
`
`·2· ·it mentions a locking mechanism -- a lock mechanism,
`
`·3· ·both physical access structure or electronic device or
`
`·4· ·an electronic lock on an electronic computing device.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·So if I understand the purpose of the patent,
`
`·6· ·it's both to authenticate the user for security purposes
`
`·7· ·but also to allow the user to control -- provide
`
`·8· ·instructions to control things such as an electronic
`
`·9· ·lock or electronic computing device.· So more than just
`
`10· ·authenticating.
`
`11· · · · · · ·It would also include instructions such as
`
`12· ·lock and unlock and things like that would be my
`
`13· ·understanding in the context of Claim 1.
`
`14· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And in the context of allowing access
`
`16· ·to a secure system and whether access means access to a
`
`17· ·secure computer system or to a physically locked system,
`
`18· ·but in the context of allowing access to a secure
`
`19· ·system, the '705 patent involves the reading of
`
`20· ·biometrics.· Is that -- would you agree with that?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I would say that the -- more precisely the
`
`22· ·'705 -- the system described in the '705 patent involves
`
`23· ·the use of a biometric sensor in order to perform the
`
`24· ·various functions of authentication and for providing
`
`25· ·instructions.
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 14
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Well, would you agree that the system
`
`·2· ·described in the '705 patent uses biometric information
`
`·3· ·to determine whether a given user should or should not
`
`·4· ·be granted access to the secure system?· Would you agree
`
`·5· ·with that?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· Just -- just to be sure we're on the
`
`·7· ·same page in terms of what we mean, I would agree that
`
`·8· ·the authentication -- the process of authenticating the
`
`·9· ·users, which is one of the functionalities in the '705
`
`10· ·system, involves biometric technology.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·I'm going to ask you to take a look at your
`
`12· ·second declaration.· Again, that's Exhibit 1021 -- 1029.
`
`13· ·Would you turn to paragraph 14 of your declaration,
`
`14· ·please?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Yeah, just give me a minute here.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Take your time.
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I'm there.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Paragraph 14 in your second sentence, you say,
`
`19· ·"So long as the biometric sensor can output a biometric
`
`20· ·signal capable of uniquely identifying a user, the
`
`21· ·claims and reported invention would be viable."
`
`22· · · · · · ·Did I read that correctly?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes, you read it correctly.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Why is it a requirement that the biometric
`
`25· ·signal be capable of uniquely identifying a user?
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 15
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Well, first, this particular paragraph was --
`
`·2· ·in order to give some context to that second sentence,
`
`·3· ·this was attempting to rebut positions taken by Dr. Russ
`
`·4· ·and the patent owner that the biometric signal would
`
`·5· ·exclude behavioral biometrics.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·So what that second sentence means that -- for
`
`·7· ·the authentication portion, for the authentication
`
`·8· ·functionality in the -- in these claims, which is one of
`
`·9· ·the things that's required -- there's also the
`
`10· ·instruction functionality, but for the authentication
`
`11· ·functionality, in order for the system to be viable, the
`
`12· ·biometric sensor would have to be capable of
`
`13· ·authenticating the user.· And to authenticate the user,
`
`14· ·that would mean uniquely identifying them.· That is
`
`15· ·determining that the -- that is the user that's been
`
`16· ·enrolled who has been given the authority to access the
`
`17· ·system and to differentiate them from some other user
`
`18· ·who has not been given authority to access the system.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·And that's generally true of biometric
`
`20· ·security systems, right, that the biometric data needs
`
`21· ·to be able to uniquely identify a user?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·I would -- because the -- one of the issues in
`
`23· ·construction in this -- in this proceeding is what is a
`
`24· ·biometric signal, I don't want to equate the term "use,"
`
`25· ·which is biometric data, with a biometric signal.
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 16
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·I would say that in the operation of the
`
`·2· ·system at some point when it's in the mode where the
`
`·3· ·sensor is being used for the purpose of uniquely
`
`·4· ·identifying the user, at that time the information that
`
`·5· ·comes out of the biometric sensor has to be capable of
`
`·6· ·performing that function.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And I -- I am not trying to cause confusion by
`
`·8· ·mixing terms such as biometric data or biometric signal.
`
`·9· ·I just want to establish that you agree that just
`
`10· ·biometric systems in general are intended to uniquely
`
`11· ·identify a given user; is that fair?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yeah, I would say that when the -- when a
`
`13· ·biometric system is used for the purpose of providing
`
`14· ·access, then it would need to be capable of uniquely
`
`15· ·identifying the user.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· This comports with the description of
`
`17· ·biometrics in some of the art that you cited; for
`
`18· ·example, in Mathiassen.· Would you agree with that?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I think the term "biometrics" as used in
`
`20· ·Mathiassen is -- is described in several places.· So --
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Well, let me direct you to Mathiassen at
`
`22· ·page 3.· I'm referring to the page number at the bottom
`
`23· ·right corner, the Bates number, not the number at the
`
`24· ·top.
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Oh, okay.· Yeah, sorry.· I see that.· I'm on
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 17
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·page 3, yes.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And just, for example, on page 3 there, lines
`
`·3· ·20 to 24 -- I'll just read it into the record.
`
`·4· ·Mathiassen says, "Accordingly there's a strong trend to
`
`·5· ·base access control on biometrics" --
`
`·6· · · · · · ·(Court Reporter requested clarification.)
`
`·7· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·"Accordingly, there was a strong trend to base
`
`·9· ·access control on biometrics, which is mathematical --
`
`10· ·which is a mathematical description of characteristic
`
`11· ·elements of the owner's body or behavior that cannot be
`
`12· ·separated from this person and which describes him
`
`13· ·uniquely."
`
`14· · · · · · ·Have you read that portion of Mathiassen
`
`15· ·before, Mr. Lipoff?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And you considered the entirety of
`
`18· ·Mathiassen in reaching your conclusions in this case; is
`
`19· ·that right?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·I believe I did.· I didn't find anything
`
`21· ·inconsistent, although I did cite the specific portions
`
`22· ·of it in my second declaration.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you agree with the statement in
`
`24· ·Mathiassen that I just read?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 18
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you agree that biometrics is a
`
`·2· ·mathematical description of characteristic elements of
`
`·3· ·the owner's body or behavior that cannot be separated
`
`·4· ·from this person and which describes him uniquely?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I believe that's an accurate description, yes.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And at the time of the invention of the
`
`·7· ·'705 patent, a person of skill in the art and
`
`·8· ·knowledgeable of the prior art would have understood
`
`·9· ·that a biometric measurement measures a characteristic
`
`10· ·that uniquely defines a person.
`
`11· · · · · · ·Would you agree with that?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·I would agree that a biometric system would be
`
`13· ·capable of uniquely identifying a person when it's being
`
`14· ·used for that purpose.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·So with respect to any given person, is there
`
`16· ·a certain minimum amount of biometric information that
`
`17· ·would be needed to uniquely define a person?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· I did hear your
`
`20· ·words, but if you could just repeat it.· You don't need
`
`21· ·to change it.· Just make sure I heard it correctly.
`
`22· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·So with respect to a given person, is there a
`
`24· ·certain minimum amount of biometric information that
`
`25· ·would be needed to uniquely identify that person?
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 19
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Well, it depends because I think there is an
`
`·2· ·understanding in systems which are based upon pattern
`
`·3· ·recognition, which is what biometric authentication is
`
`·4· ·about, that there is a continuum of certainty in
`
`·5· ·determining whether a person is the individual that they
`
`·6· ·allege themselves to be.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·So the whole mathematical theory associated
`
`·8· ·with that recognizes that there is what's called a
`
`·9· ·probability of detection which goes against a
`
`10· ·probability of false alarm.· So what you try and do in a
`
`11· ·biometric system is you try and balance that relative to
`
`12· ·the particular risks involved.· You don't want to set
`
`13· ·the probability detection to be too low; otherwise,
`
`14· ·people who are actually authorized will be rejected; but
`
`15· ·you also don't want to set it to be to loose so that you
`
`16· ·let people through who are not.
`
`17· · · · · · ·So the amount of information you actually need
`
`18· ·to achieve that balance between probability of detection
`
`19· ·and probability of false alarm will vary depending on
`
`20· ·what risks you are willing to put in the system and to
`
`21· ·what extent you might falsely either let someone through
`
`22· ·or deny someone who would be in there.· So --
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`24· · · · A.· ·So there is -- there is no fixed minimal
`
`25· ·amount of information.
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 20
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·There is no --
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·It would depend on the system.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Right.· But -- so an amount of biometric data
`
`·4· ·provided could be insufficient to uniquely identify a
`
`·5· ·person?· For example, in the case of a facial scan, if a
`
`·6· ·person scanned just one small part of the left side of
`
`·7· ·their cheek, that -- that could be insufficient
`
`·8· ·information to uniquely identify that person?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`10· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Is that possible?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· So, again, as I explained, depending on
`
`13· ·the design criteria of the system, there may be more or
`
`14· ·less -- the settings of system may be more or less such
`
`15· ·that it either will do a good job of identifying a
`
`16· ·person or alternatively do a bad job of letting the
`
`17· ·wrong person through.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Right, because of the -- if a -- if a given
`
`19· ·sample of biometric data is -- is too small, then it
`
`20· ·could -- it could falsely identify multiple people as --
`
`21· ·as supposedly being the intended person.· Is that true?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· Again, as I said, it
`
`24· ·would be -- it would be very much system specific as to
`
`25· ·what extent -- what latitude or tightness of the
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 21
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·criteria would determine whether you would -- you would
`
`·2· ·be accepted or rejected by the system.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·All right.· I'm going to ask you to take a
`
`·5· ·look at paragraph 10 of your declaration.
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Okay.· I'm there on page 7.· Yeah.· I'm
`
`·7· ·there.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Paragraph 10, right, which starts on page 3, I
`
`·9· ·believe, right?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· I thought you said 20.· Excuse me.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Maybe I did.
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I've got it.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And over on to page 4 in the very last
`
`14· ·sentence of paragraph 10 --
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see that.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·You say, and I'll read it into the record, "In
`
`17· ·my opinion the specification's use of the term 'finger
`
`18· ·presses' rather than fingerprints shows the scope to be
`
`19· ·broader than a physical attribute."
`
`20· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see that.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Did I read that correctly?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes, you did.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·So in that sentence, are you saying that a
`
`25· ·fingerprint -- a finger press is not a physical
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 22
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·attribute?· And I don't mean to limit you to that
`
`·2· ·sentence.· I just mean, is that what you're saying?· Are
`
`·3· ·you saying a fingerprint press is not a physical
`
`·4· ·attribute?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Well, the finger press, as it's used here in
`
`·6· ·the last sentence, refers to earlier in that same
`
`·7· ·paragraph as a succession to finger presses.· So I'm
`
`·8· ·referring up to finger presses as -- as in the context
`
`·9· ·of the patent as a series of presses that by a number in
`
`10· ·duration of the entries.· So the number in duration of
`
`11· ·the entries would be behaviorable -- behaviorable
`
`12· ·attribute, which is also known to be used for biometric
`
`13· ·authentication, where fingerprints are --
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·-- are known to be a physical attribute.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And we can get to that.
`
`17· · · · · · ·So are you saying that a single finger
`
`18· ·press -- well, strike that.
`
`19· · · · · · ·So are you saying the finger presses are not
`
`20· ·physical attributes but they may be behavioral
`
`21· ·attributes; is that your testimony?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Well, as I indicated, the behaviorable
`
`23· ·attribute that I'm referring to with respect to the
`
`24· ·finger press is a succession of finger presses that
`
`25· ·relate to a number and a duration of those finger
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 23
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·presses.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·Whether the fingerprint is being read at the
`
`·3· ·same time or not, the number and duration of the finger
`
`·4· ·presses is a behaviorable biometric attribute.· It's not
`
`·5· ·a physical attribute.· The fingerprint that may be read
`
`·6· ·during the finger press, if that's what the system is
`
`·7· ·doing, would be a physical attribute, but this -- this
`
`·8· ·paragraph 10 makes clear that when I refer to finger
`
`·9· ·presses I'm referring to a succession of finger presses
`
`10· ·to the biometric sensor.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·So the number and duration described in
`
`12· ·paragraph 10, those are -- those are predetermined
`
`13· ·values, aren't they?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· I don't know what
`
`16· ·you mean predetermined values of what - -- predetermined
`
`17· ·by what?
`
`18· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·Well, predetermined in the system.· The number
`
`20· ·and duration of presses is predetermined.
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, Mathiassen and the '705
`
`23· ·patent have comparable kinds of descriptions that relate
`
`24· ·to your question.· In Mathiassen there is a table that
`
`25· ·indicates what different types of finger presses are
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 24
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·intended to mean long and short, and in the '705 patent,
`
`·2· ·it says that the long -- the short might be one second
`
`·3· ·and the long is of two seconds.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·So to that extent, the system is aware of the
`
`·5· ·meaning of different kinds of presses, whether
`
`·6· ·they're -- the number and the sequence of them have a --
`
`·7· ·have a meaning that's -- that the system is designed to
`
`·8· ·understand, in the case of Mathiassen, in the table
`
`·9· ·that's given in page 14, lines 14 to 21, and in the case
`
`10· ·of the '705, in Column 11, lines 1 through 8, both
`
`11· ·reference -- both the patent at issue and the Mathiassen
`
`12· ·reference describe how those finger presses would be
`
`13· ·interpreted, and the system apparently is designed to
`
`14· ·interpret them in that particular way.
`
`15· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·So in the sequence of finger presses described
`
`17· ·in the '705 patent, at the bottom of Column 10, the
`
`18· ·duration and quantity of finger presses, those are
`
`19· ·values that can be -- can be taught and learned; isn't
`
`20· ·that right?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Let's see.· Bottom of Column 10.· That's
`
`22· ·starting, what, line 56?· Where?
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Yes.· 56.
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Let me just read that.
`
`25· · · · · · ·Well, in this particular portion in Column 10,
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 25
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·it doesn't actually say -- I don't see it saying
`
`·2· ·anything about it being learned, but it -- it's not a
`
`·3· ·specific as the Column 11 site that I have in my second
`
`·4· ·declaration, Column 11, 1 through 8, where it describes
`
`·5· ·one second and two seconds.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·But this is -- Column 10 site is more general.
`
`·7· ·It just says -- it checks the input information against
`
`·8· ·a stored set of legal controlled signals.· So this is
`
`·9· ·pretty general.· And then --
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`11· · · · A.· ·And Column 11 it actually says that an example
`
`12· ·would be one second and two seconds as being two
`
`13· ·different kinds of legal control signals.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· But -- so staying with that
`
`15· ·section in Column 11, simply -- simply pressing one's
`
`16· ·finger for one second or for two seconds, that's not a
`
`17· ·trait that's unique to any particular individual,
`
`18· ·correct?· I mean, any individual can be instructed to --
`
`19· ·to press for one second or two seconds.· Would you agree
`
`20· ·with that?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· So the characteristic
`
`23· ·that's -- would be unique to a particular individual
`
`24· ·would be not just an individual press of one second or
`
`25· ·two second but a number of the entries and the duration
`
`CPC Ex. 2040 - Page 26
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006
`
`
`
`·1· ·of each entry.· So the -- it's well known that a -- that
`
`·2· ·this can provide a behavioral characteristic that is
`
`·3· ·unique to the individual even if the individual is told
`
`·4· ·to do three longs and two shorts and a long.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·The actual amount of time that they hold their
`
`·6· ·finger on there and the time in between lifting the
`
`·7· ·finger and putting this one down can very well be a
`
`·8· ·unique characteristic of the user so that a second user
`
`·9· ·attempting to enter the same longs and shorts could be
`
`10· ·discriminated against the previous user because the
`
`11· ·stroke analysis, which is a well-known behavioral
`
`12· ·mechanism, would be different between the two different
`
`13· ·users.
`
`14· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·The '705 patent doesn't talk about stroke
`
`16· ·analysis at all, does it?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·It talks about a variety of different
`
`18· ·biometric systems, including behavioral.· It gives an
`
`19· ·example of behaviorable system in the -- by mentioning
`
`20· ·voice as one of the additions to the mostly physical
`
`21· ·biometric properties.
`
`22· · · · · · ·And it's well known that behaviorable
`
`23· ·attributes include things such as stroke analysis and
`
`24· ·voice and hand gestures or a variety of other things
`
`25· ·which are -- are not physical attribu
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
