`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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.
`IPR2022-01045
`
`
`
`·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