CPC EX 2041 - Page 001
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`·ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., ASSA ABLOY RESIDENTIAL
`·GROUP, INC., AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL CORPORATION,
`· · · · · ·ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`
`· · · · · ·CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________________________
`
`· · ·Case IPR2022-01093 (US Patent No. 8,620,039)
`
`· · ·Case IPR2022-01094 (US Patent No. 8,620,039)
`____________________________________________________________
`
`· · · · · · ·VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·STUART LIPOFF
`
`· · · · · · · · · · APRIL 27, 2023
`
`· · ·Page 1 - 38· · · · ·9:12 a.m. - 10:18 a.m. PST
`
`REPORTED BY:
`Tamara L. Houston
`CA CSR No. 7244, RPR, CCRR No. 140
`Job Number 123432
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 002
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · ·REMOTE VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF STUART
`
`·7· ·LIPOFF, taken on behalf of the Patent Owner, commencing
`
`·8· ·from 9:12 a.m. to 10:18 a.m., Thursday, April 27, 2023,
`
`·9· ·before Tamara L. Houston, CSR No. 7244, CCRR, RPR.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 003
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·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
`
`·9· · · · On behalf of the Patent Owner and Witness:
`
`10· · · · · · ·CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW C. RYAN, ESQ.
`11· · · · · · · · · STEVEN M. COYLE, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · ·20 Church Street
`12· · · · · · ·22nd Floor
`· · · · · · · ·Hartford, Connecticut 06103
`13· · · · · · ·860) 286-2929
`· · · · · · · ·ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`14· · · · · · ·scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 004
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · WITNESS:
`
`·3· ·EXAMINATIONS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·4· ·Mr. Ryan.........................................· · 6
`
`·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 2041 - Page 005
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · STUART LIPOFF
`
`·3· · · ASSA ABLOY AB vs. CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · April 27, 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 2041 - Page 006
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · Thursday, April 27, 2023, 9:12 a.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 duly sworn
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · ·to tell the truth, the whole truth,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · ·and nothing but the truth testified
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·as follows:
`
`12· · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION BY MR. RYAN:
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Good morning, Mr. Lipoff.
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Good morning, Mr. Ryan.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·So we're here to take your deposition
`
`16· ·regarding a declaration you submitted in connection
`
`17· ·with two inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Number
`
`18· ·8,620,039.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Do you understand that is why we are here
`
`20· ·today?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·And if I refer to the patent as the '039
`
`23· ·patent, will you understand that I'm referring to the
`
`24· ·patent at issue?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Yes, I would.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 007
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Is there any reason you cannot give
`
`·2· ·accurate and truthful testimony today?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·No reason I'm aware of.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·I know you've been deposed several times
`
`·5· ·before, so I won't belabor the ground rules, but I
`
`·6· ·would just say please don't hesitate to ask for a
`
`·7· ·break if you need one.· I would just ask that we not
`
`·8· ·take a break while a question is pending.· Is that
`
`·9· ·okay?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Lipoff, do you have any documents with
`
`12· ·you today for the deposition?
`
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.· Counsel provided me with, I
`
`14· ·guess I'll call it a witness binder.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Can you tell me what's in the binder?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Sure.· You want me to -- generally, or do
`
`17· ·you want me to go tab by tab?
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Well, generally.· Is it your understanding
`
`19· ·that it's the exhibits that are at issue in the IPR
`
`20· ·that you discuss in your declaration?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes, it's -- there -- not every exhibit is
`
`22· ·there but the principal documents are there.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So, for example, you have a copy of
`
`24· ·your declaration, correct?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 008
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·You have a copy of the '039 patent itself,
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 1001?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And do you have a copy of Exhibit 1003, the
`
`·5· ·Hsu reference.
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Tamara, that's H-S-U, Hsu.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
`
`·9· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·And do you have a copy of -- that's mine
`
`11· ·for now.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Do you have anything else with you today
`
`13· ·aside from what's in the binder?· Any handwritten
`
`14· ·notes, for example?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·No, just -- just the documents that are in
`
`16· ·the binder.· I took the patent and my declaration out
`
`17· ·of them, but that -- that's where they came from.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Mr. Lipoff, can you tell me
`
`19· ·approximately when you were retained by Assa Abloy to
`
`20· ·offer an opinion as to the '039 patent?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I've worked on several projects for them,
`
`22· ·and I -- I don't recall if there was a separate
`
`23· ·agreement, but without going back and looking at my
`
`24· ·billing records, I see that the declaration was
`
`25· ·submitted in June of last year, and so it's likely
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 009
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·that I was probably retained early in May to work on
`
`·2· ·it.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you've also offered opinions on
`
`·4· ·at least two other patents owned by CPC and you were
`
`·5· ·deposed about those opinions a couple of months ago,
`
`·6· ·correct?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·So is it your recollection that you were
`
`·9· ·retained as to all three patents at about the same
`
`10· ·time, or was there -- were you retained separately
`
`11· ·for the '039 patent?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·You know, I don't recall whether there
`
`13· ·was -- there was a separate contract.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·It -- there may have been.· I just -- I
`
`16· ·just don't recall.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·So you were retained for the purpose of
`
`18· ·offering opinions as to the validity of the '039
`
`19· ·patent; is that correct?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·Were you retained for any other purposes?
`
`22· ·For example, issues of infringement?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·No, I have not yet been asked to opine on
`
`24· ·anything else.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·What exactly were you asked to do, as you
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0010
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·understand it?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·I was asked to review the '039 patent and
`
`·3· ·offer opinions regarding validity based upon prior
`
`·4· ·art -- prior art references as well as my own
`
`·5· ·expertise and from the point of view of a person of
`
`·6· ·ordinary skill in the art.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Were you asked to search for any prior art,
`
`·8· ·or otherwise provide any prior art?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I did provide -- I did provide some -- some
`
`10· ·prior art that ended up getting cited in the patent.
`
`11· ·I don't recall whether I specifically asked to search
`
`12· ·for it or I did it on my own initiative, but all of
`
`13· ·the -- all of the documents that are in -- that I
`
`14· ·have cited to are ones that I reviewed and believe
`
`15· ·are relevant to forming my opinions.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Do you recall which prior art you provided?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·I think there was -- some of it is
`
`18· ·identified in the grounds that included Sycamore
`
`19· ·references, which would have been the Ground 2 -- at
`
`20· ·least in Ground 2 of the 1093 IPR related to
`
`21· ·Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 19, and 20.· I'm looking at the
`
`22· ·table of contents here to refresh my memory.· But,
`
`23· ·yeah, in that session of Sycamore, there were several
`
`24· ·references regarding searching for information in
`
`25· ·memory and in databases, and I provided those
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0011
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·references.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·So I understand it, did you provide the
`
`·3· ·Sycamore reference to counsel, or did counsel provide
`
`·4· ·it to you?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I think they identified the Sycamore
`
`·6· ·reference -- and I'm sorry if I was unclear.· What I
`
`·7· ·was trying to say in the section of my declaration
`
`·8· ·relative to the Sycamore reference, I identified
`
`·9· ·several other prior art references that were
`
`10· ·relevant, and I provided those.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·Well, just while we're on the topic, can
`
`12· ·you identify which ones you provided, if we look at,
`
`13· ·for example, the exhibit list in your declaration?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Sure.· It's - assume they were in there.
`
`15· · · · · · ·Yeah, so looking at the exhibit list,
`
`16· ·Exhibit 1019, which is the Wirth treatise;
`
`17· ·Exhibit 1020, which is the John Knuth treatise;
`
`18· ·Exhibit 1021, which is another John Knuth treatise;
`
`19· ·and Exhibit 1022, which is a Sprugnoli treatise.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Paragraph 23 of your declaration,
`
`21· ·you say that all of the documents you relied on in
`
`22· ·preparing your opinion are listed in the exhibit
`
`23· ·list; isn't that right?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Paragraph 23?· Let me let me take a look.
`
`25· ·What page is that?· I can turn to it quicker.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0012
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Sure.· Page 6.
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Page 6, sure.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·So you're correct.· In paragraph 23, I
`
`·4· ·considered each of the documents in the exhibit list,
`
`·5· ·but to be clear, I've also indicated here in
`
`·6· ·paragraph 23 that I've considered my own experience
`
`·7· ·as well as the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`·8· ·skill in the art.· And I don't know if it's mentioned
`
`·9· ·here, but also considered anything that the inventor
`
`10· ·disclosed in the -- that the inventor admitted as
`
`11· ·prior art in the patent itself.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Did you consider any documents -- aside
`
`13· ·from your own experience, did you consider any
`
`14· ·documents that are not listed in the exhibit list?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I don't believe so.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Lipoff, did you do anything to prepare
`
`17· ·for the deposition today?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Yes, I did.· I reviewed some of the
`
`19· ·key materials such as the -- such as the ones we
`
`20· ·discussed.· You asked me about which documents I had.
`
`21· ·The patent itself, my declaration, and the cited
`
`22· ·patent references, I reviewed.· And I also discussed
`
`23· ·the deposition today with counsel last week.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·You had a discussion with Mr. Devkar?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0013
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·And you say that was last week?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·About how long -- did you have just one
`
`·4· ·meeting, or were there more?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Had meeting go for two days, but just for a
`
`·6· ·couple hours each day.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Was anybody else present other than you and
`
`·8· ·Mr. Devkar?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Have you had any conversations with anyone
`
`11· ·other than Mr. Devkar regarding your deposition?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·I have not.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Have you had any conversations with anyone
`
`14· ·other than counsel regarding this matter in general?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Are you aware of a co-pending IPR against
`
`17· ·the '039 patent filed by Apple?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·I'm aware that there is some proceeding
`
`19· ·that involve Apple, yes.
`
`20· · · · · · ·(Court reporter requested clarification.)
`
`21· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·So you're aware of the IPR.· Are you also
`
`23· ·aware of a district court litigation between CPC and
`
`24· ·Apple involving the '039 patent?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·So in my -- in my declaration, I made
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0014
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·reference to some of the district court claim
`
`·2· ·constructions which I was aware of.· I don't have
`
`·3· ·knowledge, in general, what else is going on, but in
`
`·4· ·my list of materials considered I identify
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 1012, which is the claim construction order,
`
`·6· ·and Exhibit 1013, which is claim construction order
`
`·7· ·in the Apple cases.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·And I also had looked at some -- some
`
`·9· ·aspects of the infringement position that Apple had
`
`10· ·taken.· I cited that as another exhibit.· I'm just
`
`11· ·trying to find which one it was.· Yeah.
`
`12· ·Exhibit 1016, which is the infringement allegations.
`
`13· ·And in the course of preparing my -- my declaration,
`
`14· ·I did -- did look at different excerpts from those
`
`15· ·documents as well.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·So other than the documents listed in your
`
`17· ·exhibit list, have you reviewed any other documents
`
`18· ·in connection with the Apple litigation?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I don't think so, no.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·And specific to the Apple IPR, have you
`
`21· ·reviewed any of the documents submitted in connection
`
`22· ·with the Apple IPR?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·I think the only thing that I've looked at
`
`24· ·have been the district court kinds of documents, I
`
`25· ·believe.· I'm just checking to -- this was back in
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0015
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·June last year.· And so preparing my declaration, it
`
`·2· ·looks like the only thing I've identified here have
`
`·3· ·been documents from the district court allegation, so
`
`·4· ·I don't think I've seen anything from the IPR.· I'm
`
`·5· ·not aware of it.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with the Apple-retained-by
`
`·7· ·expert in connection with the Apple IPR?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I have not.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with any experts retained
`
`10· ·in connection with either the -- the Apple IPR or the
`
`11· ·Apple litigation?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·No.· The only -- only knowledge I have of
`
`13· ·that is -- are the documents that I've -- I've cited
`
`14· ·in -- in my declaration that I -- I looked at in
`
`15· ·preparing my declaration, and I have no other
`
`16· ·particular knowledge of it.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Are you aware of a litigation between CPC
`
`18· ·and a company called HMD?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·It -- I can't recall any particulars. I
`
`20· ·may have heard that term before.· Also, I want to be
`
`21· ·entirely accurate with respect to my previous answer.
`
`22· · · · · · ·Although I did not review the institution
`
`23· ·decisions prior to preparing my declaration, I did
`
`24· ·review the institution decisions prior to this
`
`25· ·deposition today, and I saw that there was some
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0016
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·discussion of Apple and those institution decisions.
`
`·2· ·So I do have -- in addition to the knowledge of the
`
`·3· ·exhibits that I cited in my report, I have knowledge
`
`·4· ·from looking at the institution decisions about some
`
`·5· ·of the Apple-related issues.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And you're referring to the
`
`·7· ·institution decisions filed in the two IPRs we're
`
`·8· ·discussing today, the 0193 and 0194 IPRs?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Have you reviewed the institution decision
`
`11· ·in the Apple IPR?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·No, I have not.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·And just back to the HMD litigation have,
`
`14· ·to your knowledge, have you reviewed any documents
`
`15· ·that have been submitted or reserved with connection
`
`16· ·with the HMD litigation?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Not that I recall.· As I said, the company
`
`18· ·name is familiar to me, but I don't know if it's in
`
`19· ·connection with anything I've been working on here,
`
`20· ·so -- but I don't recall reviewing anything relative
`
`21· ·to offering my opinions in this case.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So let me refer you, again, to your
`
`23· ·declaration, which is marked as an exhibit in the
`
`24· ·IPRs as Exhibit 1006.
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0017
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·So as you know, there's two IPRs pending
`
`·2· ·against the '039 patent; is that your understanding?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's my understanding.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And is the declaration submitted in
`
`·5· ·each IPR -- well, strike that.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Is the declaration you prepared in
`
`·7· ·connection with each IPR identical?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I believe so, yes.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So your declaration covers Claims 1
`
`10· ·through 20 of the '039 patent, essentially all of the
`
`11· ·claims of the patent; is that right?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And --
`
`14· · · · A.· ·And I'm sorry, let me just correct one
`
`15· ·other point.· I think the only difference between the
`
`16· ·two is the cover page where it identifies --
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·-- the IPR numbers.· Other than that, I
`
`19· ·believe the contents are identical.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So does the declaration -- does your
`
`21· ·declaration, submitted as Exhibit 1006 in each of the
`
`22· ·IPRs, contain the opinions that you've formulated
`
`23· ·with regard to the '039 patent?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·I don't know if you have the version of
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0018
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·your declaration submitted in connection with the
`
`·2· ·01093 case or the 01094 case.· Which one do you have
`
`·3· ·in front of you, by the way?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·I do have them both in the binder, but I
`
`·5· ·pulled out the 1093 one from the binder.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· That's fine.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·So can I ask you just to look at the final
`
`·8· ·page of that declaration?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Sure.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Page 203.· It should be.
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Yes, I've got it here.
`
`12· · · · · · ·(Discussion off the record.)
`
`13· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Mr. Lipoff, I was just going to ask
`
`15· ·to you confirm that that was your signature on the
`
`16· ·final page of your declaration; is that correct?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Can you describe the process of preparing
`
`19· ·your declaration.· For example, were you provided
`
`20· ·with an initial draft?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I believe I provided counsel with an
`
`22· ·outline, an outline that represents the Roman numeral
`
`23· ·numbers in my table of contents.· And I probably
`
`24· ·provided -- I probably imported some text from
`
`25· ·previous -- previous declarations I prepared, like
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0019
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·the professional background.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Right.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·I think sections about obviousness and
`
`·4· ·anticipation, I may have imported or may -- but they
`
`·5· ·were, at least at some point, originally provided by
`
`·6· ·counsel.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·You mean the legal standards you may have
`
`·8· ·imported?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·For the --
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·So other than the outline you mentioned and
`
`13· ·your personal and professional history and some of
`
`14· ·the legal standards, did you personally write any
`
`15· ·portions of your declaration?
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I -- after reviewing some of the
`
`17· ·prior art references, I wrote portions of it.· I --
`
`18· ·everything that's contained in the declaration
`
`19· ·represents my opinions.· In some cases, the words may
`
`20· ·have actually been typed by someone else, but they
`
`21· ·represent my opinions.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But as you sit here today, can you
`
`23· ·identify which sections of the declaration you
`
`24· ·personally wrote as opposed to declarations that were
`
`25· ·provided to you initially by counsel?· And if you
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0020
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·can't, that's fine.· Just asking.
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· Well, I'd say everything in here
`
`·3· ·represents my opinion, and, you know, I didn't
`
`·4· ·necessarily type every word that's in here, but they
`
`·5· ·represent my opinions and whether they were given
`
`·6· ·orally to counsel and someone else typed them or I
`
`·7· ·typed some of it, I can't separate them as to which
`
`·8· ·was which.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·So you may have written, personally, some
`
`10· ·of the language in your declaration.· You just can't
`
`11· ·identify which language?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, I'm not sure what you
`
`14· ·mean by "personally written."· If you mean did I sit
`
`15· ·at a keyboard and type the words in and the drafts
`
`16· ·were eventually consolidated in one document, yes, I
`
`17· ·did in some cases.· I can't, as I sit here, separate
`
`18· ·which particular paragraphs were ones that I
`
`19· ·personally typed in versus those where -- those where
`
`20· ·my opinions orally that someone else typed.
`
`21· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let me refer you to the '039 patent
`
`23· ·itself, that's Exhibit 1001.
`
`24· · · · · · ·Do you have a copy of that handy?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·I do.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0021
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Let me just refer to you Claim 1 that's in
`
`·2· ·column 12 of the patent.
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Give me a second to get there.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Yeah, take your time.
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I'm there.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·So is it your understanding that Claim 1 is
`
`·7· ·directed to a method of enrolling a user into the
`
`·8· ·claimed system?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, it reads:· "A method of enrolling in a
`
`10· ·biometric card pointer system, method comprising the
`
`11· ·steps of:"
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And according to the claim, the
`
`13· ·method of enrollment comprises a series of steps,
`
`14· ·correct?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see several steps.· Yes.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And the first step is that the
`
`17· ·system receives card information; is that correct?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·You've read that correctly, yes, receiving
`
`19· ·card information.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·And the second step is that the system
`
`21· ·receives the user's biometric signature, correct?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Well, the word "user" is missing from the
`
`23· ·claim, but it does say receiving the biometric
`
`24· ·signature.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So there's a first step of receiving
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0022
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·the card information and a second step of receiving
`
`·2· ·the biometric signature, correct?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And then the third step is that the memory
`
`·5· ·location is defined, right?· Is that correct?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Well, to be clear, the third step reads:
`
`·7· ·"Defining, dependent upon the received card
`
`·8· ·information, a memory location in a local memory
`
`·9· ·external to the card.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· So the third step is
`
`11· ·defining wherein the defining is dependent upon the
`
`12· ·received card information, a memory location in the
`
`13· ·local memory, that's the third step, correct?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Yes.· And it also adds the -- I guess I
`
`15· ·would call limitation.· It has to be external to the
`
`16· ·party.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Right.· And then fourth step is determine
`
`18· ·if the defined memory location is unoccupied; is that
`
`19· ·correct?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And then the fifth limitation is the
`
`22· ·biometric signature is stored at the defined memory
`
`23· ·location, correct?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And so the order of the steps
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0023
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·matter; isn't that correct?· For example, you can't
`
`·2· ·store the biometric signature in memory until you
`
`·3· ·have a defined memory location?
`
`·4· · · · A.· ·So I'm not an attorney, but I have been
`
`·5· ·informed in this in previous cases that in a method
`
`·6· ·claim, the order of the steps is not necessarily
`
`·7· ·prescribed unless -- unless there's no other way to
`
`·8· ·do it.· So I would agree that you would have to
`
`·9· ·receive the card information and you would have to
`
`10· ·receive the biometric signature before you could make
`
`11· ·a determination if the memory location is unoccupied
`
`12· ·because you need -- you need to know that.
`
`13· · · · · · ·But receiving the card information and
`
`14· ·receiving the biometric signature, there's nothing in
`
`15· ·the -- in the method that suggests that the card has
`
`16· ·to come before the biometric signature or the
`
`17· ·biometric signature needs to come first.· They both
`
`18· ·would have to come before the subsequent claim
`
`19· ·limitations, but the order in which the first -- the
`
`20· ·card information and signature are not necessarily
`
`21· ·prescribed.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But as far as the fifth step,
`
`23· ·storing the biometric signature at the defined memory
`
`24· ·location, that needs to occur after the memory
`
`25· ·location is defined, right?
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0024
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·That's correct, I would agree with that.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And the system doesn't know what that
`
`·3· ·memory location is until after the card information
`
`·4· ·has been received, correct?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·That's my understanding of what the claim
`
`·6· ·implies, yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And that's because it's the information on
`
`·8· ·the card that defines the memory location where the
`
`·9· ·biometric signature is going to be stored; is that
`
`10· ·your understanding?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·The third step in the claim does indicate
`
`12· ·that the memory location is defined dependent upon
`
`13· ·the received card information, yes.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·So you would agree that there is a temporal
`
`15· ·structure by the claim, certain steps need to occur
`
`16· ·before certain other steps can occur?
`
`17· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection to form.
`
`18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I would -- I would
`
`19· ·agree that receiving the card information needs to
`
`20· ·occur before the Step 3 in the claim which begins
`
`21· ·defining.
`
`22· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And Step 3, as you just referred to
`
`24· ·it, needs to occur before Step 5, before the
`
`25· ·biometric signature is stored.· Would you agree with
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0025
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·that?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· I would agree that you
`
`·4· ·have to have the memory location -- you have to have
`
`·5· ·the memory location before you can -- I'm sorry.
`
`·6· ·Start over.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·You have to know the memory location in
`
`·8· ·order to determine whether it's unoccupied and also
`
`·9· ·to store the biometric signature at the defined
`
`10· ·memory location, which is the last step in the claim.
`
`11· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I'm going to refer you to Claim 2.
`
`13· ·Claim 2 is directed to a method of obtaining verified
`
`14· ·access.· Is that your understanding?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So Claim 2 does describe --
`
`17· ·Claim 2, dependent on Claim 1, does describe
`
`18· ·verifying the subsequent presentation of the card
`
`19· ·information and the biometric signature matches the
`
`20· ·biometric signature at the memory location.· It's --
`
`21· ·Claim 2 is silent about access.· It just talks about
`
`22· ·the -- verifying that the biometric signature, which
`
`23· ·is presented subsequent to the initial Claim 1
`
`24· ·enrollment, matches the signature at the memory
`
`25· ·location that was stored in Claim 1.
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0026
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Right.· Okay.· I was just referring to the
`
`·3· ·claim language.· If you see the preamble of Claim 2
`
`·4· ·says:· "A method of obtaining verified access to a
`
`·5· ·process."
`
`·6· · · · · · ·Right?· Do you see that?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·I do see that.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And obtaining verified access occurs
`
`·9· ·after enrollment; is that correct?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·Well, the method in Claim 2 would only make
`
`11· ·sense after Claim 1 has stored the biometric
`
`12· ·signature at the defined memory location.· So if
`
`13· ·that's the definition of enrollment, I would agree
`
`14· ·that the Claim 2 has to occur -- well, Claim 2 could
`
`15· ·only successfully complete the verification if there
`
`16· ·is biometric signature which has been placed in
`
`17· ·there.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the method of Claim 2 presupposes
`
`19· ·that the method of enrollment of Claim 1 has already
`
`20· ·occurred.· Would you agree with that?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So I would agree that the
`
`23· ·method in Claim 1 could only successfully complete if
`
`24· ·the current presentation of biometric information
`
`25· ·happens to match the signature that had been
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0027
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· ·previously stored according to the enrollment method
`
`·2· ·of Claim 1.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. RYAN:
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I think you might have said at Claim
`
`·5· ·1 in a spot where you might have meant to say
`
`·6· ·Claim 2, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. I
`
`·7· ·think you said that the method of Claim 1 could only
`
`·8· ·successfully complete if the current presentation of
`
`·9· ·biometric information happens to match the signature
`
`10· ·that had been previously stored according to the
`
`11· ·enrollment method of Claim 1.
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Yes, I should have begun with Claim 2.· You
`
`13· ·are correct.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·So let's just restate it for the record.
`
`15· ·Would you agree that the method in Claim 2 could only
`
`16· ·successfully complete if the current presentation of
`
`17· ·biometric information happens to match the signature
`
`18· ·that had been previously stored according to the
`
`19· ·enrollment method of Claim 1?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I would agree with that.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·I think you already mentioned that the
`
`22· ·first limitation of Claim 2, the first presentation
`
`23· ·after the preamble says:· "Storing the biometric
`
`24· ·signature according to the enrollment method of Claim
`
`25· ·1."
`
`CPC EX 2041 - Page 0028
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01093
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Correct?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes, you read that correctly.· Yes.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Would you understand that to mean
`
`·4· ·that the enrollment method referred to in Claim 2
`
`·5· ·comprises the same series of steps and in the same
`
`·6· ·order as the steps in Claim 1?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Objection.· Form.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, with the -- my
`
`·9· ·previous-mentioned possible exception that I don't
`
`10· ·believe there's anything intrinsic or required by the
`
`
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
