Page 1
`
`·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,· · )
`·5· ·Inc., August Home, Inc., HID· · ·)
`· · ·Global Corporation, and ASSA· · ·)
`·6· ·ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc.,· · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·7· · · · · · · · · Petitioners,· · · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) Case No. IPR2022-01093
`·8· · · · · · · ·v.· · · · · · · · · ·) Volume I
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·9· ·CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY· · · )
`· · ·LTD.,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) Pages 1 to 166
`· · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.· · ·)
`11· ·_________________________________)
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17· · REMOTE VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL HARDIE RUSS, PhD
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Mobile, Alabama
`19· · · · · · · · · · · Wednesday, July 12, 2023
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24· ·Reported by:
`· · ·ELIZABETH BORRELLI, CSR No. 7844, CCRR, CLR
`25· ·JOB NO. 9874954
`
`Page 2
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · Remote Videoconferenced Deposition of
`
`·9· ·SAMUEL HARDIE RUSS, PhD, Volume I, taken on
`
`10· ·behalf of the Petitioners, at Mobile, Alabama,
`
`11· ·commencing at 8:01 a.m., Wednesday, July 12,
`
`12· ·2023, before Elizabeth Borrelli, a Certified
`
`13· ·Shorthand Reporter in the State of California,
`
`14· ·License No. 7844.
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·* * *
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`·2
`·3· ·For the Petitioners:
`·4· · · · · · ·MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW DEVKAR, appearing remotely
`·5· · · · · · ·Attorney at Law
`· · · · · · · ·2049 Century Park East
`·6· · · · · · ·Suite 700
`· · · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90067
`·7· · · · · · ·(310) 907-1000 (main)
`· · · · · · · ·(310) 255-9070 (direct)
`·8· · · · · · ·andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`·9· ·For the Patent Owner:
`10· · · · · · ·CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`· · · · · · · ·BY:· ANDREW RYAN, appearing remotely
`11· · · · · · ·BY:· STEVEN COYLE, appearing remotely
`· · · · · · · ·Attorneys at Law
`12· · · · · · ·20 Church Street
`· · · · · · · ·22nd Floor
`13· · · · · · ·Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3207
`· · · · · · · ·(860) 286-2929 (main)
`14· · · · · · ·ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`· · · · · · · ·scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`·2· ·WITNESS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`·3· ·SAMUEL HARDIE RUSS, PhD
`·4· ·By MR. DEVKAR· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5
`·5
`·6
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXHIBITS
`·8
`·9· ·RUSS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`10· ·Exhibit 2039· ·Expert declaration of Samuel· · · · · · 8
`· · · · · · · · · · Russ, PhD, 40 pages
`11
`· · ·Exhibit 1001· ·US Patent No. 8,620,039, 17· · · · · · ·9
`12· · · · · · · · · pages
`13· ·Exhibit 1003· ·European Patent Application· · · · · · 28
`· · · · · · · · · · EP0924655A2 with inventor
`14· · · · · · · · · Shi-Ping Hsu, 8 pages
`15· ·Exhibit 1005· ·US Patent No. 6.963,660 B1, 8· · · · ·119
`· · · · · · · · · · pages
`16
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · INFORMATION REQUESTED
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(None)
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·(None)
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01094 - U.S. Patent No. 8.620,039
`
`

`

`Page 5
`·1· · · · · · · MOBILE, ALABAMA; WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8:01 A.M.
`·3
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · ·SAMUEL HARDIE RUSS, PhD
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·having been duly administered
`·6· · · · · · · · an oath in accordance with CCP 2094,
`·7· · · · · · · ·was examined and testified as follows:
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`·9· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`10· · · · Q.· ·Good morning, Dr. Russ.
`11· · · · A.· ·Good morning.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Can you please state your full name for
`13· ·the record.
`14· · · · A.· ·Samuel Hardie, H-A-R-D-I-E, Russ, R-U-S-S.
`15· · · · Q.· ·It's good to see you again.· And I know we
`16· ·went through this process just a short time ago so
`17· ·we'll be doing it again today.· I'll just briefly
`18· ·review the ground rules that you probably remember
`19· ·them well from last time, if that's all right?
`20· · · · A.· ·Sure.
`21· · · · Q.· ·So, first, we should make an effort not to
`22· ·talk over one another.· This makes it easier for the
`23· ·court reporter to record what is being said.· Does
`24· ·that sound all right?
`25· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`Page 6
`·1· · · · Q.· ·If you don't understand a question, would
`·2· ·you please let me know and I will clarify?
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·During the deposition we'll make reference
`·5· ·to a number of exhibits from these IPR proceedings,
`·6· ·and my intent is to place any such exhibits in the
`·7· ·chat window so that you can download them to your
`·8· ·local machine.· I think that's what we did last time
`·9· ·as well.· Does that process work for you?
`10· · · · A.· ·It does.· And while we're on the subject
`11· ·and on the record, I do have clean copies of these
`12· ·files on my computer.· Is it okay if I -- if I
`13· ·access those clean copies on my local computer?
`14· · · · Q.· ·That's fine with --
`15· · · · A.· ·Or would you --
`16· · · · Q.· ·That's fine with me.· Is -- all of the
`17· ·materials that you have with you are clean; is that
`18· ·correct?
`19· · · · A.· ·Yes, yeah, clean -- clean materials, no
`20· ·notes, no sticky notes, no -- yes.
`21· · · · Q.· ·And are all of the materials that you have
`22· ·with you from the record of the IPR proceedings?
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`24· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Yeah, so as long as we're
`25· ·referring to the same exhibit numbers, which I'll
`
`Page 7
`·1· ·try to be clear about, then you can refer to any
`·2· ·copy you would like, but I'll still go ahead and
`·3· ·place the copies in the chat window so that the
`·4· ·court reporter has them and you're free download
`·5· ·them as -- as you would like.
`·6· · · · A.· ·Right.· And I'll -- I'll be sure to
`·7· ·synchronize my remarks to those exhibit numbers so
`·8· ·that the record is clear.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Great.
`10· · · · · · ·Are you aware of any reason that you are
`11· ·not able to give full and truthful answers to my
`12· ·questions today?
`13· · · · A.· ·No reason that I'm aware of.
`14· · · · Q.· ·What did you do to prepare for today's
`15· ·deposition?
`16· · · · A.· ·I read the materials involved in this,
`17· ·including the patents, the prior art references that
`18· ·are being cited, my declaration, the petition. I
`19· ·believe I looked at -- anyway, I reviewed the
`20· ·materials associated with the IPR.· I also met with
`21· ·counsel.
`22· · · · Q.· ·When you said you met with counsel, was
`23· ·that with Mr. Ryan?
`24· · · · A.· ·It was with Mr. Ryan and Mr. Coyle.
`25· · · · Q.· ·And when did you meet with counsel?
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Yesterday.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Did you talk to anyone other than Mr. Ryan
`·3· ·and Mr. Coyle in preparing for today's deposition?
`·4· · · · A.· ·No, not that I recall.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Today we'll be addressing your declaration
`·6· ·in connection with two related IPRs, which are IPR
`·7· ·2022-01093 and IPR 2022-01094.
`·8· · · · · · ·Is it your understanding that you
`·9· ·submitted a declaration in each of these IPRs?
`10· · · · A.· ·That's my -- that's my offhand
`11· ·recollection, yes.
`12· · · · Q.· ·I'm going to place your declaration for
`13· ·these IPRs in the chat window so that we have those
`14· ·two exhibits handy.
`15· · · · · · ·So in the chat window I've placed
`16· ·Exhibit 2039 from each of the two subject IPRs. I
`17· ·believe this -- these exhibits, 2039 are your
`18· ·declarations in each of the IPRs.· When you can
`19· ·access those, can you see if that appears to be
`20· ·correct to you?
`21· · · · · · ·(Whereupon Exhibit 2039 was marked for
`22· · · · · · ·identification.)
`23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· All right.· Let's see.· I'm
`24· ·pulling up the first one now.· Yes, that -- that one
`25· ·appears to be correct.· Let me pull up the second
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 2
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01094 - U.S. Patent No. 8.620,039
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`·1· ·one.
`·2· · · · · · ·That one also appears to be correct.
`·3· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So Exhibit 2039 is your declaration
`·5· ·in each of the two subject IPRs; is that -- is that
`·6· ·correct?
`·7· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Now, your two declarations relating to the
`·9· ·'039 patent have substantially identical content.
`10· ·Is that your understanding?
`11· · · · A.· ·That's my recollection, yes.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Do you recall any differences in this --
`13· ·in the content of these two declarations?
`14· · · · A.· ·I don't recall any differences.
`15· · · · Q.· ·I'm also going to add Exhibit 1001 to the
`16· ·chat window.· This is the '039 patent.
`17· · · · · · ·(Whereupon Exhibit 1001 was marked for
`18· · · · · · ·identification.)
`19· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· And for the record, the
`20· ·subject patent, which we will refer to the -- as the
`21· ·'039 patent, is US patent 8,620,039, which is
`22· ·designated as Exhibit 1001 in each of the two IPR
`23· ·proceedings.
`24· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`25· · · · Q.· ·Dr. Russ, is it your understanding that
`
`Page 10
`·1· ·Exhibit 1001 is the '039 patent in each of the
`·2· ·subject IPRs?
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.· That's -- that seems correct, yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And can we agree that when either of us
`·5· ·refers to the '039 or '039 patent, that we are
`·6· ·referring to the patent at Exhibit 1001?
`·7· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·I believe my questions today will focus on
`·9· ·the central arguments in your declaration,
`10· ·Exhibit 2039, in both of these IPRs.· And I'll
`11· ·intend for my questions to apply to your declaration
`12· ·in both of these IPRs, however, if there are any
`13· ·differences you are aware of between your
`14· ·declarations in the two patents, we can focus on
`15· ·them, but I -- I intend for my questions to
`16· ·generally apply to both of your declarations unless
`17· ·otherwise stated.· Is that fair with you?
`18· · · · A.· ·Yes, that is fair.
`19· · · · Q.· ·So I'd like to then refer to your
`20· ·declaration, Exhibit 2039.· And for simplicity I'm
`21· ·going to refer to your declaration in the IPR
`22· ·2022-01093.
`23· · · · · · ·Can you please let me know when you have
`24· ·that declaration handy?
`25· · · · A.· ·I have that declaration up on my computer
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·now.· Thank you.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·I'd like to turn to paragraph 64 of your
`·3· ·declaration, Exhibit 2039.
`·4· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`·5· · · · · · ·And Counselor, I'm sorry to interrupt your
`·6· ·line of questioning.· There were two typographical
`·7· ·errors I noticed in my review yesterday and I wasn't
`·8· ·sure, and I don't know quite what the rules are and
`·9· ·when would be a good time to address those. I
`10· ·understand you have a line of questioning you're
`11· ·about to embark on, so I apologize for interrupting
`12· ·that, but --
`13· · · · Q.· ·No, no problem.· Why don't we cover your
`14· ·typographical errors first.· Can you please explain
`15· ·where those typographical errors?
`16· · · · A.· ·Certainly.· And I appreciate your
`17· ·indulgence.
`18· · · · · · ·Let's see.· The first is at the end of
`19· ·paragraph 34, which is on page 13 or PDF page 16 of
`20· ·my declaration.
`21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`22· · · · A.· ·The last sentence is incomplete.· It says,
`23· ·"the fifth step in this method requires," and then a
`24· ·period.· I meant to say, "the fifth step in this
`25· ·method requires the completion of all previous
`
`Page 12
`
`·1· ·steps."
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Thank you.· I recall reading that sentence
`·3· ·and figuring that something was left out there, so
`·4· ·thanks for clarifying.
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yeah, good.· Thank you.
`·6· · · · · · ·And then in paragraph 41.
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Okay.
`·8· · · · A.· ·The last sentence says "set forth above in
`·9· ·paragraph 38."· That should say "set forth above in
`10· ·paragraph 40."
`11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I understand.
`12· · · · · · ·Are those the only errors that you're
`13· ·aware of as we sit here right now in your
`14· ·declaration?
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes, those the only errors I'm aware of at
`16· ·the moment, yes, thank you.
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Let's turn back then to paragraph
`18· ·64, please, of your declaration.
`19· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I am there now.
`20· · · · Q.· ·In paragraph 64 of your declaration you
`21· ·identify three types of data storage solutions that
`22· ·were common at the time of the '039 patent
`23· ·invention; is that correct?
`24· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`25· · · · Q.· ·Can you briefly summarize what each of
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 3
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01094 - U.S. Patent No. 8.620,039
`
`

`

`Page 13
`·1· ·these three common solutions for data storage are?
`·2· · · · A.· ·A searchable data rate -- excuse me, a
`·3· ·searchable database of records, an array of records
`·4· ·of fixed size, and having pointers to the records.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Each of these types of data storage were
`·6· ·well-known before the time '039 patent application;
`·7· ·is that correct?
`·8· · · · A.· ·I believe that's correct, yes.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Can you please turn to paragraph 10 of
`10· ·your declaration.
`11· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I am there now.
`12· · · · Q.· ·In paragraph 10 you refer to a product by
`13· ·the name of eN-Touch 1000, which is eN-Touch, space,
`14· ·1000, for the record.
`15· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`16· · · · A.· ·I do.
`17· · · · Q.· ·And within paragraph 10 of your
`18· ·declaration you state that, "The eN-Touch 1000 could
`19· ·capture human signatures (and transmit them for
`20· ·storage)."
`21· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`22· · · · A.· ·I do.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Do you know how the human signatures would
`24· ·have been stored in the eN-Touch 1000?
`25· · · · A.· ·Well, the signatures were not stored in
`
`Page 14
`·1· ·the eN-Touch 1000.· They would have been stored at
`·2· ·the location to which they were transmitted. I
`·3· ·mean, the eN-Touch 1000 would store the signature
`·4· ·temporarily in RAM memory, transmit it for storage
`·5· ·to some other facility, and then I imagine clear
`·6· ·memory and use it -- so that it would be available
`·7· ·again for another signature.· So the actual storage
`·8· ·would be done at a database that the customer that
`·9· ·was using the eN-Touch 1000 would be working with.
`10· · · · Q.· ·Thanks for that clarification.
`11· · · · · · ·In the database in which the human
`12· ·signatures would have been stored, what type of data
`13· ·storage solution would have been used?
`14· · · · A.· ·I -- I don't know.· I did not work the
`15· ·development of those, but I would imagine it was a
`16· ·database of some sort.
`17· · · · Q.· ·Referring back to the common types of data
`18· ·storage that you refer to in paragraph 64 of your
`19· ·declaration, would any of these types of common data
`20· ·storage have been suitable for storing human
`21· ·signatures captured by the eN-Touch 1000?
`22· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Form.
`23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, I -- I know the
`24· ·database method at least would be suitable. I
`25· ·haven't considered the other two methods.
`
`Page 15
`
`·1· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Are you aware of any reason why the other
`·3· ·two methods would not have been suitable?
`·4· · · · A.· ·Well, I express opinions towards the end
`·5· ·of my report, roughly paragraphs 63 through 70, to
`·6· ·explain why the array approach would have been
`·7· ·unwieldy, and I think those opinions would be
`·8· ·relevant here as well.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·When you said that you believe the
`10· ·database method of storing signatures would have
`11· ·been at least one suitable to store the human
`12· ·signatures captured by the eN-Touch 1000, are you
`13· ·referring to a searchable database of records as
`14· ·stated in your paragraph 64?
`15· · · · A.· ·Well, first off, I'm not sure how this is
`16· ·relevant to the matter at hand.· Secondly, that --
`17· ·that might be one way to do it or another way to
`18· ·think about it would be the database of Hsu.
`19· · · · Q.· ·The database of Hsu, meaning the H-S-U,
`20· ·Hsu prior art reference, the subject IPRs?
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So the database that was used in
`23· ·Hsu would have been, in your opinion, a suitable way
`24· ·of storing the human signatures captured by the
`25· ·eN-Touch 1000?
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Well, haven't considered this in detail --
`·2· ·I'm sorry, Andy, did you have --
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Yeah, objection to form.· Go
`·4· ·ahead, Sam.
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I haven't considered
`·6· ·this in detail.· I'm not sure why this is relevant.
`·7· ·But just I -- you know, I would -- I would just
`·8· ·think that a database would be a way to store the
`·9· ·data of the eN-Touch 1000 -- excuse me.· Would be a
`10· ·way to store the information that the eN-Touch 1000
`11· ·transmitted to a remote location.
`12· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`13· · · · Q.· ·And a searchable database of records was
`14· ·at least one well-known storage technique as of the
`15· ·time period before 2000 when the eN-Touch 1000 was a
`16· ·commercial product; is that correct?
`17· · · · A.· ·Yes, a searchable database of records, an
`18· ·array of records of fixed size, and an unstructured
`19· ·collection of records having pointers to each were
`20· ·all well-known ways even prior to 2000.
`21· · · · Q.· ·I'd like to refer to the institution
`22· ·decision in each of the subject IPR proceedings
`23· ·today.· I've put one of those institution decisions
`24· ·in the chat window, which is for IPR 2022-01093.· My
`25· ·questions, however, will relate to the content of
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 4
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01094 - U.S. Patent No. 8.620,039
`
`

`

`Page 17
`·1· ·each of these institution decisions, which will be
`·2· ·the same for this line of questioning.
`·3· · · · · · ·Can you please let me know when you've
`·4· ·downloaded or can access the institution decision
`·5· ·for IPR 2022-01093?
`·6· · · · A.· ·I have the institution decision on my
`·7· ·screen right now.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·I'd like you to turn to page 36 of the
`·9· ·institution decision.· And that would be page 36
`10· ·using the page number on the bottom of the pages.
`11· · · · A.· ·I see that.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Beginning on page 36 of the institution
`13· ·decision should be a section relating to the
`14· ·construction of the defining claim limitation.· Do
`15· ·you see that?
`16· · · · A.· ·I do.
`17· · · · Q.· ·This defining limitation is a subject of
`18· ·much of the content and opinions in your
`19· ·declaration; is that correct?
`20· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`21· · · · Q.· ·I'd like to start by talking through the
`22· ·various claim constructions or claim interpretation
`23· ·of this defining claim limitation.
`24· · · · · · ·Are you aware that several different
`25· ·constructions for the defining limitation have been
`
`Page 18
`·1· ·considered by both the parties and the board in
`·2· ·these proceedings?
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes, I am aware of that.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·So what I'd like do is step through each
`·5· ·of the constructions that have been either presented
`·6· ·or considered by the parties and board and talk
`·7· ·about what you agree or don't agree with from each
`·8· ·of those constructions.
`·9· · · · · · ·Is that all right?
`10· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`11· · · · Q.· ·Let's start with the first interpretation
`12· ·offered by petitioner, which is set forth on page 36
`13· ·of the institution decision.· Do you see that?
`14· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`15· · · · Q.· ·And the first interpretation reads, "A
`16· ·memory location is somehow determined from (or is
`17· ·dependent on) the card information.· Under this
`18· ·interpretation, the system can look up or otherwise
`19· ·determine a specific memory location from a user's
`20· ·card information."
`21· · · · · · ·Do you see that proposed construction?
`22· · · · A.· ·I do.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Do you agree with that construction for
`24· ·the defining claim limitation?
`25· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Beyond the scope of
`
`Page 19
`
`·1· ·the declaration, but the witness can answer.
`·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall expressing an
`·3· ·opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with this
`·4· ·claim interpretation.
`·5· · · · · · ·Now, I note that because this talks about
`·6· ·"looking up," it appears to apply to a verification
`·7· ·step and not an enrollment step.· But I don't recall
`·8· ·expressing an opinion either agreeing or disagreeing
`·9· ·with this interpretation.
`10· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`11· · · · Q.· ·And can you please clarify why you believe
`12· ·it refers to an enrollment step but not a
`13· ·verification step?
`14· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Misstates
`15· ·testimony.
`16· · · · · · ·MR. DEVKAR:· Oh, I'm -- I'm sorry.· Strike
`17· ·that.
`18· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`19· · · · Q.· ·Can you please explain why you believe the
`20· ·first construction refers to a verification step but
`21· ·not an enrollment step?
`22· · · · A.· ·The claims are the -- or I should say the
`23· ·claim language that's in dispute is -- well, let's
`24· ·find the claim language that's in dispute.
`25· · · · Q.· ·I believe it's stated right on page 36 of
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·the institution decision.
`·2· · · · A.· ·It -- here, yes, and I'm actually on --
`·3· ·just under paragraph 44 of my declaration, which is
`·4· ·where I have some -- some of the claims listed
`·5· ·verbatim.
`·6· · · · · · ·You know, the -- it talks about defining a
`·7· ·memory location and then subsequently storing data
`·8· ·at that memory location.· Or in Claim 3, providing
`·9· ·card information -- no wait.· I'm sorry.· If the
`10· ·provided card information -- sorry, down to 3[D(1)],
`11· ·storing the information at a memory location defined
`12· ·by the provided card information.· You know, these
`13· ·are the claim limitations that are in dispute and
`14· ·they -- they're talking about defining a memory
`15· ·location and then storing data at it.· And so the
`16· ·claim limitations that are in dispute pertain to the
`17· ·step of enrolling.
`18· · · · · · ·Now, the first interpretation talks about
`19· ·looking up a memory location from a user's card
`20· ·information.· That -- that seems to imply that the
`21· ·memory location is already -- has already been
`22· ·established and you're looking it up.· And so to the
`23· ·extent that the interpretation does that, I
`24· ·disagree.· The -- this first interpretation I think
`25· ·kind of strays a little bit away from the enrollment
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 5
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01094 - U.S. Patent No. 8.620,039
`
`

`

`Page 21
`·1· ·step, but again, I did not express an opinion in
`·2· ·this report as to whether I -- I agreed or disagreed
`·3· ·with this interpretation.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Referring to page 36 of the institution
`·5· ·decision, do you see the second interpretation
`·6· ·presented by petitioner on that page?
`·7· · · · A.· ·I see the second interpretation, yes.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·The second interpretation reads, "A memory
`·9· ·location is specified by the card information
`10· ·itself.· Under this interpretation, the card
`11· ·information itself must specify the physical memory
`12· ·address where the user's biometric signature is
`13· ·stored, without the need to look up the memory
`14· ·address in a database or other structure."
`15· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`16· · · · A.· ·I see that.
`17· · · · Q.· ·Do you have an opinion as to whether this
`18· ·second interpretation is correct or not?
`19· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Beyond the scope.
`20· · · · · · ·But you can answer.
`21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not express an opinion
`22· ·as to whether I agree or disagree with this
`23· ·interpretation in my report.· And again, to the
`24· ·extent that this is applied to verification, I don't
`25· ·think it's relevant.· If it applies to enrollment,
`
`Page 22
`·1· ·it is relevant, but I did not express an opinion as
`·2· ·to whether I agree or disagree with this
`·3· ·interpretation.
`·4· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Can you please turn to page 38 of the
`·6· ·institution decision.
`·7· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·At the -- at the end of the first
`·9· ·paragraph on page 38 of the institution decision
`10· ·there appears the sentence, "For purposes of
`11· ·institution, on this record, we determine that
`12· ·'defining, dependent upon the received card
`13· ·information' as recited in Claim 1, means, 'the
`14· ·user's card information itself specifies the
`15· ·physical memory address (such as acting by a -- such
`16· ·as acting as a pointer) for the user's biometric
`17· ·signature.'"
`18· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`19· · · · A.· ·I see that sentence, yes.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Is it your understanding that for the
`21· ·purposes of institution, this is the construction
`22· ·that the board presented in its institution
`23· ·decisions?
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`25· · · · Q.· ·Do you believe this construction presented
`
`Page 23
`
`·1· ·by the board is correct or incorrect?
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Beyond the scope of
`·3· ·the declaration.
`·4· · · · · · ·But the witness can answer.
`·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not express an opinion
`·6· ·as to whether I agree or disagree with this
`·7· ·construction.· I do note, and I'm not an attorney, I
`·8· ·do know that it appears that is preliminary
`·9· ·construction issued by the boards and not a final
`10· ·one.· I did not express an opinion as to whether I
`11· ·agree or disagree with it.· And again, to the extent
`12· ·that it's applied to verification, I -- you know,
`13· ·it's not relevant.· To the extent that it applies to
`14· ·enrollment, it is relevant, but I did not express an
`15· ·opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with this
`16· ·construction in my report.
`17· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`18· · · · Q.· ·So does that mean you don't have an
`19· ·opinion as to whether the claims are invalid or not
`20· ·invalid if the board's construction were applied?
`21· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Form.
`22· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`23· · · · Q.· ·Let me ask this question a different way.
`24· ·Strike the questions.
`25· · · · · · ·Do you have an opinion as to the validity
`
`Page 24
`·1· ·of the claims in view of the presented prior art if
`·2· ·the board's construction were applicable?
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Form.
`·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, I -- my report is
`·5· ·drawn to the proposed construction that I proffer in
`·6· ·paragraph 40 of my report.· To the extent that the
`·7· ·board's proposed construction is harmonious with
`·8· ·that, I believe that the -- you know, I believe my
`·9· ·report sets out clearly why the prior art -- why the
`10· ·asserted claims are not invalidated by the prior
`11· ·art.
`12· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`13· · · · Q.· ·And I assure you we'll get to your
`14· ·proposed construction as well, but for now I'm just
`15· ·trying to get some clarity on the board's proposed
`16· ·construction, which I understand is not final, but
`17· ·at least as to the institution decision, the board
`18· ·presented a potential construction for the defining
`19· ·limitation; is that your understanding?
`20· · · · A.· ·The board presented a preliminary
`21· ·construction for the defining limitation, yes, that
`22· ·is correct.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Under the board's preliminary construction
`24· ·for the defining limitation, do you have an opinion
`25· ·as to the validity of the claims if the board's
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 6
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01094 - U.S. Patent No. 8.620,039
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
`·1· ·preliminary construction were applicable?
`·2· · · · A.· ·I believe that the -- well, to the extent
`·3· ·that the board's definition means that the address
`·4· ·is -- that -- to the total extent that the board's
`·5· ·construction is harmonious with the necessary
`·6· ·chronological limitations of the claim, I believe
`·7· ·that my opinion would be the same, that the patents
`·8· ·would -- that the -- that the asserted claims would
`·9· ·be valid over the prior art.· In other words, I do
`10· ·not believe that the board's proposed construction
`11· ·would change my opinion.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Do you see anything in the board's
`13· ·construction relating to the order of steps in the
`14· ·claim?
`15· · · · A.· ·The board's construction is not as clear
`16· ·as my -- well, again, I didn't express an opinion
`17· ·about the board's construction in this, but I do
`18· ·know that my construction talks about that the
`19· ·location is contingent upon or determined by the
`20· ·received card information and my claim
`21· ·interpretation contains that clause to make clear
`22· ·the chronological ordering.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Let's turn to your proposed construction
`24· ·at page 16 of your declaration.· I believe it's
`25· ·reflected in paragraph 40 of your declaration; is
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· ·that correct?
`·2· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`·3· · · · Q.· ·In paragraph 40, you state your opinion
`·4· ·that the correct instruction of the defining
`·5· ·limitation is "the system sets or establishes a
`·6· ·memory location in a local memory external to the
`·7· ·card, said location being contingent upon or
`·8· ·determined by the received card information."
`·9· · · · · · ·Is that correct?
`10· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`11· · · · Q.· ·Now, I believe you drew the language
`12· ·"contingent upon" or "determined" from a
`13· ·construction that was offered in the separate Apple
`14· ·IPR relating to the '039 patent; is that correct?
`15· · · · A.· ·As I explained -- yes, that's correct.· As
`16· ·explained in paragraph 32 of my report, it -- it
`17· ·stems from both the district court litigation
`18· ·between Apple and the patent owner and that the --
`19· ·and the board having adopted essentially similar --
`20· ·essentially, identical language.· And again, this is
`21· ·explained in paragraph 32 of my report.
`22· · · · Q.· ·Can you please explain your understanding
`23· ·of what it means for the memory location to be
`24· ·contingent upon or determined by the received card
`25· ·information.
`
`Page 27
`·1· · · · A.· ·Well, the -- the literal claim language in
`·2· ·Claim 1 is dependent upon the received card
`·3· ·information.· And in context, though, of the claim,
`·4· ·there's a necessary chronological limitation that
`·5· ·you have to receive the card information and then
`·6· ·perform the defining step.· The result is that
`·7· ·there's necessarily, when you start to look at the
`·8· ·chronology ordering, there's a -- there's a -- kind
`·9· ·of a chain of events that has to occur, a chain of
`10· ·causality.· And so the information is received from
`11· ·the card and then that information is used to define
`12· ·a memory location.· And so because it's -- because
`13· ·it's -- because it is so used, I'm saying that
`14· ·the -- my understanding that contingent upon or
`15· ·determined by is that the information is received
`16· ·and then a memory location is defined -- determined
`17· ·by the card information or contingent upon it,
`18· ·meaning that you have to get the card information
`19· ·first and then use that to define a memory location.
`20· · · · Q.· ·All right.· So perhaps it's easier to
`21· ·consider some examples of how this might play out.
`22· ·And we can discuss whether you believe that would
`23· ·satisfy your construction of being contingent upon
`24· ·or determined by the received card information.
`25· · · · · · ·So let's consider the example of a
`
`Page 28
`
`·1· ·database of records, like we referred to earlier,
`·2· ·and the database has a table that correlates card
`·3· ·information to memory locations for storing
`·4· ·biometric data.· And there's a one-to-one
`·5· ·correspondence between card information and memory
`·6· ·locations for storing biometric signatures.
`·7· · · · · · ·This is similar to the data structure
`·8· ·presented in the Hsu reference, H-S-U; is that
`·9· ·correct?
`10· · · · · · ·MR. RYAN:· Objection.· Form.
`11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, it's -- it's your
`12· ·hypothetical, Counselor, but -- and so I wanted
`13· ·to -- wanted to clarify.· You said one-to-one
`14· ·correspondence.· Does that mean that there is an
`15· ·entry in the database containing one -- well, let's
`16· ·-- let's look at the Hsu reference.
`17· · · · · · ·So I'm turning to the Hsu reference, which
`18· ·is Exhibit 1003 in this proceeding.· Is it okay if I
`19· ·do that or do I need to introduce it?· I -- I'm
`20· ·sorry, I forget how these things work sometimes.
`21· · · · · · ·(Whereupon Exhibit 1003 was marked for
`22· · · · · · ·identification.)
`23· ·BY MR. DEVKAR:
`24· · · · Q.· ·That's fine.· It's already designated as
`25· ·Exhibit 1003, so that's fine to refer to
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1031 - Page 7
`ASSA ABLOY AB, et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`