1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., ) IPR2022-01248
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS ) PATENT 8,842,653
`AMERICA, INC., and APPLE, )
`INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES )
`LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`__________________________ )
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL JENSEN, PH.D.
` PROVO, UTAH
` THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2023
`
`MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES
`866-624-6221
`WWW.MAGNALS.COM
`JOB NO.: 952152
`DORIEN SAITO, CSR 12568, CLR
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 1 of 52
`
`

`

`2
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., ) IPR2022-01248
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS ) PATENT 8,842,653
`AMERICA, INC., and APPLE, )
`INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES )
`LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`__________________________ )
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL
` JENSEN, PH.D., taken on behalf of
` PATENT OWNER, in Provo, Utah,
` commencing at 9:08 a.m., Thursday,
` April 13, 2023, before DORIEN
` SAITO, CSR 12568, CLR.
`
`4
`
` I N D E X
`W I T N E S S :
`MICHAEL JENSEN, PH.D. PAGE
` EXAMINATION BY MR. HENDIFAR 6
`
`INFORMATION REQUESTED:
` (NONE)
`
`QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
`
` (NONE)
`
`E X H I B I T S :
`PETITIONER'S DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 2020 Microsoft Computer Dictionary 33
` Fourth Edition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
` FOR PETITIONER SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; and APPLE
` INC.:
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` By: AAMIR KAZI, Attorney at Law
` 1180 Peachtree Street NE
` Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` (404) 724-2811
` kazi@fr.com
` FOR PATENT OWNER:
` LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
` By: PARHAM HENDIFAR, Attorney at Law
` 1016 Pico Boulevard
` Santa Monica, California 90405
` (310) 307-4514
` hendifar@lowensteinweatherman.com
` ALSO PRESENT:
` PHILIP GRAVES
`
`5
`
` PROVO, UTAH; THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2023
` 9:08 A.M.
` -0o0-
` ***
` THE REPORTER: Good morning. Because
`we are all appearing remotely, I would like to
`remind everyone to be more conscious than ever of
`not speaking over each other. When there are
`simultaneous speakers, I will not be able to hear
`any of the words that are being said.
` Pauses are very important to ensure that I
`have time to clarify the record and to ensure all
`objections are on the record.
` Please also be aware that noises around
`your microphone cause disruptions in how words come
`through on a virtual platform. If you are not
`speaking, please mute yourself.
` I will now swear in the witness.
` ***
` MICHAEL JENSEN, PH.D.,
` having been duly administered an oath
` in accordance with CCP 2094, was
` examined and testified as follows:
`///
`///
`
`
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 2 of 52
`
`

`

`6
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`colleague Mr. Philip Graves in IPR2022-00766.
` Do you recall that?
` A. I don't recall being deposed by Mr. Graves.
`Mr. Hwang maybe?
` Q. Yes. I'm sorry. Let me check that. One
`moment, please.
` That's correct, with Mr. Rex Hwang. I
`apologize.
` Do you recall that deposition? It was
`January of 2023.
` A. Yes, I recall the deposition with
`Mr. Hwang.
` Q. Any part of your testimony in that
`deposition that you have now come to believe was not
`accurate?
` A. No.
` Q. In fact, this is a routine question, I'm
`not trying to get -- this is really just routine
`that I have to ask just to cover my bases. I
`appreciate your patience.
` A. Yes, of course.
` Q. Thank you.
` So you understand that in an IPR deposition
`you are not permitted to speak with your attorney
`during the breaks regarding the contents of your
`
`9
`
`assume that you have understood as well. Okay?
` A. I agree. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
` What is your hourly compensation in
`connection with this matter, which is IPR2022-01248?
` A. $475 per hour.
` Q. Okay. And is that your ordinary and
`customary hourly rate for IP consultation?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. Now, you submitted a declaration in this
`IPR marked 1003; correct?
` A. I -- yes, that's correct.
` Q. Okay. And in your declaration, you relied
`on various prior art references to allege or opine
`that various claims are -- of the '653 patent are
`invalid; correct?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. And the first reference that I would like
`to discuss is called Yegoshin, Exhibit 1004.
` Do you recall that reference?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you identify that reference to be
`used in your declaration?
` A. No, sir, I did not. I did not identify
`this reference.
`
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Jensen.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Thank you very much for your time this
`morning. We had an -- we had a prior deposition in
`another IPR between the parties, IPR2022-01002.
` Do you recall that?
` A. I remember the deposition. I don't
`remember the case number. But yes, I remember the
`deposition.
` Q. Thank you.
` And we discussed the background information
`as well as the procedure for the deposition. Is
`there any part of your testimony in the prior
`deposition in IPR2022-01002 that you now have come
`to believe was not accurate?
` A. No, sir.
` Q. So all the information about your
`background, expertise and experience, as you
`testified in that earlier deposition, will apply to
`this deposition as well; correct?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. I understand you have also been deposed in
`yet another IPR between the same parties by my
`
`8
`
`deposition, other than issues relating to privilege;
`correct?
` A. I understand that.
` Q. So we will take breaks over the course of
`today, but it will be my expectation that you won't
`be discussing the substance of your testimony with
`your attorney unless it's a privileged issue. And
`please let me know if, at any point, that turns out
`not to be the case.
` A. I understand. That's correct. Yes.
` Q. Thank you.
` Your counsel will make short, two word, non
`speaking objections such as objection; scope. Once
`Counsel makes the objections, you still have to
`answer the question unless you're specifically
`instructed not to answer.
` If -- because Counsel will not be able to
`provide speaking objections, if you have any doubts
`about what I'm asking, if you need more information
`or if my question is in any way ambiguous or not
`clear to you, please let me know and I will be happy
`to rephrase that question. Is that fair?
` A. I understand.
` Q. Thank you.
` And if you do answer a question, I will
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 3 of 52
`
`

`

`10
` Q. How did you come to learn of the existence
`of the declaration?
` A. Counsel pointed me towards this reference.
` Q. Did you have any familiarity with the
`inventor of Yegoshin, Mr. Yegoshin, prior to this
`IPR?
` A. No, sir, I did not.
` Q. Okay. Same question for the Johnston
`reference marked as Exhibit 1005. Did you identify
`the Johnston reference to be used in your
`declaration?
` A. So this one's slightly differently because
`this one cites my work. I was aware of this patent,
`but Counsel had also independently identified it.
` Q. And which are -- I'm sorry. Would you
`please point me to where Johnston cites your work,
`please?
` A. Sure.
` So in that reference, I -- in the other
`publications, my work is the final paper in that
`list. And there are -- if you'd like me to find,
`there are places in the patent where he refers to it
`in talking about prior art.
` Q. No. I found the paper. I just wanted to
`confirm. That's okay.
`
`12
`
` Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that you did not
`find any prior art that you found sufficiently close
`to the invention to be the basis of your grounds in
`your declaration?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know if that's
`fair to say. I think, in review, I did find
`references in review of the references. The set
`that we selected were the ones that I felt were
`the -- were the best to try to keep it to as few
`references as possible.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. Okay. Have any of your opinions stated in
`your declaration, Exhibit 1003, changed since you
`submitted the declaration?
` A. No, sir.
` Q. And did you draft your declaration in
`Exhibit 1003?
` A. So -- so that's a -- that's a big question.
`Would you like some detail about how that came to
`be? I did not draft everything in that declaration.
` Q. Which parts did you draft?
` A. Well, certainly the figures and the
`annotated figures, Counsel helps me with those,
`under my guidance of what I would like to show.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
` Same question about the Billstrom
`reference. Did you identify the Billstrom reference
`that was used in your declaration?
` A. So no, I did not find this reference.
` Q. And were you familiar with Billstrom's
`named inventor, Billstrom, prior to this IPR?
` A. No, sir.
` Q. And did I understand you correctly that you
`were familiar with Johnston, the inventor of
`Exhibit 1005, prior to this IPR?
` A. I did not know Mr. Johnston, but I was
`aware of the -- the patent.
` Q. Understood.
` Same question for Exhibit 1007, the Bernard
`reference. Did you identify the Bernard reference
`you used in your declaration?
` A. No, sir.
` Q. And were you familiar with Mr. Bernard, the
`named inventor of the Bernard reference, prior to
`this IPR?
` A. No, sir.
` Q. When you were retained for this IPR, did
`you conduct any prior art search to identify
`references to be used in your declaration?
` A. Yes, sir, I did.
`
`13
`
`There's legal language in my declaration, that first
`draft by Counsel, so that I could review it and --
`and edit it. And then the other parts were
`collaborative.
` There were first drafts, and I couldn't
`tell you which parts were which, where Counsel
`helped. But in the end, I edited and every -- every
`part of the declaration and it became my own
`document.
` Q. I understand. And thank you very much for
`that explanation. I appreciate it.
` In preparing your declaration,
`Exhibit 1003, did you review the prosecution history
`of the '653 patent?
` A. Briefly.
` Q. Briefly. And when you say "briefly," could
`you elaborate on the extent of your review, please?
` A. Well, this was some time ago. I -- I am --
`I know that I didn't read every single word and
`digest the whole of the file, but I did go through
`the entire document and read different parts more
`carefully than others. That's my recollection.
` Q. In preparing your declaration in
`Exhibit 1003, did you review the prosecution history
`of any other patents in the same family as the '653
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 4 of 52
`
`

`

`14
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`patent?
` A. Well, I think the '946 is in the same
`family and I would have done a similar review of its
`file history. Honestly, there's so many patents, I
`don't recall if there's others in the same family,
`so we'd have to talk about specifics there.
` Q. I guess my question is if you reviewed
`anything in connection with preparing your
`declaration here. So maybe if I narrow the
`question, I can rephrase the question.
` So in preparing your declaration in
`Exhibit 1003, did you review the prosecution history
`of any other patents in the same family as the '653
`patent?
` A. Again, I think the best way to answer that
`is I know I reviewed the file history of '946. And
`the timing of it in preparation for this declaration
`and the other, there's a lot happening back then. I
`just can't be confident in saying whether I did or
`did not use any of that awareness for this
`declaration. Presumably it would have influenced
`me, but I just don't recall the details.
` Q. Fair enough.
` What did you do to prepare for today's
`deposition?
`
`16
`
`it -- it didn't happen. I don't recall the details
`of -- of discussions on claim construction.
` Q. When, approximately, were you first made
`aware of, for example, petitioners' district court
`claim construction position with respect to the term
`"multiplexing"?
` A. So I know I was reminded of it recently in
`the last few weeks. Whether I had seen that before,
`I just don't recall.
` Q. Did you do any analysis to confirm that
`your opinions in your declaration in Exhibit 1003 do
`not conflict with petitioners' district court
`positions?
` A. So when I became aware within the last few
`weeks, I did such an exercise to ensure that the way
`I was applying the term "multiplexing" was not in
`conflict with that -- with that proposed
`construction.
` Q. But you did not do so at the time you
`submitted 1003?
` A. Again, I don't recall that exercise. If it
`happened, I don't recall it.
` Q. And how can you identify the district court
`documents that you have reviewed today in connection
`with petitioners' claim construction positions in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Certainly reviewed, reread my declaration
`1003, as well as the primary references, spent some
`time with Counsel discussing certain issues.
` Q. Did you review any other documents in
`preparation for your deposition today?
` A. Obviously the '653 patent was part of that.
`I don't recall any others.
` Q. Are you familiar with petitioners Samsung
`and Apple's claim construction positions in the
`district court litigation between the parties?
` A. So I have been made aware of some claim
`construction and some documents have been shared
`with me, and so I have seen parts of those
`documents.
` Q. Okay. And do you recall what documents you
`have seen?
` A. I believe they were briefs submitted to the
`court. I -- I'd have to -- I'd have to go look and
`see what those were. Or submitted to the board,
`say.
` Q. And were you aware of petitioners' district
`court claim construction position prior to
`submitting your declaration here as Exhibit 1003?
` A. I don't recall any discussions on
`petitioners' claim constructions. That doesn't mean
`
`17
`
`the district court?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Did I step on somebody?
`Sorry. There maybe was an echo.
` I -- I believe I have such a document in my
`email inbox that I would have to bring up and find
`the email and the document.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. Is it just one document?
` A. I just don't recall. There may have been
`two. It wasn't a lot of documents. I know that
`much.
` Q. Is it in one email?
` A. Yes, I think so.
` Q. Do you happen to have access to it on your
`computer now?
` A. Yes. I have email closed, but I can open
`it.
` Q. I appreciate it. Sure. And generally, I
`don't mind if you need to look at any documents on
`your computer as long as you share with me what
`you're looking at and they're not marked.
` But I -- yes, if you could maybe bring up
`the email to let me know what documents from the
`district court you have reviewed in connection with
`
`
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 5 of 52
`
`

`

`18
`
`claim construction.
` MR. KAZI: Counsel, I'm -- I'm going to
`interject here. I don't think this is an
`appropriate line of questioning. It's not -- you're
`not here to get discovery from the expert. If you
`have a question, you can ask the expert, but you
`can't ask him to go look through his emails.
` MR. HENDIFAR: Well, I can lay the
`foundation to see what he has reviewed and then ask
`him questions about various statements and
`positions. To ask what documents an expert has
`reviewed is proper.
` And also, your objection is a speaking
`objection. So unless there's a privilege issue,
`which there is not, I would request if you would
`limit your objections just to stating the objection.
` MR. KAZI: Well, there -- there absolutely
`is a privilege issue if you're trying to investigate
`work product and communications that the expert had
`with the attorneys. And I think that's
`inappropriate for you --
` MR. HENDIFAR: That was not --
` MR. KAZI: -- to ask in a deposition.
` MR. HENDIFAR: That was -- was not the
`question. The question is what district court
`
`20
`
`district court?
` A. Just to be clear, it turned out -- I'm --
`I'm looking through different emails, so please bear
`with me.
` Q. Take your time.
` MR. KAZI: Dr. Jensen, you've answered the
`witness' [sic] question. I would ask you not to
`look at your emails during the course of the
`deposition. I think that's --
` MR. HENDIFAR: You're not allowed to
`provide that instruction.
` MR. KAZI: -- inappropriate.
` You asked him -- the question that you
`asked him, Mr. Hendifar --
` MR. HENDIFAR: No speaking objections.
` MR. KAZI: -- was to look through his
`emails.
` MR. HENDIFAR: And no coaching.
` MR. KAZI: You looked -- you've asked him
`to look at his emails and I'm allowed to instruct on
`that issue.
` MR. HENDIFAR: You're not allowed.
` MR. KAZI: It's a privilege issue. It's a
`privilege issue. You're -- you're not allowed to
`ask him to look at work product between --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`documents he has reviewed in connection with claim
`construction.
` MR. KAZI: That -- that wasn't your
`question. Your question was asking him to go to his
`email and look at his email correspondence. And I
`don't think that's an appropriate instruction.
` So if you want to ask him the question you
`just asked, I have no objection to that, sir. You
`could ask him that. But I don't think it's
`appropriate for you to go asking him to look through
`his email correspondence and provide testimony here.
`That -- that's not the purpose of the deposition.
` MR. HENDIFAR: That's an improper speaking
`objection.
` MR. KAZI: You -- you're making statements
`to me. I'm allowed to respond to them. If you --
`if you make an inquiry to me I'm allowed to respond,
`so --
` MR. HENDIFAR: I am going to ask the
`question. If you would like to instruct him not to
`answer, you can do so, and we'll take it from there
`with the board or as necessary.
` Q. Dr. Jensen, the question is: What district
`court documents have you reviewed in connection with
`petitioners' claim construction positions in the
`
`21
`
` MR. HENDIFAR: Counsel --
` MR. KAZI: -- the attorney and the expert.
` MR. HENDIFAR: -- my question is clear. My
`question is not asking for privileged information.
`You're not allowed to ask the witness not to look
`for the answer to my question. If you continue
`coaching the witness, I will contact the board.
` MR. KAZI: I'm not coaching the witness.
`I'm not coaching the witness. You asked -- it's in
`the record -- the record -- we have the record.
` MR. HENDIFAR: The record is clear and my
`question is clear. My question is clear. I'm
`asking for what documents from the district court,
`which are not privilege, Dr. Jensen has reviewed.
` If Dr. Jensen needs to look at his emails
`for that, so be it. I'm not asking for what was
`said in the email. The question is for him to
`identify what documents he's reviewed.
` So please stop coaching the witness.
`Please stop interrupting. And please stop speaking
`objections. Okay? This is not --
` MR. KAZI: If you direct a comment to me,
`I'm allowed to respond. So you can keep cutting --
` MR. HENDIFAR: I'm not going to interrupt
`you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 6 of 52
`
`

`

`22
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. KAZI: -- off -- so I did not interrupt
`you -- I did not interrupt you when you're talking,
`so I would appreciate it if you would wait till I --
`till I'm finished talking.
` MR. HENDIFAR: This is the fourth time
`you're providing speaking objections. I asked a
`non privileged question. You're not allowed to
`coach the witness on how he can identify the answer
`to my question. So please stop interrupting the
`deposition.
` MR. KAZI: Okay. Can I respond now, sir?
`Now that you have made accusations and comments
`towards me, can I respond?
` MR. HENDIFAR: No.
` MR. KAZI: Okay. That's inappropriate.
`You're making comments towards me. I'm allowed to
`respond. You're not -- you're directing comments
`towards me. I'm allowed to respond. If you want to
`call the board, feel happy to call the board.
` But you -- sir, you asked him prior --
`earlier in the deposition to look at his email and I
`think that's an inappropriate request. And
`that's -- that's what I'm objecting to.
` If you want to ask him what documents he
`looked at, feel free to ask him that, but you can't
`
`24
`
`position petitioners had proposed in the district
`court in connection with the term "multiplexing"?
` A. From memory, I could not articulate the
`construction that they proposed in district court.
` Q. Did you agree with all the statements made
`by petitioners in the district court documents that
`you reviewed?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form, foundation.
` THE WITNESS: So to be clear, I was not
`asked to opine on claim construction. What -- what
`I ensured was that the way that I applied terms in
`my analysis was not inconsistent with -- with claim
`constructions. Whether -- you know, really any
`claim constructions that I saw.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. And did you also review patent owner's
`Smart Mobile claim construction positions in the
`district court?
` A. So what I recall seeing on -- on this was
`tables that compared different claim constructions.
`And so -- and I -- my recollection is that table
`included both the patent owner's and the
`petitioner's proposed claim construction.
` Q. Understood.
` So you reviewed tables that showed the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`ask him to go look through his email.
` MR. HENDIFAR: That is the pending
`question. If -- whatever he needs to do to answer
`my question, that is what he needs to do. My
`question is clear and my question is not asking for
`privilege information. I'll repeat the pending
`question and I request that the counsel does not
`interrupt me like the past five times.
` Q. Dr. Jensen, the question is: What district
`court documents have you reviewed in connection with
`petitioners' district court claim construction
`positions?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: So maybe this makes this
`easier, because the answer is I don't know because I
`can't find such district court documents. So --
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. Any --
` A. -- so I'm sorry, I don't know.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And just so you know, I'm now closing my
`email because I think it's appropriate to have it
`not up during a deposition.
` Q. Thank you.
` Do you recall what claim construction
`
`25
`
`claim construction positions proffered by the
`parties?
` A. That's -- that's what I can recall in my
`mind of -- of having seen and -- and read.
` Q. Understood. One moment, please.
` In the district court, I represent to you
`that petitioners have proposed that the plain and
`ordinary meaning of multiplexing is, quote, "To
`interleave or simultaneously transmit two or more
`messages on a single communication channel," end
`quote.
` Is that consistent with your recollection
`of the documents you reviewed from the district
`court about petitioners' claim construction
`position?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, that sounds familiar to
`what I have seen previously.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. Do you believe that the plain and ordinary
`meaning of multiplexing requires interleaving or
`simultaneously transmitting two or more messages on
`a single communication channel?
` A. I'm not prepared to opine on -- on
`certainly the whole bounds of what the term
`
`
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 7 of 52
`
`

`

`26
`
`"multiplexing" means. I was not asked to do that.
`So I can -- I can testify that that definition
`certainly fits within the plain meaning that a
`POSITA would, you know, consider when they -- they
`hear the word "multiplexing".
` Q. So you're not prepared to opine whether
`multiplexing requires interleaving or simultaneously
`transmitting two or more messages on a single
`communication channel?
` A. That's correct, I'm not prepared to opine
`on that. I think we'd have to look at that
`carefully and see if there's counter cases to it.
`It's just -- I'm not prepared to. But that
`certainly fits within what a POSITA would consider
`for multiplexing.
` Q. Do you disagree with the district court
`position that -- that multiplex signals should be
`interleaved or simultaneously transmitted in order
`for them to be multiplexed?
` A. So I'm not saying I disagree. I'm sorry.
`There was some feedback. Maybe I better ask you to
`repeat that. I just want to make sure I heard it
`properly.
` Q. No, I appreciate that. Of course.
` Do you disagree with plaintiff Netflix's
`
`28
`
` A. I believe that I have. Yes, sir.
` Q. And what I read for you was petitioners'
`position that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`multiplexing is what I explained to you. So I'm
`just trying to understand what the plain and
`ordinary meaning of multiplexing is, in your
`opinion, vis-a-vie the district court position taken
`by petitioner. But I can move on to my next
`question.
` May I please refer you to the patent,
`Exhibit 1001, Column 3, Line 46, please?
` A. Okay. And just so you know, you asked me
`to tell you what I have. I'm looking at -- I do
`have the patent, my declaration and the primary
`references up in a browser. I just want to be clear
`that that's what I have.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So can you tell me again -- so I'm bringing
`up my clean -- and they're all clean copies. So can
`you tell me again the reference? You want me to go
`to the '653 patent. Column 2, did you say?
` Q. Column 3.
` A. Column 3.
` Q. Line 46, please.
` A. Of course.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`27
`
`position in the district court -- I'm sorry.
`Plaintiff -- excuse my language.
` Do you disagree with petitioner Samsung and
`Apple's district court position that in order to
`multiplex, the two signals that are combined should
`be either interleaved or simultaneously transmitted?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: So I'm not saying I disagree
`with that. Typically, multiplexing would -- would
`involve interleaving multiple messages onto a single
`communication channel. So that would be the typical
`way a POSITA would interpret the word
`"multiplexing".
` The simultaneously, exactly what that means
`in the time scales of that, I -- you know, I
`would -- I would appreciate more time to reflect on
`exactly what that means before I start weighing in
`on any claim construction.
` Again, my job has not been to opine on
`claim construction and the bounds of claims or terms
`in the claims.
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. Well, you have applied the plain and
`ordinary meaning of multiplexing in your analysis;
`correct?
`
`29
`
` Okay. I'm at Column 3, Line 46.
` Q. And the sentence I would like to focus on
`reads, excuse me, "The signal is sampled and may be
`multiplexed at each end at a rate that assures
`accuracy."
` Do you see that sentence?
` A. Yes, sir.
` Q. What does it mean for the signal to be
`multiplexed at each end?
` A. So presumably here, each end in a wireless
`communication link would be at the transmit side and
`at the receive side. And multiplexing, as we talked
`about, typically involves interleaving multiple
`signals onto a single communication medium of some
`form.
` Q. Okay. And so if you combine them at their,
`for example, transmitter, you have to decouple the
`signals at the receiver; correct?
` A. Yeah. Often in the art we would use the
`word "demultiplex" to decouple them, but that's not
`a hard and fast rule. So multiplexing could also be
`interpreted as a demultiplexing process at the other
`end.
` Q. So is it fair to say that, in the context
`of the '653 patent, for example, as we just read in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2029
`Page 8 of 52
`
`

`

`30
`Column 3, Line 46, multiplexing includes splitting a
`single signal stream or data stream into multiple
`signal streams or data streams?
` A. Well, multiplexing specifically means
`taking multiple signal streams and then combining
`them into a single one. But presumably, to -- to
`make sense of that you would have to do the process
`you just described, which is the demultiplexing
`process at some other point in the communication
`system.
` Q. Right. And I'm trying to understand how
`the '653 patent uses the word "multiplex" --
`"multiplexing" and the scope of it so we can move on
`to your references.
` And my understanding was the word
`"multiplexing" in Column 3, Line 47, was used to
`denote multiplexing and demultiplexing as evidenced
`by the fact that it's done at each end of the
`transmission. Correct?
` A. This -- this example here, this sentence in
`the specification would -- would talk about a
`process at both ends of a communication link.
` Q. So that's really what I'm trying to
`establish before I go to the next point, which is:
`Is it fair to say that, in the context of the '653
`
`32
`
`for one communication and another packet's for
`another? Is that your question?
`BY MR. HENDIFAR:
` Q. So I need to phrase a better question, and
`I appreciate that feedback.
` How do you define the word "stream" in the
`field of the '653 patent?
` MR. KAZI: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Stream. I mean, that's very
`broad, but in the context of '653 where I've seen
`stream, it's usually one flow of data. That could
`be in the circuit, the radio circuit or the mobi