Transcript of the Testimony of:
`
`WENKELEE, PHD
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.
`
`vs.
`
`FORTINET, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`May 16, 2024
`
`Volume |
`
`
`
`
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 1 of 52
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 1 of 52
`
`
`
`WENKELEE, PHD
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.
`
`vs.
`
`FORTINET, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`May 16, 2024
`
`Volume |
`
`
`
`
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 1 of 52
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 1 of 52
`
`
`
`· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · Petitioner,· · ·) PTAB Case No. IPR2023-00458
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · ) Patent No. 9,280,678
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`FORTINET, INC.,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · Patent Owner.· ·)
`____________________________)
`
`· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF WENKE LEE, PHD
`
`· · · · · · · · · Sacramento, California
`
`· · · · · · · · · Thursday, May 16, 2024
`
`· · · · · · · REPORTED BY:· Matthew Sculatti
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · CSR No. 13558
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 2 of 52
`
`
`
`· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · Petitioner,· · ·) PTAB Case No. IPR2023-00458
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · ·vs.· · · · · · ) Patent No. 9,280,678
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`FORTINET, INC.,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · Patent Owner.· ·)
`____________________________)
`
`· · ·Deposition of WENKE LEE, PHD, taken before
`
`Matthew Sculatti, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for the
`
`State of California, commencing at 10:04 A.M.,
`
`Thursday, May 16, 2024.· This deposition was reported
`
`remotely.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 3 of 52
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`· · FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
`· · · · ·PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`· · · · ·BY:· WEI YUAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`· · · · ·11452 El Camino Real
`
`· · · · ·Suite 300
`
`· · · · ·San Diego, California 92130-2080
`
`· · · · ·TEL:· (858) 720-5700
`
`· · · · ·FAX:· (858) 720-5799
`
`· · · · ·wyuan@perkinscoie.com
`
`· · FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`· · · · ·QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`· · · · ·BY:· QUINCY LU, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`· · · · ·865 South Figueroa Street
`
`· · · · ·10th Floor
`
`· · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90017
`
`· · · · ·TEL:· (213) 443-3717
`
`· · · · ·FAX:· (213) 443-3100
`
`· · · · ·quincylu@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 4 of 52
`
`
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`WITNESS· · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`WENKE LEE, PHD· · · · · By Mr. Lu· · · · · · · · · · · · 5
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
`
`EXHIBIT· · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1001· ·United States Patent No. 9,280,678 B2· · ·8
`
`Exhibit 1023· ·A Layered Naming Architecture for the· · 27
`· · · · · · · ·Internet
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 5 of 52
`
`
`
`· · ·Sacramento, California; Thursday, May 16, 2024;
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · 10:04 A.M.
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · WENKE LEE, PHD,
`
`having been administered an oath, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Good morning, Dr. Lee.
`
`· · · · ·It's nice to see you again.
`
`· · A· · Good morning.· Same here.
`
`· · Q· · So you understand today you are here to testify
`
`about a supplemental declaration you filed in this case,
`
`which is related to the 825 patent?
`
`· · A· · I think 678.
`
`· · Q· · Or I'm sorry.· 678 patent.
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · Let me just re-ask that.
`
`· · · · ·Dr. Lee, you understand today you're here to
`
`testify about your supplemental direct -- declaration you
`
`submitted in this case, which is related to the 678
`
`patent?
`
`· · A· · That's correct.
`
`· · Q· · And you previously testified in this case;
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 6 of 52
`
`
`
`correct?
`
`· · A· · Yes.· I think so, yes.
`
`· · Q· · All right.· And in preparing for today's
`
`deposition -- or let me ask it this way:· Did you do
`
`anything to prepare for today's deposition?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection to the extent it calls for
`
`confidential attorney-client privilege.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· So I read the -- of course,
`
`I reviewed my supplementary declaration again.· I, you
`
`know, went over the 678 patent.· Yeah.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Did you meet with anybody to prepare for this
`
`deposition?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Same objection.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I met with the counsel
`
`from -- yeah (unintelligible).
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · So that was Mr. Yuan and Mr. Tehranchi?
`
`· · A· · Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · And when did you meet with them?
`
`· · A· · Let me see.· A couple times this week, I think.
`
`Yeah.· Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · How long did you meet with them for both of those
`
`times?
`
`· · A· · I would say couple hours each time, yeah.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 7 of 52
`
`
`
`· · Q· · All right.· Do you have any physical documents in
`
`front of you?
`
`· · A· · Yeah.· I -- I have the supplemental declaration
`
`in -- in the kind of clear, clean form --
`
`· · Q· · Uh-huh.
`
`· · A· · -- and also, the 678 patent.· And -- yeah.· So
`
`those are the --
`
`· · Q· · Is it just --
`
`· · A· · Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.
`
`· · A· · Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · Do you have access to the rest of the exhibits in
`
`this case?
`
`· · A· · Some of them I think I do in my folder, but
`
`there's no guarantee; right?
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· If I -- if -- If I ask about a document
`
`and you're missing it, I'll just upload it to the Zoom
`
`chat, and then you can download it from there.
`
`· · · · ·Does that work?
`
`· · A· · Yes, yep.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· And do you have any notes in front of you
`
`or -- whether electronic or physical?
`
`· · A· · No.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· So why don't we start with the 678
`
`patent --
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 8 of 52
`
`
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · -- since you have a physical copy of that --
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · -- in front of you.
`
`· · · · ·Let me pull it up, as well.
`
`· · · · · · · (Exhibit 1001 was marked for
`
`· · · · · · · · · · identification.)
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· Now, Matt, do you want me to upload
`
`these exhibits that I'm talking about, or are you okay
`
`without me doing that?
`
`· · · · ·THE REPORTER:· You can just send them to me
`
`later.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· Okay.· We'll do that then.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · So if you go to the second to last page --
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · Let me know when you're there.
`
`· · A· · Second to last page.· Okay.· Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · And on the bottom on the left side, you can see
`
`where the list of claims begins; right?
`
`· · · · ·"What is claimed is:· 1.· A method comprising:"
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · A· · Yes, I do.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· You know, I -- I assume you're pretty
`
`familiar with these claims at this point; is that right?
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 9 of 52
`
`
`
`· · A· · I've went through them a couple times.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· So I wanted to ask you about -- well, do
`
`you understand what a method claim is?
`
`· · A· · I don't know the legal definition, but I know
`
`that it's different from systems claim.· Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · Right.· And in a method claim, you have several
`
`steps that are recited; correct?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So again, I don't know the legal
`
`definition.· I know this claim and the limitations within
`
`the claim, yeah.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Right.· I mean, well, just looking at this method
`
`claim, for example, in Claim 1, you have "a method
`
`comprising," and then it lists several steps.· The first
`
`one being -- starting with the word "assigning" and then
`
`you have "encrypting" and then you have "storing" and then
`
`"managing."
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· So again, I don't know the
`
`legal term, proper terms, to describe the steps of this
`
`element, of this limitation.· But, yeah, I would just say,
`
`you know, whatever is cited here is part of the method.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 10 of 52
`
`
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Right.· I'm not asking about legal terms.· I'm
`
`just asking about your understanding as a POSITA.· When
`
`reading this claim, you understand that -- well -- well,
`
`what would you call it?· Like, there's assigning to one or
`
`more users.· What would you call that?
`
`· · A· · That's one of the things you would do with the
`
`method.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.
`
`· · A· · Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · So would it -- do -- would you understand it if I
`
`called that a "step" of the method?· One of the steps that
`
`you perform in the method?
`
`· · A· · Yeah, you can say a step.· Yeah, you can say a
`
`step or action, whatever.· I mean, so -- yeah.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· I'm just trying to figure out what
`
`language you're comfortable with.
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · I'm going to call them "steps."· And if that
`
`doesn't make sense to you, just let me know.
`
`· · · · ·So I wanted to ask you about the -- the second
`
`step of this claim, which is "encrypting by the gateway
`
`device," et cetera, et cetera.
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · A· · Yes, I see that.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 11 of 52
`
`
`
`· · Q· · So let me -- let me read the first part of this
`
`step.
`
`· · · · ·"Encrypting, by the gateway device, using
`
`cryptographic key information defined by the policy,
`
`content of the file to produce a searchable encrypted
`
`file."
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · A· · Yes.· So you would agree with me that this
`
`encrypting step produces a searchable encrypted file;
`
`correct?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, because it says, Encrypting, by
`
`the gateway device, using cryptographic key information
`
`defined by policy, content of the file, to produce a
`
`searchable encrypted file by.
`
`· · · · ·And then listed, you know, the -- the elements
`
`that you need to perform in order to create a searchable
`
`encrypted file.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Right.· And so my question was do you agree that
`
`this encrypting step produces a searchable encrypted file?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I mean, I disagree because that's
`
`not how the -- how the -- claim limitation is written.
`
`· · · · ·So basically, like I said, encrypting the content
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 12 of 52
`
`
`
`of the file to produce searchable encrypted file by -- so
`
`then you talk about things you need to do in order to
`
`produce a searchable encrypted file.· And -- and those are
`
`the, you know, additional limitations that we have not
`
`talked about yet.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Right.· And so you would agree that at least to
`
`produce a searchable encrypted file, you need to divide
`
`"the file into a plurality of chunks, create namespaces
`
`for one or more of the plurality of chunks; and configure
`
`the namespaces of the one or more chunks such that content
`
`of file is encrypted in a manner that makes it
`
`searchable."
`
`· · · · ·Do you agree with that?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So like I said, if I read -- when I
`
`read the claim language, the step that we decided, right,
`
`dividing file into chunks and creating namespaces and
`
`configuring namespaces, so those are the elements that
`
`necessary to produce a searchable encrypted file.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Right.· And I -- I believe that's an affirmative
`
`then.
`
`· · A· · Hold on.· Affirmative of what?
`
`· · · · · · · · (Simultaneously speaking.)
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 13 of 52
`
`
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Mischaracterization of
`
`witness's testimony.
`
`· · · · · · ·(Court reporter clarification.)
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· So how is it a mischaracterization?
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Just to clarify; right?· I said --
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Well, let me -- let me -- sorry.· Let me -- let
`
`me ask counsel.
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· How is that mischaracterized?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· So, I quote, so you said, "I believe
`
`that's an affirmative then."
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· Okay.
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· That's a mischaracterization of what
`
`Dr. Lee just testified.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· I agree that's a characterization, but
`
`how is it a mischaracterization?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Well, that's your opinion.· We can --
`
`we -- we can disagree whether that's a -- your -- your
`
`characterization is a mischaracterization or not, but
`
`that's my objection.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· No, I know.· I'm just trying to
`
`understand what the substance of your objection is.
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Counsel, I -- I don't think we -- we
`
`need to waste time on -- on this.· We just get the
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 14 of 52
`
`
`
`objection on the order and move on.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· I know.· I just -- so -- so the problem
`
`is I've got to ask my questions.· And if you have
`
`objections to them, I want to ask them in a way that you
`
`find appropriate.· So my question is, to you, in what way
`
`was my statement, which wasn't even a question,
`
`mischaracterizing --
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· I -- I think our discussion just cut
`
`off -- cut off what Dr. Lee is going to say because
`
`Dr. Lee, just before your -- your -- your -- your raising
`
`of the question, Dr. Lee was trying to correct you about
`
`your comments about "That's affirmative."
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· Okay.· So you -- do -- are you unable to
`
`explain why you believe it's a mischaracterization?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· No, no.· I'm trying to say -- okay.
`
`Let's just say that we disagree the characterization of
`
`your statements.· Can we just move on?· I just don't want
`
`to waste time on this.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· Okay.· No, I understand.· I -- I
`
`definitely disagree with the characterization of your
`
`statement.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · All right.· So there's no currently pending
`
`question.· But Mr. Lee, if you wanted to say anything, let
`
`me know.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 15 of 52
`
`
`
`· · A· · No.· I -- I wasn't -- I mean, maybe -- maybe it
`
`lost in translation.· I don't know what you are affirming
`
`to; right?· Because I was reading these three limitations:
`
`Diving the file into chunks --
`
`· · · · · · ·(Court reporter clarification.)
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So I was confused when the -- Mr.
`
`Lu said that this affirmative.· I think, affirmative to
`
`what?· I mean, because I forgot was the -- what was the
`
`question that he asked.· So I just wanted to clarify that
`
`all I said was that the three limitations that I -- I
`
`read, right, "dividing the file into a plurality of
`
`chunks; creating namespaces for one or more of the
`
`plurality of chunks; and configuring the namespaces of the
`
`one or more chunks."· I was saying that these are the
`
`limitations that's cited in the patent.
`
`· · · · ·These are the necessary elements for creating a
`
`searchable encrypted file.· That's what I said.· And then
`
`Mr. Lu said, oh, that's affirmative.· I'm thinking, okay,
`
`affirmative to what?· I mean, I was trying to clarify what
`
`he was affirming to.· So that's all.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Sure.· I mean, let me re-ask my question then.
`
`· · A· · Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · Let me see where it was.· So to produce -- well,
`
`the transcript's a little off, but to produce a searchable
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 16 of 52
`
`
`
`encrypted file, you would need to divide the file into a
`
`plurality of chunks, create namespaces for one or more of
`
`the plurality of chunks, and configure the namespaces of
`
`the one or more chunks such that content of the file is
`
`encrypted in a manner that makes it searchable.
`
`· · · · ·Do you agree?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So as I said, that's the language
`
`written.· But the way that I understand it is that
`
`dividing files into chunks, creating namespace, and
`
`configuring the chunks, so these are the namespaces of
`
`the -- sorry.· The last one I want to say is configuring
`
`the namespaces of the one or more chunks.· These are
`
`necessary steps or elements for creating searchable
`
`encrypted file.· So basically, the result is that after
`
`you perform these limitations, then, you know -- then the
`
`content of the file -- basically, you know, the -- the
`
`encrypted content of the file will become searchable.
`
`That's how I read it.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · All right.· But let me ask about this:· So at
`
`line 62, you still have a step where you -- where the --
`
`the language of the step is "encrypting, by the gateway
`
`device, using cryptographic key information defined by the
`
`policy, content of the file to produce a searchable
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 17 of 52
`
`
`
`encrypted file."
`
`· · · · ·And then you have the three steps that we've been
`
`discussing.
`
`· · · · ·So would you agree that at least the searchable
`
`encrypted file not only needs to perform the dividing,
`
`creating namespaces, and configuring namespaces steps, but
`
`it also needs to perform the encrypting content of the
`
`file step?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· I would agree that, you know,
`
`for a file to be -- basically to create a searchable
`
`encrypted file, you have the content needs to be
`
`encrypted, but then, you know, these three elements need
`
`to be -- limitations need to be executed.· And these --
`
`these three elements are dividing the files into chunks
`
`and creating namespaces and configuring namespaces.
`
`· · · · ·These limitations are independent of the
`
`encrypting of the content.· That's how I read it.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Sure.· No, I understand your position.
`
`· · · · ·Just -- just so we have a clean record, let me
`
`just ask it this way:· So we -- the output of the step is
`
`a searchable encrypted file.· And the claim says in order
`
`to produce that, you need to encrypt content of the file,
`
`divide the file into chunks, create namespaces, and then
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 18 of 52
`
`
`
`configure namespaces.
`
`· · · · ·Would you agree?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So the way I read this is that --
`
`just like the patent says, you need to encrypt the content
`
`of the file, and then there are three limitations:
`
`Dividing file into chunks, creating namespaces, and
`
`configuring the namespaces.· Now, it didn't say that these
`
`have to be, you know, happening before or after the
`
`encrypting content.
`
`· · · · ·I mean, that's not -- the claim language doesn't
`
`explicitly, you know, the ordering of -- of these elements
`
`with respect to encrypting the content.· But it's very
`
`clear from a POSITA -- a Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`
`Art -- point of views, encrypting content of the file is
`
`independent of these three elements, meaning dividing the
`
`file into chunks, creating namespaces, configuring
`
`namespaces.· Yeah.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· Putting -- putting aside if there's any
`
`particular order, which I would agree I don't think there
`
`is, you would agree that to produce a searchable encrypted
`
`file, this claim requires encrypting content of the file,
`
`dividing the file into a plurality of chunks, creating
`
`namespaces for the chunks, and configuring the namespaces
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 19 of 52
`
`
`
`in some particular -- in some order.· It doesn't have to
`
`be in that particular order.
`
`· · · · ·Would you agree?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So like I said, the -- I mean,
`
`that's when I read the claim language; right?· Encrypting,
`
`by the gateway device, using cryptographic information
`
`defined by the policy, content of the file; right?· So
`
`that's one elements that needs to be done.
`
`· · · · ·And then in order to produce a searchable
`
`encrypted file, meaning that, in addition to encrypting
`
`the content, there are other things you need to do, which
`
`means dividing the file into chunks, creating namespaces,
`
`and configuring the namespaces.· Like I said, these three
`
`limitations that I just cited, I read it as independent of
`
`the encryption of the content of the file and -- and in no
`
`particular order with respect to encrypting the content of
`
`the file.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· I think we're in agreement.
`
`· · · · ·Why don't we look at Claim 16, which is --
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · -- not a method claims.· Column 20, line 48.
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · A· · Yes.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 20 of 52
`
`
`
`· · Q· · And so this is a systems claim, which I believe
`
`you mentioned earlier; is that right?
`
`· · A· · Uh-huh.
`
`· · Q· · Is that a yes?· Sorry.
`
`· · A· · It looks like it.· Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · All right.· So the -- starting at line 59, there
`
`is "an encryption module."
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · A· · Let me see here.· 59.· Okay.· Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · So "An encrypted module, which, when executed by
`
`the one or more processors:
`
`· · · · ·"Using cryptographic key information defined by
`
`the policy, produces a searchable encrypted file by
`
`encrypting content of the file to be stored across one or
`
`more cloud platforms;
`
`· · · · ·"Divides the file into a plurality of chunks;
`
`· · · · ·"Creates namespaces for one or more of the
`
`plurality of chunks; and
`
`· · · · ·"Configures the namespaces of the one or more
`
`chunks such that content of the file is encrypted in a
`
`manner that makes it searchable."
`
`· · · · ·Did I read that right?
`
`· · A· · Yes.
`
`· · Q· · All right.· So here we have -- well, let me --
`
`let me ask it this way:· Would you agree that Claim 16 is
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 21 of 52
`
`
`
`similar to Claim 1?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·MR. LU:· Counsel, what's -- sorry.
`
`· · · · ·What's -- what's the problem with that question?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· It's ambiguous.· What do you mean by
`
`"similar"?
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Do you -- do you have an understanding of what
`
`the word "similar" is, Dr. Lee?
`
`· · A· · Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· So do you agree that Claim 16 is similar
`
`to Claim 1?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· Sorry.· Go ahead.
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Oh, just objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I mean, it -- it -- I
`
`haven't read it more carefully.· But -- but looking at it,
`
`it seems to be like the systems claim that, essentially,
`
`is one way to -- one -- one possible way of implementing
`
`the method claim of, you know, Claim 1 whether legally
`
`that means similar or not, I -- I'm not lawyer.
`
`· · · · ·But, you know, I -- I -- you know, but my point
`
`is that I really understand that's one way they're
`
`suggesting to implement the method in Claim 1.
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 22 of 52
`
`
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · All right.· I mean, just between you and me, I
`
`don't think similar is a legal term either.· I was just
`
`using it in the plain meaning.· So --
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · Right.· And so this encryption module, this also
`
`produces -- or I shouldn't say "also."
`
`· · · · ·So this encryption produces a searchable
`
`encrypted file; correct?
`
`· · A· · Let me see.· It didn't say that the end result
`
`execution is a searchable encrypted file.· It's basically
`
`doing all these steps such that -- such that the file is
`
`encrypted in a manner that makes it searchable.· So I
`
`don't know whether there's any additional steps or mods
`
`that need to be -- need to be taken.· That's -- you know,
`
`I wish the patent claim language written more clearly.
`
`But, you know...
`
`· · Q· · So you -- you may have missed it, but at line 62,
`
`it says, "produces a searchable encrypted file."
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`· · A· · 62?· Let me see.
`
`· · · · ·Okay.· All right.· Let me see.
`
`· · · · ·Yeah.· So I mean, if -- if that -- that element
`
`by itself, using cryptographic key defined by the policy
`
`produced a searchable encrypting -- encrypted file by
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 23 of 52
`
`
`
`encrypting content of the file to be stored across one or
`
`more cloud platform.· That element by itself, a POSITA
`
`will say that's encrypted content.
`
`· · · · ·The -- the -- the action of encrypted content by
`
`itself does not produce a searchable encrypted file. I
`
`mean, that's a -- any POSITA would agree with me.· So I
`
`mean, again, the language in the patent claim, the claim
`
`language is written in such a way that -- I don't know
`
`how -- how to -- how to say this.· This is wrong to say "I
`
`encrypt a file using the cryptographic key information,
`
`and it was always searchable" because encrypted content
`
`itself is encrypted content.
`
`· · · · ·It transform -- transforming plain text of the
`
`file content in deciphered text, that itself does not make
`
`the encrypted content searchable (verbatim).· There are
`
`other things that needs to be done so, which -- talks
`
`about; so that's why there's other elements in this claim
`
`to say divide files in the chunks and so on and so forth
`
`anyway.
`
`· · Q· · All right.· So one of the things that need to be
`
`done is on the next page, column 21, line 1.· This
`
`encryption module "configures the namespaces of the one or
`
`more chunks such that content of the file is encrypted in
`
`a manner that makes it searchable."
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that?
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 24 of 52
`
`
`
`· · · · · · · · (Simultaneously speaking.)
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sorry.· I see that was written.
`
`But again, like I said, this no different our -- that
`
`this -- this is not different from our discussion of the
`
`Claim 1 language.· Which means that, you know, dividing
`
`files into chunks, creating namespaces, configuring
`
`namespaces, these elements -- these limitations or
`
`elements, they're completely independent of -- of
`
`encrypting the content of the file.· So that's -- that's
`
`how I read as a POSITA.
`
`· · · · ·And, secondly, I'm -- as a POSITA, I am just
`
`totally confused.· I don't agree with the -- with the
`
`claim language that the prior limitations say, "using
`
`cryptographic key information defined by policy, produces
`
`a searchable encrypted file by encrypting content of the
`
`file to be stored across one or more cloud platforms."
`
`Like I said, POSITA would be to say -- "encrypted content
`
`and storing the encrypted content would make it searchable
`
`(verbatim)."· Does not make any sense; okay?
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · So is it your -- is it your position that this
`
`limitation on Claim 16, you don't understand the scope of
`
`this limitation?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So what I'm trying to say POSITA
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 25 of 52
`
`
`
`would agree with me that the action of encrypted content
`
`itself does not make the content -- encrypted content
`
`searchable.· That's why I have this -- I have problem with
`
`this limitation language.· To say that -- essentially,
`
`saying that using the key to encrypt the -- basically,
`
`saying using the "cryptographic key information defined by
`
`the policy, produces a searchable encrypted file by
`
`encrypting content of the file to be stored across one or
`
`more cloud platforms."· Like I said, if I read it as
`
`POSITA, it seems to suggest that just by encrypting the
`
`content of the file and -- and make the encrypted contents
`
`to be stored across one or more cloud platforms would, by
`
`itself, produce a searchable encrypted file.· That does
`
`not make any sense the -- the way it's written.· So that's
`
`why I said a POSITA would agree with me.
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · So it's your opinion that a POSITA would not
`
`understand the scope of this limitation; correct?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.· Mischaracterization
`
`of the witness's testimony.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· What I'm trying to say is a POSITA
`
`would -- would agree with me that the action of encrypted
`
`content itself does not produce searchable encrypted file.
`
`In fact, that's why, it -- you know, the whole Claim 16
`
`goes on to say, oh, you also need to divide the files into
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 26 of 52
`
`
`
`chunks, create namespaces, configuring namespaces.
`
`· · · · ·Like I said, when we discussed Claim 1, these
`
`three additional limitations, they're independent of the
`
`action of encrypting the content of -- of the file and --
`
`and the -- the order of their -- you know, the order of
`
`taking these actions also independent of the action of
`
`encrypting the content of the file.· So I mean, I think a
`
`POSITA would agree with me.· You know, so...
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · So a POSITA reading this step of using
`
`cryptographic key information defined by the policy
`
`produces a searchable and encrypted file by encrypting
`
`content of the file to be stored across one or more cloud
`
`platforms.· It's your opinion that a POSITA would not know
`
`what that means?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So like I said, a POSITA reading
`
`this would say, "How this done?"
`
`· · · · · · ·(Court reporter clarification.)
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So what I'm trying to say, a POSITA
`
`reading this would say, "How this -- this is done?"
`
`Unless the 678 patent itself talks about, oh, here's
`
`example of encrypted content of the file by itself makes
`
`the encrypted file searchable.· I mean, there's no such
`
`example of that -- that I know in 678.· So a POSITA
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 27 of 52
`
`
`
`reading this would say, "That's just wrong the way it's
`
`written."
`
`· · · · ·Unless, like I said, Mr. Lu, you told me -- you
`
`showed me, "Hey, here's 678.· Here's a -- here's example
`
`of that."
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· So reading -- reading this part where it
`
`says, "produces a searchable encrypted file by encrypting
`
`content," it's your opinion that a POSITA doesn't know
`
`what that means; correct?
`
`· · · · ·MR. YUAN:· Objection.· Form.
`
`· · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Like I said, a POSITA would say,
`
`"There's something missing here from this statement."
`
`· · · · ·Like I said, every POSITA -- POSITA would agree
`
`with me that just the action of encrypting the content of
`
`a file would not make the encrypted file searchable.· You
`
`need to do additional steps.· So that's, you know, I mean,
`
`I wouldn't be -- I'm not a lawyer, but I -- I would -- you
`
`know, a POSITA would understand that yes, you need to
`
`encrypt the contents, and yes, you need to do all these
`
`additional steps.· But that's -- unfortunately, that's not
`
`how this Claim 16 is written.
`
`· · · · · · · (Exhibit 1023 was marked for
`
`· · · · · · · · · · identification.)
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 28 of 52
`
`
`
`BY MR. LU:
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· All right.· Sorry.· Give me a second.
`
`· · · · ·Dr. Lee, do you have a copy of Exhibit 1023?
`
`· · A· · 1023?· What is that?
`
`· · Q· · It is a paper called a
`
`Layered Naming Architecture For the Internet by
`
`Hari Balakrishnan and others.
`
`· · A· · Not in front of me, no.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· That's all right.· I'm going to upload it
`
`to the Zoom chat.
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · And then you can download it.
`
`· · · · ·So let me know when you've downloaded it.
`
`· · A· · Okay.· I've downloaded it, yes.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· And then let me know when you've opened
`
`it.
`
`· · A· · Yes, opened it.
`
`· · Q· · Are -- are you familiar with this document?
`
`· · A· · I know a bunch of these authors, you know; so
`
`I -- I may have read them somewhere, you know, in --
`
`obviously, in preparing for my declaration.· All that
`
`about the details have escaped me.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· But you understand this is an exhibit that
`
`you cited in your first declaration?· Do you recall that?
`
`· · A· · Quite possible.· But I thought the scope of this
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 29 of 52
`
`
`
`deposition is my supplemental declaration; so why are we
`
`talking about exhibits that -- that associated with my
`
`original declaration?· This is out of scope.
`
`· · Q· · No, it's not.· I believe you also cited it in
`
`your second declaration, as well, or at least referred to
`
`it.
`
`· · A· · Really?· Okay.
`
`· · Q· · So can you go to page 2 of this paper?
`
`· · A· · Okay.
`
`· · Q· · So in the middle, on the left column --
`
`· · A· · Uh-huh.
`
`· · Q· · Well, so the second full paragraph, it says --
`
`starts with "our principals, naming framework."
`
`· · · · ·Do you see that on the left side?
`
`· · A· · Yes.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· And then several sentences down,
`
`approximately the middle of this paragraph, it says, "From
`
`Semantic-Free Referencing (SFR), we borrow the idea that
`
`the surface identifier namespace be flat (meaning that the
`
`identifiers are unstructured and not overloaded with any
`
`semantics about the object being named, e.g., a flat
`
`identifier might be a number chosen uniformly at random
`
`from [0,2 to the 128 minus 1]), and from HIP and UIP
`
`again, we borrow the idea that the endpoint identifiers be
`
`flat."
`
`Fortinet Ex. 2005, Page 30 of 52
`
`
`
`· · · · ·Did I read that right?
`
`· · A· · Yeah.
`
`· · Q· · Okay.· What does it mean for an identifier to be
`
`flat?
`
`· · A· · I mean, I said -- I mean, that the identifiers
`
`are unstructured and not overloaded with any semantics
`
`about object being named.· So, basically, they give
`
`example of flat identifier might be a number chosen
`
`uniformly at random from 0 to 2 to the 128th minus 1.
`
`And -- yeah.· So basically, an ID is number.· An ID does
`
`not have a -- does not give you any insight into the
`
`content.· That's what it meant for that.
`
`· · Q· · So -- so why would a random number between 0 and
`
`2 to the 128th minus 1 be unstructured and not overloaded
`
`with semantics?
`
`· · A· · Okay.· Just imagine if you just secured a
`
`number -- I mean, I'm sure there's some -- something about
`
`where they got it -- you know, which day he got it, just
`
`the meaning of it.· So imagine that's not, it's just very
`
`similar to that.·
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
