throbber
1
`
` 2
`
` DISCLAIMER
`
` THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT. IT HAS BEEN
`
` 3 TRANSLATED FROM STENO TO ENGLISH BY COMPUTER. THIS
`
` 4 TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN NEITHER EDITED NOR PROOFREAD BY THE
`
` 5 COURT REPORTER.
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` ATKINSON BAKER, INC.
`
` Deponent ,
`
` having been first duly sworn, was
`
` examined and testified as follows:
`
`Q. BY MR. ALEMANNI: Good morning. I apologize
`
` 13 if I get the pronunciation right. Is it Ramde?
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
`A. Yes, that's right.
`
`Q. And is it Mr. or Doctor?
`
`A. It's just Mr.
`
`Q. I want to make sure I get that right. My
`
` 18 name is John Alemanni. I'm an attorney with Kilpatrick
`
` 19 Townsend in Raleigh, North Carolina here on behalf of
`
` 20 Lenovo and are you -- do you know why you're here this
`
` 21 morning?
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And why is that?
`
`A. It's part of the deposition -- the
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 1 of 58
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1045
`Samsung v. DoDots
`IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

` 25 deposition is part of the IPR that was filed and it's
`
` 1
`
` 1 part of that process I think.
`
` 2
`
`Q. So there are two proceedings. The first
`
` 3 proceeding is IPR2019-01278 and that concerns patent
`
` 4 number 802-0083. And then there's a second IPR and
`
` 5 that is IPR2019-01279 and the patent number at issue in
`
` 6 that case is A510407. Both of these proceedings are
`
` 7 between Lenovo and DoDots. Does that sound right to
`
` 8 you?
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And so you submitted declarations in both
`
` 11 those proceedings; correct?
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
`A. Correct.
`
`Q. And do you have a copy of that declaration
`
` 14 in front of you?
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
`A. I do.
`
`Q. Okay. And in both of the two different
`
` 17 proceedings it's labeled Exhibit 2003. Do you see
`
` 18 that?
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So I'll refer to -- I'll probably just refer
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 2 of 58
`
`2
`
`

`

` 21 to one of them but I'll refer to it as Exhibit 2003 or
`
` 22 your declaration and those will mean the same thing.
`
` 23 Is that okay?
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. And are you familiar with referring to
`
` 2
`
` 1 patents by the last three digits?
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`A. I am.
`
`Q. So if I say the 083 patent you'll understand
`
` 4 what I mean?
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Okay. Great. Have you been deposed before?
`
`A. I have.
`
`Q. About how many times?
`
`A. I think twice.
`
` 10
`
`Q. Twice. Okay. So you know generally how
`
` 11 they run.
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So you're under oath. You've already
`
` 14 provided your direct testimony so this is
`
` 15 cross-examination but you're under oath and you'll be
`
` 16 answering my questions unless your counsel instructs
`
` 17 you not to answer. He may object but if he objects but
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 3 of 58
`
`3
`
`

`

` 18 doesn't instruct you not to answer I'll expect you to
`
` 19 answer the questions. Is there any reason why you
`
` 20 can't give your best testimony today?
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. One thing I will ask especially with the
`
` 23 phone and video I'll try hard not to talk over you.
`
` 24 I'd appreciate if you do the same. I apologize if I
`
` 25 interrupt you. If you have any trouble understanding a
`
` 3
`
` 1 question please let me know and I'll either state it
`
` 2 again or if I need to I can rephrase it. But if you
`
` 3 don't understand me please ask me, please let me know
`
` 4 you don't understand it and if you don't ask me to
`
` 5 restate it or you don't tell me that you don't
`
` 6 understand, then I'm going to assume you do understand
`
` 7 it. Okay?
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Okay. And so there are two declarations
`
` 10 because there's two different proceedings. They are
`
` 11 almost exactly the same. Is that your recollection as
`
` 12 well?
`
` 13
`
`A. The proceedings meaning the IPR proceedings
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 4 of 58
`
`4
`
`

`

` 14 are the same?
`
` 15 Q. The two different IPR. You submitted two
`
` 16 declarations but they're almost the same. Is that your
`
` 17 recollection?
`
` 18 A. Yeah. My declarations -- my declarations
`
` 19 are the same or the IPRs are the same?
`
` 20 Q. The declaration that you submitted in each
`
` 21 of the two IPRs is essentially the same?
`
` 22 A. Yeah, they kind of cover the same material
`
` 23 and information, yes.
`
` 24 Q. And did you review anything in preparation
`
` 25 for your deposition?
`
` 4
`
` 1 A. I reviewed my declaration what I submitted.
`
` 2 Q. And your declaration includes exhibits;
`
` 3 correct?
`
` 4 A. Yes.
`
` 5 Q. And did you review those as well?
`
` 6 A. Not -- just briefly. Just to make sure that
`
` 7 I had them when I printed out the declaration, but
`
` 8 yeah.
`
` 9 Q. And is it your understanding that the
`
` 10 exhibits are the same for both declarations that are
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 5 of 58
`
`5
`
`

`

` 11 submitted in each of the IPR proceedings?
`
` 12 A. That -- that is my understanding at this
`
` 13 time. I have them printed out in front of me just the
`
` 14 main four pages in the front and -- you know, where I
`
` 15 had my statement and the exhibits I have a print out of
`
` 16 the exhibits. My understanding -- my understanding is
`
` 17 that they are -- I'm going to be using both exhibits
`
` 18 for both of the declarations. So I understand that
`
` 19 they are the same. That's what my recollection is in
`
` 20 submitting the declarations.
`
` 21 Q. Okay. So you reviewed your declaration, you
`
` 22 reviewed the exhibits. Did you do anything else in
`
` 23 preparation for your deposition?
`
` 24 A. Not really. Just in terms of coordinating
`
` 25 and making sure I understood the set up for the
`
` 5
`
` 1 deposition being done by video and just understanding
`
` 2 that process.
`
` 3 Q. Okay. So did you speak to counsel in
`
` 4 preparation for your deposition other than for
`
` 5 logistics?
`
` 6 A. It was for the logistics for the -- for the
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 6 of 58
`
`6
`
`

`

` 7 deposition and then just understanding kind of where
`
` 8 things are at in terms of where we are in the IPR and
`
` 9 just high level understanding that this was for the IPR
`
` 10 aspect.
`
` 11 Q. Okay. Did you speak to anyone other than
`
` 12 counsel in preparation for your deposition?
`
` 13 A. No.
`
` 14 Q. So I'm going to turn to your deposition and
`
` 15 I'm going to turn to the first paragraph. So this is
`
` 16 again for the record is Exhibit 2003. I'm on the -- I
`
` 17 don't think the pages are numbered but I'm on page --
`
` 18 the page after the cover page so we're at paragraph 1.
`
` 19 Do you see that?
`
` 20 A. For the 083 patent?
`
` 21 Q. For the 083 patent, yes.
`
` 22 A. Yes.
`
` 23 Q. And do you have both declarations in front
`
` 24 of you?
`
` 25 A. I do. 0487 and 083.
`
` 6
`
` 1 Q. I'm going to focus on the 083 and to the
`
` 2 extent there are any differences I May ask you about
`
` 3 the other one but for the most part I'll stick with the
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 7 of 58
`
`7
`
`

`

` 4 083 to make it easier?
`
` 5 A. Okay.
`
` 6 Q. So paragraph 1 you talk about -- you discuss
`
` 7 that you were the sole in house counsel for DoDots and
`
` 8 then in paragraph 9 which is on the third page you talk
`
` 9 about your educational background. Do you see that?
`
` 10 A. Yes.
`
` 11 Q. So I'd like to start -- I'd like to start
`
` 12 with your background and I guess I'd rather do it in
`
` 13 chronological order so I'll you some questions about 9
`
` 14 and then ask you questions about 1 if that's okay.
`
` 15 A. Okay.
`
` 16 Q. So you state in paragraph 9 that you have a
`
` 17 bachelor of science in electrical engineering from
`
` 18 UCLA; right?
`
` 19 A. Correct.
`
` 20 Q. When did you get your bachelors in
`
` 21 electrical engineering?
`
` 22 A. In 1989.
`
` 23 Q. And what about the masters in engineering
`
` 24 from USC?
`
` 25 A. USC was 1991.
`
` 7
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 8 of 58
`
`8
`
`

`

` 1 Q. And then you also mention in paragraph 9
`
` 2 that you have a JD degree, juris doctorate degree from
`
` 3 the University of Pittsburgh and an MBA from Carnegie
`
` 4 Mellon. Was that a joint JD MBA program?
`
` 5 A. That was, yes.
`
` 6 Q. And when did you receive the JD and MBA?
`
` 7 A. In 1996.
`
` 8 Q. Was that a four year program?
`
` 9 A. It was a four year program, yes.
`
` 10 Q. And so you start -- did you start the
`
` 11 program in 1992? Is that accurate?
`
` 12 A. It's a little -- it was a dual degree
`
` 13 program, a joint degree program. I did finish it a
`
` 14 little bit ahead of schedule than the full four years.
`
` 15 And so when I graduated Carnegie Mellon it was -- the
`
` 16 degree -- so I obtained separate degrees from Carnegie
`
` 17 Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh. Normally dual
`
` 18 degree programs are with the same school. This one was
`
` 19 with two different schools so it was a separate
`
` 20 process. I ended up graduating from each school at
`
` 21 different times within the 1996 time frame, so they
`
` 22 were both graduating in 1996 but just in different time
`
` 23 frames. When I started the program the first year was
`
` 24 at the University of Pittsburgh and it was just the
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 9 of 58
`
`9
`
`

`

` 25 legal and then I started the Carnegie Mellon the second
`
` 8
`
` 1 year. So I didn't start at the same time. So I can't
`
` 2 really be sure what my official start year was for each
`
` 3 one. They just kind of happened. It was just kind of
`
` 4 a structured program. I don't know what my official
`
` 5 start year was for each of the programs but I can't
`
` 6 really say what my official, you know, time per was
`
` 7 other than what was written on the form. Sorry. It
`
` 8 was a long time ago.
`
` 9 Q. Your testimony is it fair to say it was '92,
`
` 10 '93. Somewhere in that range?
`
` 11 A. Yeah, that's right. That's right.
`
` 12 Q. Did you work as an engineer after you
`
` 13 graduated in 1989?
`
` 14 A. Yes.
`
` 15 Q. And where was that?
`
` 16 A. It was at Hughes Electronics, Hughes
`
` 17 Aircraft in 1989 as an engineer.
`
` 18 Q. And what did you do for Hughes aircraft?
`
` 19 A. I was a member of the technical staff which
`
` 20 was the title and it was essentially an engineer and I
`
` 21 was working on the direct TV satellite program and
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 10 of 58
`
`10
`
`

`

` 22 different satellite programs building hardware and
`
` 23 simulation software for devices.
`
` 24 Q. Okay. Are you a software programmer as well
`
` 25 then?
`
` 9
`
` 1 A. At the time I was doing software
`
` 2 programming.
`
` 3 Q. And did you leave Hughes aircraft when you
`
` 4 started your degree program at USC?
`
` 5 A. Yes.
`
` 6 Q. So when did you leave Hughes aircraft?
`
` 7 A. It would have been 19 -- around 1993
`
` 8 time frame. I was with Hughes for four years. Yes.
`
` 9 Q. So did you leave Hughes when you started
`
` 10 your law studies?
`
` 11 A. I left Hughes to start my law studies, yes.
`
` 12 Q. So is it fair to say that you got your
`
` 13 masters while you were working for Hughes?
`
` 14 A. That's right. Yes.
`
` 15 Q. And you graduated with your JD MBA in '96,
`
` 16 injure JD and MBA in 1996 and then moving back to
`
` 17 paragraph 1 of your declaration you said you were
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 11 of 58
`
`11
`
`

`

` 18 working for DoDots in 2000; correct?
`
` 19 A. Correct.
`
` 20 Q. So what did you do when -- strike that. Did
`
` 21 you begin a job with a law firm when you graduated from
`
` 22 University of Pittsburgh?
`
` 23 A. I started -- I had -- well, I was work at a
`
` 24 business consulting firm. More leveraging the MBA
`
` 25 aspect.
`
` 10
`
` 1 Q. Do you recall the name of the business
`
` 2 consulting firm you worked for?
`
` 3 A. Yeah. It goes by the initials PRTM. I can
`
` 4 spell that out but it's a long name. It's now part of
`
` 5 Pricewaterhouse.
`
` 6 Q. How long did you work for PRTM?
`
` 7 A. PRTM was for about -- I had worked there
`
` 8 over the summer before I graduated so it was probably
`
` 9 for around nine months total.
`
` 10 Q. Nine months. Okay. So from -- would it be
`
` 11 fair to say '95 to '97 in that time frame?
`
` 12 A. Yeah, '95 to '96 time frame. I had actually
`
` 13 started there before I graduated from the -- I had
`
` 14 graduated from the business school first and I had
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 12 of 58
`
`12
`
`

`

` 15 continued so I started there before I had finished my
`
` 16 law degree.
`
` 17 Q. And then what did you do when you left PRTM?
`
` 18 A. Then I sat for the bar exam and I joined a
`
` 19 law firm.
`
` 20 Q. Which law firm did you join?
`
` 21 A. It was called Lyon and Lyon, L-y-o-n,
`
` 22 L-y-o-n, Lyon and Lyon. Patent boutique.
`
` 23 Q. And what did you do for Lyon and Lyon?
`
` 24 A. It was mostly doing -- like technical review
`
` 25 on patent -- I wasn't a patent attorney but it was
`
` 11
`
` 1 doing working with patent attorneys and filing office
`
` 2 actions and evaluating technology and differentiating
`
` 3 technology there.
`
` 4 Q. And how long were you with HRAO*EUPB and
`
` 5 HRAO*EUPB?
`
` 6 A. I was there for about three years. Yeah. I
`
` 7 think -- yeah, a little less than three years.
`
` 8 Q. Did you move from HRAO*EUPB and HRAO*EUPB to
`
` 9 DoDots?
`
` 10 A. No. I went to coolly.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 13 of 58
`
`13
`
`

`

` 11 Q. And when did you go to coolly?
`
` 12 A. That I believe would have been 1999.
`
` 13 Q. And what were you doing for coolly?
`
` 14 A. Just working in their technology group.
`
` 15 They had -- mostly within technology licensing.
`
` 16 Q. So are you familiar with the parts of a
`
` 17 patent, the claims specification et cetera?
`
` 18 A. Yes, I am.
`
` 19 Q. And then you left coolly to join DoDots; is
`
` 20 that correct?
`
` 21 A. Correct.
`
` 22 Q. Do you recall when you started with DoDots
`
` 23 in 2000?
`
` 24 A. I believe it was May.
`
` 25 Q. May.
`
` 12
`
` 1 A. Beginning of May.
`
` 2 Q. Okay. And what was your role at DoDots?
`
` 3 A. I was their counsel, just sole in-house
`
` 4 counsel.
`
` 5 Q. So the one difference that I observed in
`
` 6 your two declarations is in paragraph 8. And I'd like
`
` 7 to ask you about it briefly. In the 083 case you say
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 14 of 58
`
`14
`
`

`

` 8 in paragraph 8 that you were counsel for DoDots.
`
` 9 A. Uh-huh.
`
` 10 Q. And if you turn to the 407 case I believe in
`
` 11 paragraph 8 you say you were general counsel?
`
` 12 A. General counsel, yeah.
`
` 13 Q. Are those both accurate?
`
` 14 A. Yeah, they're both accurate. I'm kind of
`
` 15 taking that role for the company, those roles, so kind
`
` 16 of used them interchangeably within the company.
`
` 17 Q. Okay.
`
` 18 Q. And how long were you with DoDots?
`
` 19 A. I was there until I believe February of --
`
` 20 February or so of 2001. About nine months.
`
` 21 Q. Let's go to paragraph 2 in your declaration.
`
` 22 Again, I'm looking at the 0883 patent, the declaration
`
` 23 in relation to that. You say -- you make the statement
`
` 24 here that led by twin brothers John and George Kembel,
`
` 25 K-e-m-b-e-l, and then you say that the team of
`
` 13
`
` 1 scientists from Stanford who invented the ground
`
` 2 breaking technology described in the 083 patent;
`
` 3 correct?
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 15 of 58
`
`15
`
`

`

` 4 A. Correct.
`
` 5 Q. Did I read that correctly?
`
` 6 A. Yeah.
`
` 7 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
`
` 8 A. Yes.
`
` 9 Q. You say the ground breaking technology
`
` 10 described in the 083 patent. Are you talking about the
`
` 11 specification or the claims?
`
` 12 A. Well, I'm looking at the entire 083 patent.
`
` 13 I'm generally referring to the 083 patent. And the
`
` 14 technology is described in the specification and the
`
` 15 claims and they're pioneers in the fact that they have
`
` 16 claims that were obtained, so that they are considered
`
` 17 to be new, novel ideas.
`
` 18 Q. And when you say the idea you're talking
`
` 19 about the Dots?
`
` 20 A. Just the claims. I'm referring in general
`
` 21 to the claims themselves.
`
` 22 Q. Do you know whether or not the term Dot
`
` 23 appears in the claims?
`
` 24 A. I don't believe it does appear in the
`
` 25 claims. I'd have to look -- I don't believe it appears
`
` 14
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 16 of 58
`
`16
`
`

`

` 1 in the claims. I don't have the patent in front of me
`
` 2 but -- yeah.
`
` 3 Q. And in your other declaration for the 407
`
` 4 you make the same statement about the 407 patent;
`
` 5 correct?
`
` 6 A. Correct.
`
` 7 Q. Are the specifications and claims the same
`
` 8 in those two patents?
`
` 9 MR. PERRY: Objection. Foundation.
`
` 10 THE WITNESS: I don't have the patents in front
`
` 11 of me so I can't say the specifications are the same.
`
` 12 Q. BY MR. ALEMANNI: And you left DoDots in
`
` 13 February of 2001 if I understood your testimony; is
`
` 14 that correct?
`
` 15 A. That's what I recall, yes. That's my --
`
` 16 what I remember.
`
` 17 Q. Do you know when DoDots was formed?
`
` 18 A. I don't know the exact time it was formed.
`
` 19 Q. Do you have an idea generally when it was
`
` 20 formed?
`
` 21 A. You know, I really don't have any -- I
`
` 22 wasn't involved in the formation of the company so I
`
` 23 really can't speak to that.
`
` 24 Q. Do you know -- was DoDots dissolved?
`
` 25 A. I was not -- I don't know about -- I don't
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 17 of 58
`
`17
`
`

`

` 15
`
` 1 know what happened on the formal proceedings with
`
` 2 regards to the company after I left.
`
` 3 Q. Was a DoDots an ongoing company when you
`
` 4 left it?
`
` 5 A. Yes, I believe it was.
`
` 6 Q. Approximately how many employees did DoDots
`
` 7 have when you joined in May of 2000?
`
` 8 A. I believe it had -- I don't know -- I
`
` 9 know -- I believe it had somewhere between 50 and 80
`
` 10 employees when I joined.
`
` 11 Q. What about when you left?
`
` 12 A. When I left it had fewer than 50. When I
`
` 13 left it had undergone a round of work force reduction
`
` 14 before I left. I don't remember how many people we let
`
` 15 go at that time and then there was a second round of
`
` 16 reductions and then that's when I was let go in
`
` 17 February.
`
` 18 Q. When you say under 50 do you have -- can you
`
` 19 be more specific about the number?
`
` 20 A. I can't remember how many were at that
`
` 21 point. After I joined it did grow to over a hundred
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 18 of 58
`
`18
`
`

`

` 22 and then I just don't know what that actual number was
`
` 23 through the work force reduction stages.
`
` 24 Q. And then paragraph 3 you discuss evaluation
`
` 25 of the company and you referred to a website -- I'm
`
` 16
`
` 1 sorry. We can skip that. Let's talk about paragraph
`
` 2 4. So in paragraph 4 you identify a CNN article dated
`
` 3 April 7, 2000. Do you see that?
`
` 4 A. Yes.
`
` 5 Q. Can you turn to that CNN article for a
`
` 6 second for me, please.
`
` 7 A. Actually --
`
` 8 Q. It's Exhibit B?
`
` 9 A. Exhibit B I have -- I may need to pull that
`
` 10 up. The printout I had is from the exhibit -- it's the
`
` 11 graduate school of business.
`
` 12 MR. PERRY: Do you want to share your screen,
`
` 13 John?
`
` 14 MR. ALEMANNI: I can. Let's see.
`
` 15 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
`
` 16 MR. ALEMANNI: You're fine.
`
` 17 Q. Let's go back a step then. So you have -- I
`
` 18 just want to confirm. So you have a declaration that
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 19 of 58
`
`19
`
`

`

` 19 you filed in both proceedings. The declaration, the
`
` 20 083 patent to confirm has a cover page; correct?
`
` 21 A. Correct.
`
` 22 Q. And then the declaration itself is ten
`
` 23 paragraphs covering three pages. Is that what you have
`
` 24 as well?
`
` 25 A. On the 083?
`
` 17
`
` 1 Q. Yes.
`
` 2 A. Yes.
`
` 3 Q. Okay. And then following your declaration
`
` 4 is Exhibit A. Do you see that?
`
` 5 A. Yeah. I have a printout of an Exhibit A and
`
` 6 B. But I just printed out the -- I can pull it up on
`
` 7 my computer.
`
` 8 Q. That might be easier for me pulling it up
`
` 9 and trying to walk through it. You can look at
`
` 10 whatever you want to.
`
` 11 A. I know they're slightly different. I'm just
`
` 12 not pulling up the exhibit.
`
` 13 Q. If it's helpful I can pull my screen up.
`
` 14 A. If it's okay. I'm sorry.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 20 of 58
`
`20
`
`

`

` 15 Q. No, you're fine. Let's see. Share screen.
`
` 16 Can you see Exhibit B now?
`
` 17 A. Yes.
`
` 18 Q. I don't know if you can control the screen
`
` 19 or not but if you need to see anything just let me
`
` 20 know. Okay?
`
` 21 A. Okay.
`
` 22 Q. This is Exhibit B to your first declaration
`
` 23 in the 083 patent. So do you recognize this document?
`
` 24 A. Yes.
`
` 25 Q. And what is it?
`
` 18
`
` 1 A. It was -- it's an article that was written
`
` 2 by DoDots back in the -- dated 2000.
`
` 3 Q. So DoDots authored this article?
`
` 4 A. It was written about DoDots. I don't know
`
` 5 who -- I believe it was written by -- yeah, I don't
`
` 6 know who the author is.
`
` 7 Q. So about a third of the way down the page it
`
` 8 says Chris Yurko. Do you see that?
`
` 9 A. Yes.
`
` 10 Q. Do you know Chris Yurko?
`
` 11 A. I don't.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 21 of 58
`
`21
`
`

`

` 12 Q. Okay. And it appears from the face of this
`
` 13 article that it was posted on a website on April 7,
`
` 14 2000. Do you see that?
`
` 15 A. Yes.
`
` 16 Q. Do you know if it was actually posted in
`
` 17 April 2000?
`
` 18 A. I have -- I just knew that this article -- I
`
` 19 don't know when it was actually posted. I'm just
`
` 20 relying on the date that is there. I mean, I don't
`
` 21 think I read it on that date to make sure that that was
`
` 22 the date that it was posted.
`
` 23 Q. And on the very top corner of this page do
`
` 24 you see that the date April 24, 2020?
`
` 25 A. Yes.
`
` 19
`
` 1 Q. Do you know what that signifies?
`
` 2 A. I don't.
`
` 3 Q. Did you find this article for your
`
` 4 declaration?
`
` 5 A. I made note that there was an article -- I
`
` 6 knew there were articles published on DoDots. I may
`
` 7 have made mention of this article, yes.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 22 of 58
`
`22
`
`

`

` 8 Q. And outside of communication with your
`
` 9 counsel I'm asking how you came into possession of the
`
` 10 article?
`
` 11 A. I don't recall exactly how.
`
` 12 Q. And I'm going to move down a little bit in
`
` 13 this article and again if you need me to more anywhere
`
` 14 else to see the context please don't hesitate to ask
`
` 15 me. I want to point out about midway through the page
`
` 16 that I have up now it says essentially it's a little
`
` 17 web application on your desk top. Do you see that?
`
` 18 A. Yes.
`
` 19 Q. And then it says -- it says there's a quote
`
` 20 from Jack Kembel. Do you see that?
`
` 21 A. Yes.
`
` 22 Q. And the next paragraph it's quoting his twin
`
` 23 brother George Kembel. Do you see that?
`
` 24 A. Yes.
`
` 25 Q. Are those the two inventors of the patents?
`
` 20
`
` 1 A. Yes.
`
` 2 Q. Let's see. The very last paragraph says
`
` 3 upon DoDots launch this week. Do you see that?
`
` 4 A. Yes.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 23 of 58
`
`23
`
`

`

` 5 Q. So is it your understanding that DoDots
`
` 6 product launched in April of 2000?
`
` 7 A. I don't know. I don't know the answer.
`
` 8 Q. And this article at least based on the face
`
` 9 of it was published before you joined DoDots; correct?
`
` 10 A. Correct.
`
` 11 Q. Let's see.
`
` 12 A. If that was the publish date, yes.
`
` 13 Q. I'm going to move down a little bit further
`
` 14 in this Exhibit B to your declaration. So I want to
`
` 15 draw your attention now to page 2 of 3 of that article,
`
` 16 Exhibit B of your declaration. The last two paragraphs
`
` 17 here I'd like to draw your attention to. The first one
`
` 18 begins DoDots are free of charge. Do you see that?
`
` 19 A. Yes.
`
` 20 Q. Is that your understanding that DoDots were
`
` 21 free? Strike that. Is it your understanding that Dots
`
` 22 were free of charge?
`
` 23 A. My understanding is that the Dots that were
`
` 24 identified there that were available at the time were
`
` 25 free of charge.
`
` 21
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 24 of 58
`
`24
`
`

`

` 1 Q. And the sentence continues, but the beta 1
`
` 2 versions are now available only to users with Internet
`
` 3 Explorer 4 or later versions of the browser; correct?
`
` 4 Did I read at a correctly?
`
` 5 A. Yes.
`
` 6 Q. Was the -- let me back up. Strike that.
`
` 7 Were the Dots ever released in something other than a
`
` 8 beta version?
`
` 9 A. That I don't recall. I don't know how we
`
` 10 were identifying the versions of the software. And
`
` 11 oftentimes in the software world they call things beta
`
` 12 for a long time even though they make a lot of changes
`
` 13 and improvements to it.
`
` 14 Q. Was there a time when Dots were not free of
`
` 15 charge?
`
` 16 A. I can't recall. I can't recall that. I
`
` 17 know that there were some different plans and different
`
` 18 business models and I don't know -- in all cases there
`
` 19 may have been some scenarios where they were free to
`
` 20 the users to download but there may have been a charge
`
` 21 to the distributor so it's a matter of who was it free
`
` 22 for.
`
` 23 Q. I'm going to stop the share. Is there
`
` 24 anything else you need to look at in this document?
`
` 25 A. I'm good. Thank you.
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1020 - Page 25 of 58
`
`25
`
`

`

` 22
`
` 1 Q. Normally you would be holding it so I
`
` 2 wouldn't have to say it. Let's move on. I want to go
`
` 3 back to your declaration itself and ask you some
`
` 4 questions about paragraph 6. So paragraph 6 you talk
`
` 5 about the industry wide Dot comp crash; correct?
`
` 6 A. Correct.
`
` 7 Q. And you say DoDots was forced to sell it's
`
` 8 patent portfolio. Do you see that?
`
` 9 A. Yes.
`
` 10 Q. Who did they sell the patent portfolio to?
`
` 11 A. I believe they sold it to light house
`
` 12 capital.
`
` 13 Q. Do you recall how many patents were in that
`
` 14 patent portfolio?
`
` 15 A. At the time there was -- it was just
`
` 16 applications.
`
` 17 Q. Do you recall how much the patent portfolio
`
` 18 was sold for?
`
` 19 A. I don't know how much it was sold for or if
`
` 20 it was in lieu of -- light source was an investor in
`
` 21 DoDots at some point and I believe they had either a
`
` 22 lien or some investment in the company so there may
`
`Petitioners Lenovo Holding Company In

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket