1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`---------------------------:
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC, :
`:
`Plaintiff, :
`: Case No.
`vs. : 2:22-CV-07556-RGK-SHK
`:
`NETFLIX, INC., :
`:
`Defendant. :
`---------------------------:
`
`DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
`DATE:
`TIME:
`LOCATION:
`
`Wednesday, January 10, 2024
`9:03 a.m.
`Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
`1875 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`REPORTED BY:
`
`Erick M. Thacker
`Reporter, Notary
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`1250 Eye Street, NW, Suite 901
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 1
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)31
`
`Page 1 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`---------------------------:
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC, :
`:
`Plaintiff, :
`: Case No.
`vs. : 2:22-CV-07556-RGK-SHK
`:
`NETFLIX, INC., :
`:
`Defendant. :
`---------------------------:
`
`DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
`DATE:
`TIME:
`LOCATION:
`
`Wednesday, January 10, 2024
`9:03 a.m.
`Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
`1875 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`REPORTED BY:
`
`Erick M. Thacker
`Reporter, Notary
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`1250 Eye Street, NW, Suite 901
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 1
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)31
`
`Page 1 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`O n b e h a l f o f P l a i n t i f f :
`
` J O S H U A W Y D E , E S Q U I R E
`
` A l a v i A n a i p a k o s , P L L C
`
` 6 0 9 M a i n S t r e e t
`
` S u i t e 3 2 0 0
`
` H o u s t o n , T e x a s 7 7 0 0 2
`
` j w y d e @ a a t r i a l l a w . c o m
`
`O n b e h a l f o f D e f e n d a n t :
`
` S T E P H E N A . M A R S H A L L , E S Q U I R E
`
` W i l l k i e F a r r & G a l l a g h e r L L P
`
` 1 8 7 5 K S t r e e t , N o r t h w e s t
`
` W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . 2 0 0 0 6
`
` s m a r s h a l l @ w i l l k i e . c o m
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 2 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
`
` Counsel for Plaintiff 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 3 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`WHEREUPON,
`
` BENJAMIN BEDERSON, PH.D.
`
`called as a witness, and having been first duly
`
`sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Bederson. Have you
`
` been deposed before?
`
` A Yes, I have.
`
` Q How many times?
`
` A I don't have an exact count, but
`
` somewhere around 50 times over the last 15 years.
`
` Q So you're -- so a novice, then? That's
`
` a joke. I just ask because -- whether I should
`
` go through extensively what a deposition is or
`
` not. That's why I ask. So since you're
`
` obviously experienced in a deposition, I won't do
`
` that.
`
` I would like to ask that you make an
`
` effort to let me complete my question before
`
` answering, and I will endeavor to do the same
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 4 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` when you're answering so that the court reporter,
`
` Mr. Thacker, can accurately capture what we say.
`
` Would you agree to this?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. If you do not understand a
`
` question, would you please let me know, and I
`
` will do the best I can to clarify what it is that
`
` I'm asking. Okay?
`
` A I'll do my best.
`
` Q If you need a break, please let me
`
` know, and I will try to find a good stopping
`
` point relatively quickly. Okay?
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q However, I'll note that the rules of
`
` the testimony guidelines and the trial practice
`
` guide say that we shouldn't take a break while a
`
` question is pending, so if there's a question
`
` pending, I just ask that you answer the question
`
` before we go on break. Okay?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Do you understand that you are here
`
` today to answer questions regarding your
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 5 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` declarations that accompanied Netflix's IPR
`
` petitions regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,989,715 in
`
` IPR No. IPR2023-00757, Patent No. 8,478,245 in
`
` IPR No. IPR2023-00758, and U.S. Patent No.
`
` 8,103,865 in IPR No. 2023-00759?
`
` A I don't remember all of those numbers,
`
` but that sounds right.
`
` Q And will you understand that when I'm
`
` talking about IPRs plural, I'm referring to all
`
` of these IPRs?
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q What did you do to prepare for this
`
` deposition?
`
` A I read documents and talked with
`
` counsel.
`
` Q Did you review the expert reports for
`
` these IPRs?
`
` A I did review my three expert reports
`
` for these three IPRs.
`
` Q And when was that? When was the last
`
` time -- let me start that question over again.
`
` When was the last time you reviewed
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 6 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` your reports?
`
` A I think I reviewed at least part of
`
` those reports yesterday.
`
` Q I'm going to refer to the patents using
`
` the last three digits of the patent number like
`
` you did in your expert report.
`
` So if I refer to the '715 patent, will
`
` you understand that I'm referring to U.S. Patent
`
` No. 8,989,715?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And like you referred to the prior art
`
` references by the inventor's last name, will you
`
` understand that when I say Hariki, I'm referring
`
` to the prior art reference U.S. Patent
`
` Application Publication No. 2007/0150617?
`
` A So I don't remember that publication
`
` number, but I do know that I refer to a document
`
` as Hariki. So assuming that that is the same
`
` document, then I'll understand it's the one that
`
` I refer to as Hariki.
`
` Q And I will do the same thing with the
`
` other U.S. patent application publication number.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 7 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` I will refer to -- it's 2003/0023755, and I'm
`
` going to refer to that by the inventor name
`
` Harris.
`
` Do you remember that you also had a
`
` reference Harris in your report?
`
` A Yes, I do.
`
` Q Okay. You used Harris and Hariki as
`
` prior art in all of the IPRs, didn't you?
`
` A Yes, I believe I did.
`
` Q Did you interpret Hariki the same way
`
` in all of the IPRs?
`
` A I believe I did.
`
` Q You didn't form an opinion that Hariki
`
` worked one way in the 757 IPR and differently in
`
` the other IPRs?
`
` A I may have referred to different
`
` aspects of Hariki in my different declarations,
`
` but I think that I understood its disclosures
`
` consistently across all three IPRs.
`
` Q Same question for Harris. Did you
`
` interpret Harris consistently in all of the IPRs?
`
` A So, again, I may have referred to
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 8
`
`Page 8 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` different aspects of Harris's disclosure, but I
`
` believe I understood its disclosure consistently
`
` across all three IPRs.
`
` Q Do you understand what Wireless
`
` Abstract XML as taught by Harris is?
`
` A That's a technology that I believe is
`
` disclosed -- described in Harris and is something
`
` that I described in my report. I think I often
`
` described it as WAX. So I think I have some
`
` understanding of it.
`
` Q So Harris refers to Wireless Abstract
`
` XML as WAX for short; is that correct?
`
` A That's my recollection.
`
` Q Would you agree that Harris does not
`
` teach sending WAX to mobile devices?
`
` A Well, my opinion about Harris is in my
`
` declarations. At a high level, I think that
`
` Harris describes a transformation or compilation
`
` process of converting XML with XML style --
`
` sorry -- WAX along with WAX stylesheets and
`
` device stylesheets into other formats such as
`
` HTML that are transmitted to a mobile device,
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 9
`
`Page 9 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` wireless device.
`
` I don't know that I formed a specific
`
` opinion that WAX was not transmitted to a
`
` wireless device, but I don't recall relying on
`
` such a transmission.
`
` Q So if I understood you correctly -- and
`
` I'm going to say back what I think you said, and
`
` you can correct me if I'm wrong -- Harris
`
` translates the WAX into a language, such as HTML,
`
` before sending the HTML to a wireless device.
`
` Is that what your -- is that your
`
` understanding?
`
` A That's part of what I said. I think
`
` that translation includes other information such
`
` as WAX stylesheets and device stylesheets.
`
` And I'm not thinking of a disclosure
`
` right now in Harris of WAX itself being
`
` transmitted to a mobile device, because I don't
`
` think I relied on that, but I don't think I
`
` formed an opinion that it doesn't.
`
` Q Do you know if it does? Do you have an
`
` opinion one way or the other?
`
`Page 10
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 10 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A Again, my opinion is in my declaration.
`
` Sitting here without my declaration in front of
`
` me, I don't know that I recall any specific --
`
` such specific disclosure of WAX being transmitted
`
` to a mobile device.
`
` Q All right. I am handing you what has
`
` been premarked as Exhibit 1002 from the 759 IPR,
`
` which is your declaration accompanying that IPR.
`
` Would you please take a look at that --
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Thanks.
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q -- and see if you recognize it as your
`
` report?
`
` A Yes. This does seem to be my -- called
`
` the '865 declaration.
`
` Q Would you turn to paragraph 84 on page
`
` 39, please, and let me know when you're there?
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q Take a second to review paragraph 84
`
` and the -- it goes over to page 40 -- and the
`
` figure on page 41.
`
` And then my question to you is: Are
`
`Page 11
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 11 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you describing in this paragraph the steps that
`
` occur to translate WAX to content for a
`
` requesting device?
`
` A In paragraph 84, I describe in part a
`
` summary or overview of Harris.
`
` My complete opinions regarding Harris
`
` are included in other sections of my declaration,
`
` but I agree that Figure 3 includes in part a flow
`
` chart or block diagram showing that WAX XML
`
` language can be translated to a device-specific
`
` language and then returned to a requesting
`
` device.
`
` Q After the WAX is translated into a
`
` device-specific language, is there any WAX left?
`
` A So, first of all, as I mentioned, I
`
` think the translation process also relies on
`
` other information such as WAX stylesheets and
`
` device stylesheets.
`
` And I'm not sure in your question what
`
` you mean by is there any WAX left. I think it is
`
` likely that there is some content from the
`
` original WAX that would -- at least would end up
`
`Page 12
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 12 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` in the device-specific language.
`
` Q Would the device-specific language be
`
` characterized by a person of ordinary skill in
`
` the art as WAX?
`
` A I think the example that I focused on
`
` was where the device-specific language was HTML.
`
` I think a person of skill in the art
`
` probably would not characterize HTML as WAX.
`
` Even if it -- although it might contain some of
`
` the same content, HTML actually is a form of XML,
`
` as WAX is XML, so there's clearly some overlap
`
` between them.
`
` Q Is there any teaching in Harris that a
`
` requesting mobile device understands WAX?
`
` A Again, in my analysis of Harris, I
`
` focused on the transmitted device-specific
`
` language being HTML, which is what would be
`
` understood by the requesting wireless device.
`
` I don't think I pointed to a disclosure
`
` in Harris of a wireless device understanding WAX
`
` that was transmitted to it, although, again, my
`
` opinion is in my report, so I'm just giving you
`
`Page 13
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 13 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` my general recollection of how things work.
`
` Q Would you expect that a mobile device
`
` as disclosed in Harris would understand the WAX
`
` format?
`
` A I don't think I formed an opinion about
`
` that.
`
` Q Do you have an opinion here today about
`
` that?
`
` A I don't think there's anything that
`
` special about WAX. I think it's certainly
`
` possible that a mobile device could understand
`
` WAX. I don't see any technical reason why it
`
` couldn't.
`
` Q But my question was: Would you expect
`
` that the mobile device in Harris would understand
`
` a WAX file?
`
` A Again, I don't see any technical reason
`
` why a mobile device couldn't understand WAX. WAX
`
` is a straightforward XML language.
`
` There may have been architectural
`
` reasons in any particular implementation to have
`
` a mobile device understand WAX for additional
`
`Page 14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 14 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` purposes, but I don't rely on such a disclosure
`
` in Harris.
`
` Q It's your opinion that web browsers are
`
` client applications; is that correct?
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't think I
`
` understood your question. Could you repeat it,
`
` please?
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q Sure. Is it your opinion that web
`
` browsers are client applications?
`
` A To make sure I understand your
`
` question, are you asking me if a web browser
`
` meets a specific claim term such as application
`
` program, or are you asking me generally outside
`
` the context of the '865 patent whether a web
`
` browser would be considered to be a client
`
` application, or something else?
`
` Q I am asking you in the context of your
`
` expert report whether you believe web browsers
`
` are client applications.
`
` A So, again, to make sure I understand
`
`Page 15
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 15 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` your question, in the context of my report, are
`
` you asking if web browsers meets the claimed
`
` application program term, or are you asking me
`
` generally if I think web browsers are client
`
` applications?
`
` Q The second.
`
` A Well, there are many different forms of
`
` web browsers. They can be embedded in other
`
` components. But as I described, for example, in
`
` paragraph 117 of my declaration -- and, again,
`
` we're talking about the '865 declaration at the
`
` moment -- there can -- there is a web browser
`
` running on a mobile device that sends a request
`
` to the web server process.
`
` So, in this case, I think that web
`
` browser running on a mobile device, in this case,
`
` the one disclosed in Hariki, might be considered
`
` by a POSITA to be a client -- client application,
`
` was that the term?
`
` Q Yes.
`
` A I don't know that I formed a specific
`
` opinion about that, but I think a web browser can
`
`Page 16
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 16 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` be considered to be an application running on a
`
` client in this context.
`
` Q I'm going to hand you another exhibit
`
` marked 1002, but this is in the 757 IPR. You
`
` might want to make different stacks to keep them
`
` organized.
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.
`
` MR. WYDE: You're welcome.
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q Would you please turn to paragraph 60
`
` on page 28 in the 757 expert report?
`
` Do you see that paragraph 60 starts off
`
` and it says, quote, "Web browsers are client
`
` applications"?
`
` A I do see that.
`
` Q Do you -- is that your opinion that web
`
` browsers are client applications?
`
` A As I said in my previous answer and as
`
` I wrote here, it's certainly the case that web
`
` browsers can be client applications. I was just
`
` thinking, more broadly, sometimes they might be
`
` embedded -- maybe part of some other application,
`
`Page 17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 17 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` so there can be different structures, but if you
`
` have a standalone web browser running on a
`
` client, then it probably -- I think it would be
`
` reasonable to consider it a client application.
`
` Q What is a client application?
`
` A I wrote paragraph 60 of my '715
`
` declaration as part of a technology background on
`
` client server architectures, and I was referring
`
` to web browsers in this context as being an
`
` application that work as a client that can
`
` communicate with a server. So I was referring to
`
` a client application as an application that can
`
` make client requests to a server.
`
` Q And is a server a client application?
`
` A It depends. Some applications can work
`
` as both clients and servers, so in that case --
`
` in such a case, a server application might also
`
` be a client application.
`
` Q So if I understand you correctly, a
`
` client application is a application that makes a
`
` request to a server. And is that server that
`
` receives the request a client application in that
`
`Page 18
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 18 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` scenario?
`
` A I think these terms "client" and
`
` "server" are pretty general terms, and I'm giving
`
` a very high-level description of them.
`
` In this very broad context, as I said,
`
` I was referring to web browser as a client
`
` application to the extent that it makes
`
` requests -- client requests of a server.
`
` I don't think I have an opinion about
`
` generally whether a server is a client
`
` application, but as I said, it might be
`
` considered to be a client application if it
`
` itself made its own client requests of other
`
` servers.
`
` Q When you're talking about web servers
`
` and web browsers, are they separate applications?
`
` A I think they often are separate
`
` applications, but I don't think they have to be,
`
` right? The world is a big place. People --
`
` software engineers can architect all kinds of
`
` systems. I certainly could imagine an
`
` application conceptually that was both a web
`
`Page 19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 19 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` server and a web browser.
`
` Q Do you know what HTTP is?
`
` A Yes, I do.
`
` Q What is HTTP?
`
` A I described HTTP in the same section of
`
` my '715 report on client server architectures,
`
` where I explain that it is a protocol.
`
` So on paragraph 60, I explain that it
`
` is a protocol that can be used for web browsers
`
` to fetch documents across the Internet from web
`
` servers.
`
` Q Do browsers usually transmit HTTP?
`
` A I would say that HTTP is a protocol
`
` that is used during requests and transmissions,
`
` including sometimes those requests from --
`
` requests or receipts from browsers.
`
` Q I'd just like to back up and ask, are
`
` web browsers and web servers usually separate
`
` applications?
`
` A I don't think I've -- I haven't done
`
` any kind of quantitative analysis, and I don't
`
` have any way of giving you a evidence-based
`
`Page 20
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 20 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` answer to that question, but my general
`
` understanding is that web servers and web
`
` browsers are commonly implemented as separate
`
` components or separate applications.
`
` Q Do you know what HTML is?
`
` A Yes, I do.
`
` Q And what is HTML?
`
` A I also describe HTML in this section of
`
` my '715 declaration on client server
`
` architectures.
`
` I explain in paragraph 60 that HTML is
`
` Hypertext Markup Language, which is a language
`
` that documents are sometimes written in that can
`
` be accessed or often retrieved and displayed by
`
` web browsers.
`
` Q Are HTML and HTTP the same thing?
`
` A No, they are not. They're often used
`
` together, but they're not the same thing.
`
` Q Do browsers transmit HTML?
`
` A Well, browsers typically work by
`
` transmitting HTTP requests, which can include a
`
` number of -- which do include a number of
`
`Page 21
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 21 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` components, such as headers and bodies, which can
`
` contain text that is provided within a -- through
`
` various sources, both from -- originating from
`
` the browser, as well as from web pages within the
`
` browser. So I think that it is conceivably
`
` possible that an HTTP request could include some
`
` HTML, for example, in the body of a request.
`
` Q When you say some HTML, would that be a
`
` complete HTML page?
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So my answer was just
`
` describing my general understanding of this web
`
` technology including browsers, servers, HTML,
`
` HTTP.
`
` In that answer, I explained that a
`
` browser can transmit an HTTP request that
`
` includes text that is provided by a web page. So
`
` when that web page makes that request, it can
`
` include what's called a body element in the HTTP
`
` request, and my understanding of the technology
`
` is that any text can be inserted in that body.
`
` So it's certainly possible, I believe,
`
`Page 22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 22 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` technically, to include -- I don't remember your
`
` language -- a complete HTML --
`
` MR. WYDE: Page.
`
` THE WITNESS: -- page within the body
`
` of an HTTP request. I think that might be
`
` technically -- probably is technically possible.
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q Would you in your experience as an
`
` expert understand that to be a common occurrence?
`
` A Programs are written in all kinds of
`
` ways. People transmit all kinds of data. I
`
` don't know, for example, how wikis make the
`
` request to post data to a server, but that's an
`
` example of a common situation where a web browser
`
` transmits information to a server. I don't know
`
` what form that data is transmitted in in various
`
` wikis, as an example. So it's certainly possible
`
` that it is common. I just don't really have -- I
`
` don't have an opinion about how often or when
`
` that happens.
`
` Q Okay. Would you turn to page 70 in the
`
` '715 report, please?
`
`Page 23
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 23 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Do you see the heading labeled c?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q In this section, you're analyzing
`
` limitation 1b that reads, "wherein said custom
`
` configuration is associated with an application
`
` and configures plurality rendering blocks to
`
` render content in a manner customized to said
`
` application," correct?
`
` A It actually includes the word "and" at
`
` the end of that, but, yes.
`
` Q In forming your opinion regarding
`
` whether the prior art meets this claim
`
` limitation, you considered all the words in this
`
` claim limitation, did you not?
`
` A I did consider all these words.
`
` Q And you gave the words in the claim
`
` their plain meaning as they would have been
`
` understood by a POSITA at the time of the alleged
`
` invention in light of the specification and file
`
` history, correct?
`
` A That's right.
`
` Q Do you see the words "customized to
`
`Page 24
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 24 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` said application" in limitation 1c?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q What in your opinion does customized to
`
` said application mean in this limitation to a
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art?
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: As you said in your
`
` previous question, I applied the plain -- I think
`
` it was the plain and ordinary meaning. And so
`
` what I see here is, in this claim limitation, it
`
` it says that there are a plurality of rendering
`
` blocks that render content in a manner customized
`
` to said application.
`
` So I understood this term to mean that
`
` the content is rendered in a manner customized to
`
` said application.
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q And you -- can you give me a synonym
`
` for what customized to said application means?
`
` Let me rephrase that.
`
` Can you put -- can you tell me in other
`
` words what customized to said application means
`
`Page 25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 25 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` in this context?
`
` A I didn't form a construction of that
`
` term or I didn't provide a definition, so, no, I
`
` don't have another way of saying it. I applied
`
` the plain and ordinary meaning, as I just -- as I
`
` just described.
`
` Q Would you agree that customized means
`
` the same as specific to?
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: It sounds like you're
`
` offering a construction, and I did not -- as I
`
` said, I did not offer a construction. I don't
`
` think I have a particular opinion that customized
`
` means the same thing as specific, but I did
`
` explain my understanding of that term in this
`
` section of my declaration, where I explained how,
`
` in this example, Hariki showed the elements of
`
` this limitation.
`
` BY MR. WYDE
`
` Q Would you look at paragraph 179 -- I'm
`
` sorry -- 129 on page 72?
`
` And you write, Furthermore, Hariki
`
`Page 26
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 26 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` explains that the UI content package is specific
`
` to the mobile device and the application
`
` programs. Accordingly, a POSITA would have
`
` understood that the content package is customized
`
` to the web server -- web -- sorry -- web --
`
` server-web browser interaction.
`
` So are you saying that because the
`
` content package is specific to the mobile device,
`
` it is therefore customized to the mobile device?
`
` A I think that helps support my opinion,
`
` but my full opinion is in these three paragraphs,
`
` 127 to 129, about this limitation.
`
` Q So you do not have a opinion whether
`
` specific to means the same thing as customized?
`
` A Well, I think, just generally, they
`
` don't have to mean the same thing for being --
`
` for Hariki's disclosures to teach this
`
` customization, but I do think that Hariki does
`
` explain that, as I said, the UI content package
`
` is specific to the mobile device type and the
`
` application programs, and that along with the
`
` rest of my analysis on the other disclosures on
`
`Page 27
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 27 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Hariki support my opinion that the content is
`
` rendered in a manner customized to said
`
` application.
`
` Q So it is your opinion that a UI content
`
` package as taught by Hariki meets the claim
`
` limitation that it configures a plurality of
`
` rendering blocks to render content in a manner
`
` customized to Hariki's web browser?
`
` A My opinion about this limitation is
`
` also, as we already mentioned, described in
`
` paragraph 127, where I explain in further detail
`
` Hariki's disclosure about the converted resources
`
` in the UI package, which I point to as disclosing
`
` a custom configuration, and that they are
`
` associated with a web browser, which is the
`
` application that I pointed to as Hariki
`
` disclosing, and that when a web browser uses
`
` those resources in the UI package to, for
`
` example, render the contents of a web page, that
`
` customizes the application.
`
` Q So if I heard you correctly, it's the
`
` use of the resources that makes the UI content
`
`Page 28
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 28 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` package customized to a web browser? Is that
`
` what you're saying?
`
` A Well, as I pointed out in paragraph
`
` 127, I pointed to the converted resources in the
`
` UI package as the custom configuration, where
`
` it's disclosing the custom configuration, and
`
` that they are associated with the web browser,
`
` which discloses the application of this
`
` limitation, and that a person of skill in the art
`
` reading Hariki would understand that when a web
`
` browser renders content such as a web page, it
`
` uses those converted resources to render that
`
` application, so that is an example of it
`
` rendering content in a manner customized to said
`
` application.
`
` Q So, again, is a content package
`
` customized to a web browser? It seems like a yes
`
` or no question to me, sir.
`
` A Yes. As I explained, a content package
`
` is customized to a web browser, and I gave
`
` further explanation as to why that is my opinion.
`
` Q Thank you. What makes the UN -- UI
`
`Page 29
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 29 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` content package customized to the web browser?
`
` Is it -- is use sufficient?
`
` MR. MARSHALL: Object to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, Hariki discloses in
`
` one of its figures, for example, how the
`
` application communicates with and makes requests
`
` from a UI content package. So I think that's
`
` further disclosure of this association between
`
` the configuration and the application, and I'm
`
` explaining that Hariki discloses a number of
`
` things.
`
` One of them is that there is a
`
` connection between this configuration and the
`
` application, as disclosed in that figure. I
`
` think it might be Figure 5. I would have to
`
` check. I don't have Hariki in front of me. And
`
` as I explained a minute ago, that one of the
`
` things that happens with Hariki is that when a
`
` web page is rendered, that web page uses those
`
` resources or converted resources from the UI
`
` package, which further shows that association
`
` between the configuration and the application.
`
`Page 30
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`346-293-7000
`
`Page 30 of 153 (IPR2023-00757)
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, L
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
