IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`SKECHERS
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NIKE, INC.
`_________________________
`
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF INGRID HSIEH-YEE, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.1
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4
`A. Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................. 4
`B. MARC, OCLC & Library Catalogs .............................................................. 6
`C. Scope of This Declaration ........................................................................... 12
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 14
`E. Evidence Considered in Forming My Opinions .......................................... 15
`II. Authenticity and Public Availability of Choi (Ex. A) ..................................... 15
`A. Authentication ............................................................................................. 15
`B.
`Internet Archive Records ............................................................................. 17
`C. Affidavit of Mr. Nathaniel E. Frank-White ................................................. 20
`D. OCLC FirstSearch Record .......................................................................... 23
`E. Library Records of North Carolina State Universities ................................ 26
`F. Citation Records .......................................................................................... 29
`G. Summary of My Opinion on Choi ............................................................... 30
`III. Authenticity and Public Availability of Legner (Ex. I) ................................... 32
`A. Authentication ............................................................................................. 32
`B. Records of Cornell University Library ........................................................ 33
`C. Usage Records ............................................................................................. 37
`D. Summary of My Opinion on Legner ........................................................... 38
`IV. Authenticity and Public Availability of Hong (Ex. O) .................................... 39
`A. Authentication ............................................................................................. 39
`B. NOPR Metadata Record .............................................................................. 40
`C. Copy of Cornell University Library ............................................................ 41
`D. Records of Cornell University Library ........................................................ 43
`E. Usage Record .............................................................................................. 47
`F.
`Summary of My Opinion on Hong ............................................................. 47
`V. Authenticity and Public Availability of Ward (Ex. W) ................................... 49
`A. Authentication ............................................................................................. 49
`
`2
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.2
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Records of University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Library ...................... 51
`C. Summary of My Opinion on Ward ............................................................. 55
`VI. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 56
`Appendix A. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.3
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, Ph.D., do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Except where I have been informed by counsel regarding certain legal
`
`issues, as indicated below, I have personal knowledge of all of the matters about
`
`which I testify in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of
`
`Skechers U.S.A., Inc. to evaluate the authenticity and public availability of certain
`
`printed publications (identified below) which I am told will be submitted in
`
`connection with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my customary
`
`hourly rate of $300. I am also being reimbursed for any reasonable expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the results of my study, the substance of my opinions, or the
`
`outcome of the IPR proceedings.
`
`A. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`4. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my academic curriculum vitae (Ex. U). The following is a brief summary of my
`
`relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.4
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`I was a professor in the Department of Library and Information Science
`
`at the Catholic University of America for 32 years and was conferred the title of
`
`Professor Emerita in December 2022. I have experience working in an academic
`
`library, a medical library, and a legislative library. I hold a Ph.D. and a Masters in
`
`Library and Information Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert on library cataloging and classification and have
`
`published two editions on this subject, Organizing Audiovisual and Electronic
`
`Resources for Access: A Cataloging Guide (2000 and 2006). I taught a variety of
`
`courses, including Cataloging and Classification, Advanced Cataloging and
`
`Classification, Organization of Internet Resources, Organization of Information,
`
`Metadata, Digital Content Creation and Management, Internet Searches and Web
`
`Design, Information Literacy Instruction, Advanced Information Retrieval and
`
`Analysis Strategies, and The Information Professions in Society. I am familiar with
`
`metadata schema design and implementation. In my teaching, I covered the design
`
`and implementation of metadata in databases, search engines, digital repositories,
`
`digital libraries, and digital archives. I also covered how information organization
`
`affects the discovery and access to digital resources on the Internet. My research
`
`interests cover cataloging and classification, information organization, metadata,
`
`information retrieval, information architecture, digital collections, scholarly
`
`communication, social media, user interaction with information systems, and others.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.5
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`B. MARC, OCLC & Library Catalogs
`
`7.
`
`I am very familiar with a library cataloging encoding standard known
`
`as the “Machine-Readable Cataloging” standard, also known as “MARC,” which
`
`became the national standard for sharing bibliographic data in the United States by
`
`1971 and the international standard by 1973. MARC is the primary communications
`
`protocol for the transfer and storage of bibliographic metadata in libraries. Experts
`
`in my field reasonably rely upon MARC records when forming their opinions.
`
`8.
`
`A MARC record consists of several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique, three-
`
`digit code corresponding to the type of data that follows. Ex. V is a true and correct
`
`copy of Parts VII to X of “Understanding MARC Bibliographic: Machine-Readable
`
`Cataloging” (http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html), a brief description
`
`and tutorial published by the Library of Congress in 2009 that explains commonly
`
`used MARC fields. For example, the personal author of a work is recorded in Field
`
`100, the title is recorded in Field 245, publisher information is recorded in Field 260,
`
`the physical volume and characteristics of a publication are recorded in Field 300,
`
`and topical subjects are recorded in Fields 650. More details of MARC21 format for
`
`Bibliographic Data are available on the Library of Congress website at
`
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.6
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`I am very familiar with library cataloging and processing practices and
`
`the relationships between OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) and library
`
`catalogs, and how libraries create and share their records to help the public discover
`
`and access information.
`
`10. The Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
`
`is
`
`the
`
`largest
`
`bibliographic network of the world, and its WorldCat database is “the world’s most
`
`comprehensive database of information about library collections” (source:
`
`https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat.html), containing more than 559 million records
`
`from thousands of member institutions (many of which are libraries of some type)
`
`in more than 100 countries. OCLC was founded in 1967 to promote and support
`
`library cooperation. According to the third article of the “Amended Articles of
`
`Incorporation of OCLC, Inc.,” OCLC was created “to establish, maintain, and
`
`operate a computerized library network and to promote the evolution of library use,
`
`of libraries themselves, and of librarianship, and to provide processes and products
`
`for the benefit of library users and libraries, including such objectives as increasing
`
`availability of library resources to individual library patrons and reducing the rate of
`
`rise of library per-unit costs, all for the fundamental public purpose of furthering
`
`ease of access to and use of the ever-expanding body of worldwide scientific,
`
`literary,
`
`and
`
`educational
`
`knowledge
`
`and
`
`information”
`
`(source:
`
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-incorporation.pdf).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.7
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`11. OCLC members can contribute original cataloging records in MARC
`
`to the system or derive cataloging records from existing records, an activity referred
`
`to as “copy cataloging.” When an OCLC-participating institution acquires a work, it
`
`can create an original MARC record for the work in OCLC’s Connexion system (a
`
`system for catalogers to create and share MARC records), and the system will
`
`automatically generate a code for the date of record creation in the yymmdd format,
`
`and the creating library’s OCLC symbol is recorded in subfield “a” of the 040 field.
`
`Once the MARC record is in Connexion, it becomes available to other OCLC
`
`members for adoption to their local online catalogs (i.e., copy cataloging).
`
`12. After a MARC record is created in Connexion, it also becomes
`
`searchable and viewable on WorldCat, which is a free web portal for users to explore
`
`more than 10,000 libraries worldwide. Records in WorldCat, however, are not
`
`presented in MARC fields. Instead, the data elements are labeled to help users
`
`interpret the records. Thus, the information stored in MARC records in Connexion
`
`is available to the interested public through the user-friendly WorldCat web portal.
`
`13. Library online catalogs gained acceptance in the early 1980s and many
`
`libraries migrated their systems to the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s. Library
`
`online catalogs are based on MARC records that represent their collections in order
`
`to help the public understand what materials are publicly accessible in those
`
`libraries. Most libraries with online catalogs have made their catalogs freely
`
`
`
`8
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.8
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`available on the Web. These online catalogs offer user-friendly search interfaces.
`
`Strong user interest in keyword searches and the popularity of Google have led to
`
`the “googlization” of library search systems. As a result, many library catalogs now
`
`provide a single search box for users to conduct keyword searches, with additional
`
`support for searches by author, title, subject terms, and other data elements such as
`
`ISBN (International Standard Book Number). Library catalogs these days also offer
`
`features for users to narrow their search results by language, year, format, and other
`
`elements. Many libraries display MARC records on their online catalogs with labels
`
`for the data elements to help the public interpret MARC records. Many libraries also
`
`offer the option to display MARC records in MARC fields.
`
`14. Libraries create MARC records for works they acquire, including
`
`books, serials, motion pictures, and publications in other formats. MARC records
`
`are representations of materials held by libraries and are critical for the discovery
`
`and access to those materials. Monograph cataloging is fairly common in libraries,
`
`and most libraries make a newly cataloged monograph available to the public soon
`
`after the cataloging work is completed, usually within a week. Libraries can create
`
`original cataloging records or use an existing record in OCLC to create a copy
`
`cataloging record. As soon as the cataloging record is completed, it is added to the
`
`library’s online catalog for users. If the record is an original record, it is also entered
`
`into OCLC WorldCat. If it is a copy cataloging record, the library’s holding symbol
`
`
`
`9
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.9
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`is attached to the existing original record in OCLC WorldCat to facilitate searching
`
`and interlibrary loan.
`
`15. The cataloging of serials and the serial check-in process are discussed
`
`here to show how libraries usually provide access to newly received serial issues.
`
`According to the glossary of the RDA: Resource Description and Access cataloging
`
`standard, a serial is “[a] mode of issuance of a manifestation issued in successive
`
`parts, usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion. A serial
`
`includes a periodical, monographic series, newspaper, etc.” (source: MARC
`
`Discussion
`
`Paper
`
`No.
`
`2020-DP16,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp16.html). Since the publisher of a
`
`serial makes new issues of the serial available successively, a customary cataloging
`
`practice is to create one bibliographic record for the serial, and the serial record
`
`(encoded in MARC) typically provides information on the beginning date and
`
`frequency of the serial, not the dates of individual issues. In other words, libraries
`
`typically do not create MARC records for individual issues of a serial. Instead, they
`
`rely on a serial check-in system to track the receipt of new issues. A common
`
`check-in practice is to date stamp a new issue when it arrives. This practice has
`
`become automated since the late 1990s, and libraries now vary in how they share the
`
`receipt date of a new serial issue with the public. Some libraries use a date stamp,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.10
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`some affix a label to indicate the receipt date, some pencil in the receipt date, and
`
`some do not provide the information to the public.
`
`16. The serial check-in process usually takes less than an hour, and one of
`
`the steps involves placing a date stamp on the new issue to document the date the
`
`issue is checked in. After that, the holdings information of the serial is updated in
`
`the library’s catalog so that users know which issues are available for request or
`
`access. After serial check-in is completed, the new issue is placed on the shelf with
`
`the previous issues of the serial. Libraries with a public periodical room typically
`
`place new issues in the periodical room for easy user access. Because information
`
`presented in serials often reflects latest discovery, a general practice of libraries is to
`
`make new issues of serials available for user access soon after they are checked in,
`
`usually within a week.
`
`17.
`
`I am personally familiar with many online catalogs, databases, and
`
`search engines. In preparing for this declaration, I used the following authoritative
`
`information systems to search for records:
`
`• Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/)
`
`• Internet Archive (https://archive.org/)
`
`• OCLC FirstSearch, a subscription-based search system,
`
`subscription required for access (https://firstsearch.oclc.org/)
`
`
`
`11
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.11
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`• Online
`
`catalog
`
`of
`
`the Cornell University Library
`
`(http://catalog.library.cornell.edu/)
`
`• Online catalog of the North Carolina State University Libraries
`
`(https://catalog.lib.ncsu.edu/)
`
`• Online catalog of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
`
`Library (https://lib.umassd.edu/)
`
`• WorldCat (https://search.worldcat.org/)
`
`Scope of This Declaration
`
`I have been asked to offer opinions on the authenticity and public
`
`C.
`
`18.
`
`availability dates of the following documents:
`
`(1) Choi, W., & Powell, N. B. (2005, March). Three dimensional
`
`seamless garment knitting on V-bed flat knitting machines, Journal
`
`of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 4(3), 1-33,
`
`Ex. A (“Choi”);
`
`(2) Legner, M., & Stoll, H. (2003, September). 3D-products for fashion
`
`and technical textile applications from flat knitting machines,
`
`Melliand International, 9(3), 234, 238-241, Ex. I (“Legner”);
`
`(3) Hong, H., Filho, A. A., Fangueiro, R., & de Araujo, M. D., (1994,
`
`September), “The development of 3D shaped knitted fabrics for
`
`technical purposes on a flat knitting machine,” Indian Journal of
`
`
`
`12
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.12
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`Fibre & Textile Research, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 189-194, available at
`
`the
`
`NIScPR
`
`Online
`
`Periodicals
`
`Repository
`
`at
`
`https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/bitstream/123456789/19312/1/IJFTR%20
`
`19%283%29%20189-194.pdf, Ex. O (“Hong”).
`
`(4) Ward, D. T. (2003, May). The future of knitting, International
`
`Textile Bulletin, vol. 49, 2nd issue 2003, 46-50, Ex. W (“Ward”).
`
`19.
`
`I am rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the documents
`
`referenced herein and on whether they were published. I will provide my opinion on
`
`when and how these documents were publicly disseminated or otherwise made
`
`publicly available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the
`
`subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located and
`
`retrieved these documents.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed by counsel that an item is considered authentic if there
`
`is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the item is what it is claimed to be. I
`
`am also informed that authenticity can be established based on the contents of the
`
`documents themselves, such as the appearance, content, substance, internal patterns,
`
`protocols followed or other distinctive characteristics of the item.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a given reference is “published” if it is
`
`publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such a document has been
`
`disseminated or otherwise made publicly available to the extent that persons
`
`
`
`13
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.13
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art could locate it exercising
`
`reasonable diligence and obtain the document. I have also been informed by counsel
`
`that materials available in a library constitute “printed publications” if they are
`
`cataloged and indexed according to general library practices and protocols that make
`
`the references available and accessible to members of the interested public.
`
`D.
`
`22.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of the IPR proceedings
`
`generally involves machine knitting techniques.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art” (POSITA) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be familiar with the
`
`relevant field and its literature at the time of the inventions. This hypothetical person
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable of understanding the scientific
`
`principles and literature applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been actively engaged
`
`in learning about the field, possibly through formal instruction and bibliographic
`
`resources. By at least the mid-2000’s, such a person would have had access to a vast
`
`array of print and electronic resources, including at least those resources referenced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.14
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`25.
`
`Evidence Considered in Forming My Opinions
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have reviewed the documents
`
`referenced below and any other documents I reference herein, and each of these is a
`
`type of material that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon when forming
`
`their opinions:
`
`(1) The documents referenced above in Section I.B;
`
`(2) Materials listed in Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`II. Authenticity and Public Availability of Choi (Ex. A)
`
`A. Authentication
`
`26. Ex. A is a true and correct copy of “Three dimensional seamless
`
`garment knitting on V-bed flat knitting machines,” (“Choi”), by W. Choi and N. B.
`
`Powell, Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 4(3), 1-33,
`
`that I received from counsel. Page 1 is the cover sheet that indicates this copy is
`
`obtained from ResearchGate. According to a research guide from the University of
`
`Michigan
`
`Library,
`
`“What
`
`is
`
`Research
`
`Gate?”
`
`(https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=1165556&p=8603840),“ResearchGate.net is
`
`an academic profile and social networking site, and a popular hub on the web for
`
`sharing academic publications.” The research guide further states that many
`
`researchers and scientists “post PDFs of their articles on ResearchGate, so it is a
`
`source of free scholarly articles” and the articles “are often indexed by Google
`
`
`
`15
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.15
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`Scholar.” This copy of Choi is presented as Ex. A in this declaration.
`
`27. Page 1 is a ResearchGate cover page that shows the title, authors, and
`
`article date (“March 2005”) of Choi. Page 2 (internal page 1) shows this article
`
`appears in “Volume 4, Issue 3, Spring 2005” of the Journal of Textile and Apparel,
`
`Technology and Management of “NC State University.” This page also shows the
`
`title, authors, abstract, and author keywords (“Knitting, tubular, seamless, complete
`
`garment”), and the “Article Designation” at the bottom of this page indicates the
`
`article was “Refereed.” Ex. A shows Choi has a total of 33 pages, including five
`
`tables, 40 figures (some colored), 52 references, and a glossary. The center column
`
`of each page shows “JTATM” that shows Choi appears in Journal of Textile and
`
`Apparel, Technology and Management (“JTATM”).
`
`28. Since JTATM is published as an electronic journal and no scanned
`
`copies can be obtained through interlibrary loan services, I searched Internet Archive
`
`for copies of Choi and records for this journal. Ex. B is a true and correct copy of
`
`Choi archived by Internet Archive on November 9, 2005. I personally located,
`
`identified, and obtained this copy. It is the type of material experts in my field would
`
`reasonably rely upon when forming their opinions.
`
`29. The Internet Archive copy of Choi (Ex. B) shows this article has a total
`
`of 33 pages, including five tables, 40 figures (some colored), 52 references and a
`
`glossary. I have closely compared Ex. A and this archived copy and found them to
`
`
`
`16
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.16
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`be identical.
`
`30. Ex. A is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity.
`
`Specifically, this copy is not missing any intermediate pages, the text on each page
`
`appears to flow seamlessly from one page to the next, and there are no visible
`
`alterations to the document. In addition, the full text of Choi is the same as that in
`
`the copy archived by Internet Archive. I therefore see no reason to question the
`
`authenticity of this copy of Choi (Ex. A).
`
`B.
`
`31.
`
`Internet Archive Records
`
`Internet Archive is a digital library that archives scholarly materials,
`
`cultural artifacts, and other web resources on the Internet and provides free public
`
`access to its collections. I have used Internet Archive in the past and am familiar
`
`with their Wayback Machine and their practice of assigning an extended URL to an
`
`archived resource
`
`in
`
`the format of
`
` http://www.archive.org/web/[Year
`
`in
`
`yyyy][Month in mm][Day in dd][Time code in hh:mm:ss]/[Archived URL] to show
`
`the point of time the archived file was captured. It is important for users to keep in
`
`mind that the archive date of a web resource archived by Internet Archive is usually
`
`after the first public availability date of the archived resource, because Internet
`
`Archive usually does not archive web resources the moment they appear on the
`
`Internet. The archive date, therefore, means that the archived file was available
`
`before, and definitely no later than, the archive date.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.17
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`32. Ex. C is a true and correct copy of archived copies of the website of
`
`JTATM, the preview of page 1 of Choi, and the Choi article. I personally located,
`
`identified, and obtained these archived copies and assembled them into Ex. C. These
`
`copies are the type of material experts in my field would reasonably rely upon when
`
`forming their opinions.
`
`33. Page 1 of Ex. C is a screenshot of a Wayback Machine calendar that
`
`shows the website for “Volume 4, Issue 3, Spring 2005” of Journal of Textile and
`
`Apparel,
`
`Technology
`
`and
`
`Management
`
`(http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume4issue3/vo4_issue3_abstracts.htm)
`
`was
`
`archived 25 times between “19 Apr 2005” and “16 Jun 2012,” and this particular
`
`copy was
`
`archived
`
`on
`
`“AUG
`
`27
`
`2005”
`
`and
`
`is
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20050827064124/http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volum
`
`e4issue3/vo4_issue3_abstracts.htm. The archive date of “20050827064124”
`
`indicates this webpage was archived on August 27, 2005, at 6 a.m., 41 minutes, and
`
`24 seconds. The archive date means interested users would have been able to
`
`discover and access this website on the Internet by August 27, 2005.
`
`34. Pages 2 to 9 are the PDF of the archived website of volume 4, issue 3
`
`(spring 2005) of JTATM that displays the table of contents of this issue. Each article
`
`is represented in one row by the title, authors, abstract, and author keywords,
`
`together with a link to “Preview First Page” and a link to the “Complete Article.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.18
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`The second row on page 2 of Ex. C shows Choi is included in this issue of JTATM.
`
`Ex. C shows that, by August 27, 2005, interested users would have been able to
`
`locate this website to discover the Choi article and would have been able to follow
`
`the links to preview page 1 of Choi and access the full text of Choi. A note on page
`
`9 shows JTATM is published by “TATM, Department of Textile and Apparel,
`
`Technology and Management” and the date for “Last Site Revision” was “March
`
`16, 2005.” This website revision date means that, in fact, interested users would have
`
`been able to discover the website for volume 4, issue 3 of JTATM by March 16,
`
`2005.
`
`35. The “Preview First Page” link for Choi, reflected in Page 10 of Ex. C,
`
`is a screenshot of a Wayback Machine calendar that shows the first page of Choi
`
`(http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume4issue3/articles/Choi/Choi_first_145_05.pdf
`
`) was archived three times between “9 Nov 2005” and “28 Jun 2010,” and this
`
`particular copy was archived on “NOV 09 2005” and has been available at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051109100812/http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volum
`
`e4issue3/articles/Choi/Choi_first_145_05.pdf. Page 11 is the PDF of this archived
`
`copy that identifies the file as page 1 of Choi and shows the journal title, volume and
`
`issue numbers, issue date, and parent university of this journal. The content of this
`
`file is the same as the first page of Choi in Ex. A and Ex. B. The archive date of
`
`“20051109100812” indicates this file was archived on November 9, 2005, at 10 a.m.,
`
`
`
`19
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.19
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`8 minutes and 12 seconds. The archive date means that interested users would have
`
`been able to discover and access this file on the Internet by November 9, 2005.
`
`36. Page 12 of Ex. C is a screenshot of a Wayback Machine calendar that
`
`shows
`
`the
`
`complete
`
`article
`
`of
`
`Choi
`
`(http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume4issue3/articles/Choi/Choi_full_145_05.pdf)
`
`was archived eight times between “9 Nov 2005” and “16 Apr 2024” and this
`
`particular copy was archived on “NOV 09 2005” and has been available at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051109095833/http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volum
`
`e4issue3/articles/Choi/Choi_full_145_05.pdf. Pages 13 to 45 (internal numbers 1 to
`
`33) are the PDF of this archived copy, and it shows the same content for Choi as Ex.
`
`A. The archive date of “20051109095833” indicates the complete article of Choi
`
`was archived on November 9, 2005, at 9 a.m., 58 minutes, and 33 seconds. The
`
`archive date means that interested users would have been able to discover and access
`
`the complete article of Choi on the Internet by November 9, 2005.
`
`C. Affidavit of Mr. Nathaniel E. Frank-White
`
`37. My analysis of the archived copies in Ex. C is supported by the affidavit
`
`of Mr. Nathaniel E. Frank-White of the Internet Archive that I received from
`
`counsel. This affidavit includes four parts: the affidavit, Exhibit A, Exhibit B 001,
`
`and Exhibit B 002. I have assembled these parts to produce Ex. N and added the
`
`cover sheets for Exhibits B 001 and B 002 to identify those parts clearly. Mr. Frank-
`
`
`
`20
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.20
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`White states that “[t]he Internet Archive is a website that provides access to a digital
`
`library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper
`
`library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general
`
`public” (Page 1, ¶ 2). He further explains that “[t]he Internet Archive assigns a URL
`
`on its site to the archived files in the format http://www.archive.org/web/[Year in
`
`yyyy][Month in mm][Day in dd][Time code in hh:mm:ss]/[Archived URL] aka an
`
`‘extended URL’. … The date indicated by an extended URL applies to a preserved
`
`instance of a file for a given URL ….” (Page 1, ¶ 5). He also makes explicit that
`
`“in the case of a page constituted by a primary HTML file and other separate files
`
`(e.g., files with images, audio, multimedia, design elements, or other embedded
`
`content) linked within that primary HTML file, the primary HTML file and the other
`
`files will each have their own respective extended URLs and may not have been
`
`archived on the same dates” (Page 1, ¶ 5).
`
`38.
`
`In Paragraph 6 Mr. Frank-White states that Exhibit A attached to the
`
`affidavit “are true and accurate copies of browser screenshots of the Internet
`
`Archive’s records of the archived files for the URLs and the dates specified in the
`
`attached coversheet of each printout” (Page 1, ¶ 6).
`
`39. Mr. Frank-White’s Exhibit A (Pages 7 to 12 of Ex. N) confirms the
`
`authenticity and accuracy of the screenshots of the archived website of vol. 4, issue
`
`3 (Spring 2005) of JTATM, presented as pages 1 to 9 of Ex. C.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Skechers EX1004-p.21
`Skechers v Nike
`
`

`

`
`
`40.
`
`In Paragraph 7 of his affidavit Mr. Frank-White states that “Exhibit B
`
`are true and accurate copies of the Internet Archive’s records of the archived files for
`
`the URLs and the dates specified in the following table.” Folder B 001 is an archived
`
`copy of the first page of Choi (see page 13 of Ex. N), which is the same as the
`
`archived first page of Choi in Ex. C (page 11). The table in the affidavit shows the
`
`URL
`
`of
`
`this
`
`archived
`
`file
`
`is
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051109100812/http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume
`
`4issue3/articles/Choi/Choi_first_145_05.pdf (page 2, ¶ 7), which is the same the
`
`URL included in Ex. C (page 10) for this file.
`
`41.
`
`Folder B 002 is the complete article of Choi (see pages 16 to 48 of Ex.
`
`N), and it is the same as the archived copy of Choi included in Ex. C (pages 13 to
`
`45). The URL of the archived copy of Choi on page 2 of the affidavit (¶ 7),
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051109095833/http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume
`
`4issue3/articles/Choi/Choi_full_145_05.pdf, is the same as the URL included in Ex.
`
`C for the complete article (see page 12).
`
`42.
`
`Ex. N presents the affidavit, Exhibit A,