Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 19493
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 19493
`
`(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)20(cid:3)
`
`EXHIBIT 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 19494
`
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`
`·
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`·2· · · · · · · CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,· · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) Civil Action No.
`·5· · · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · ) 2:17-cv-513-JRG
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) (LEAD CASE)
`·6· · · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · ) Civil Action No.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) 2:17-cv-516-JRG
`·7· ·APPLE, INC.,· · · · · · · · · · · ) Pages 1 to 237
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·8· · · · · · · · · · ·Defendant.· · · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · ·TAKEN ON
`
`16· · · · · · · ·WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24· ·Reported by:· PHILIP D. NORRIS
`
`25· · · · · · · · ·CSR NO. 4980
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.com
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 19495
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 6
`·1· · ·TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · 9:23 A.M.
`·3
`·4
`·5· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Here begins Videotape
`·6· ·No. 1 in the deposition of Dr. Neil Siegel, in the
`·7· ·matter of AGIS Software Development LLC versus Apple
`·8· ·Inc., in the United States District Court, for the
`·9· ·Eastern District of Texas, case No. 2:17-cv-516-JRG.
`10· ·Today's date is November 14, 2018.· The time on the
`11· ·video monitor is 9:23 a.m.
`12· · · · · · The video operator today is Renee Mayfield.
`13· ·This video deposition is taking place at 3635
`14· ·Fashion Way, Torrance, California 90503.
`15· · · · · · Counsel, please voice identify yourselves
`16· ·and state whom you represent.
`17· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· Vincent Rubino from Brown
`18· ·Rudnick for the plaintiff AGIS.· And also with me
`19· ·from the law firm of Brown Rudnick is my colleague
`20· ·Enrique Iturralde.
`21· · · · · · MS. BI:· Kathryn Bi from the law firm of
`22· ·Desmarais LLP on behalf of the witness and defendant
`23· ·Apple, Inc.· With me is Ameet Modi, also from the
`24· ·law firm of Desmarais LLP.
`25· · · · · · MR. BOMBACH:· Miguel Bombach from HTC --
`
`Pages 6..9
`Page 7
`·1· ·representing HTC Corporation, from Perkins Coie.
`·2· · · · · · MR. CHI:· Justin Chi from Arnold & Porter
`·3· ·representing LG Electronics, Inc.
`·4· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The court reporter today
`·5· ·is Philip Norris of Epiq Court Reporters.
`·6· · · · · · Would the reporter please swear in the
`·7· ·witness.
`·8
`·9· · · · · · · · · · DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL,
`10· · · · · · ·having been first duly sworn, was
`11· · · · · · examined and testified as follows:
`12
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`14
`15· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`16· · · · Q.· Good morning.· Can you please state your
`17· ·full name for the record?
`18· · · · A.· Yes, sir.· Good morning.· My name is Neil
`19· ·Gilbert Siegel.
`20· · · · Q.· Dr. Siegel, when were you first contacted
`21· ·by Apple in this case?
`22· · · · A.· I received an email in December of 2017,
`23· ·that is about 11 months ago, unsolicited, from a
`24· ·lady named Kathryn Bi, asking if I could consider --
`25· ·she had a conversation with me about potentially
`
`Page 8
`·1· ·being an expert witness in a legal case, and we
`·2· ·shortly thereafter had a phone call.
`·3· · · · Q.· And did you ultimately agree to be an
`·4· ·expert in this case?
`·5· · · · A.· Yes.
`·6· · · · Q.· When did you sign -- well, let me back up a
`·7· ·second.
`·8· · · · · · Do you have a formal retainer agreement
`·9· ·with Desmarais or Apple?
`10· · · · A.· I'm not exactly sure what constitutes a
`11· ·retainer agreement.· There's an agreement that both
`12· ·Apple and I signed that describes the business terms
`13· ·of my engagement for this purpose.
`14· · · · Q.· When did you sign the agreement that sets
`15· ·forth the business terms of your engagement for this
`16· ·case?
`17· · · · A.· Early in 2018.
`18· · · · Q.· So not long after you had the phone call;
`19· ·right?
`20· · · · A.· A few weeks after.· It may be six weeks. I
`21· ·did not check.· I did double-check when I got the
`22· ·original email.· I didn't double-check on the date
`23· ·of the agreement.
`24· · · · Q.· So you've at least been working with Apple
`25· ·as an expert witness -- in the context of an expert
`
`Page 9
`·1· ·witness in this case since January of this year;
`·2· ·right?
`·3· · · · A.· January or February, yeah.
`·4· · · · Q.· And are you being compensated for your time
`·5· ·by Apple?
`·6· · · · A.· Yes.
`·7· · · · Q.· What's the hourly rate for which you're
`·8· ·being compensated by Apple in this case?
`·9· · · · A.· One thousand dollars an hour.
`10· · · · Q.· Is it the same for consulting as well as
`11· ·testimony time?
`12· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection, form.
`13· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· Let me ask a different
`14· ·question.· Sometimes experts charge different rates
`15· ·for reports versus testimony in court.
`16· · · · Q.· Is your rate the same for all time spent on
`17· ·this case?
`18· · · · A.· The rate is the same for all time for which
`19· ·I'm allowed to bill hours on this case.
`20· · · · Q.· So from the beginning of your engagement
`21· ·with Apple, how many hours have you spent on this
`22· ·case?
`23· · · · A.· About 70 thus far.
`24· · · · Q.· And were you compensated for all 70 of
`25· ·those hours?
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 19496
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 14
`·1· ·confirming that what you meant was the videos were
`·2· ·produced either by the Army, by TRW or by Northrop
`·3· ·Grumman; correct?
`·4· · · · A.· That is correct.
`·5· · · · Q.· They weren't produced by anybody else;
`·6· ·right?
`·7· · · · A.· As far as I know, that is correct.
`·8· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Can we go off the record,
`·9· ·please?
`10· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· Sure.
`11· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are off the record.
`12· ·The time is 9:32 a.m.
`13· · · · · · (Brief recess.)
`14· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are back on the
`15· ·record.· The time is 9:34 a.m.
`16· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`17· · · · Q.· So Dr. Siegel, do you have a technical
`18· ·degree?
`19· · · · A.· I have a degree in mathematics at the
`20· ·bachelor's level, a degree in mathematics at the
`21· ·master's level, and a Ph.D. in system engineering.
`22· · · · Q.· Are you a programmer?
`23· · · · A.· I don't really consider myself a
`24· ·programmer.· I've done quite a bit of programming
`25· ·over the course of my career, but I didn't really
`
`Pages 14..17
`Page 15
`·1· ·consider -- I don't offer myself professionally as a
`·2· ·programmer these days.
`·3· · · · Q.· Do you review code in the course of your
`·4· ·work?
`·5· · · · A.· I certainly did during my career at
`·6· ·Northrop.· I worked 39 years in the aerospace
`·7· ·industry, including 31 years at TRW and Northrop
`·8· ·Grumman, and during that time I acted as a
`·9· ·programmer or viewer of code, but I don't consider
`10· ·that my main specialty.
`11· · · · Q.· When did you start working at TRW?
`12· · · · A.· I started in the aerospace industry as
`13· ·contract laborer at TRW right after Thanksgiving in
`14· ·1976.· I worked as a contract laborer for about six
`15· ·months, and in May of 1977 I became a TRW employee.
`16· · · · Q.· And how long did you work at TRW for?
`17· · · · A.· In all, I worked at TRW and Northrop
`18· ·Grumman, which acquired TRW, about 31 years.· In the
`19· ·middle I left and did a start-up company with some
`20· ·colleagues, did that for seven years, went public,
`21· ·etcetera, etcetera, and then wanted to work on big
`22· ·projects again and returned to TRW.· So the 31 years
`23· ·includes some time before the start-up company and
`24· ·after the company.
`25· · · · Q.· When did you work on that start-up company?
`
`Page 16
`·1· · · · A.· We left TRW to start the company in May of
`·2· ·1980.
`·3· · · · Q.· What was the name of the company?
`·4· · · · A.· CompuNet was the original name.· We were --
`·5· ·we merged with another small company called Titan.
`·6· ·Titan was the name that was retained for many, many
`·7· ·years.
`·8· · · · Q.· What did that company do?
`·9· · · · A.· Was a defense contractor in a small way.
`10· · · · Q.· It went public you said?
`11· · · · A.· We actually went public by buying a company
`12· ·that was already public, but -- but by the time I
`13· ·left the company we were a publicly-traded company.
`14· · · · Q.· What company did it buy?
`15· · · · A.· I think it was called EMM Sesco.· They made
`16· ·radiation hard memory for spacecraft.
`17· · · · Q.· And then about what year did you return to
`18· ·Northrop Grumman after that?
`19· · · · A.· I believe it was January of 1988.· It was
`20· ·still TRW in those days, of course.
`21· · · · Q.· So while you were at -- let me ask you a
`22· ·different question.
`23· · · · · · What year did TRW become Northrop Grumman?
`24· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I should answer?
`
`Page 17
`
`·1· · · · · · MS. BI:· Yeah.
`·2· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sorry.
`·3· · · · · · It was near the end of 2002.
`·4· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·5· · · · Q.· How long were you at Northrop Grumman for?
`·6· · · · A.· From whenever the deal closed, which I
`·7· ·think was November or December of 2002, until my
`·8· ·retirement on December 31st, 2015.
`·9· · · · Q.· Are you familiar with a product called
`10· ·FBCB2?
`11· · · · A.· If by that you mean the -- the U.S. Army
`12· ·contract that is properly called Force XXI Battle
`13· ·Command, Brigade and Below, yes, I am familiar with
`14· ·that product.· FBCB2 is an abbreviation that is
`15· ·often used for that, and there's some other
`16· ·nicknames that are used as well.
`17· · · · Q.· What other nicknames are used?
`18· · · · A.· Sometimes it's called the Applique.
`19· ·Sometimes it's called the Digital Battlefield.· And
`20· ·another common nickname is the Blue Force Tracker.
`21· · · · Q.· When did you first become involved with
`22· ·FBCB2?
`23· · · · A.· So I was working at TRW and I was working
`24· ·as the chief engineer on another U.S. Army contract.
`25· ·We conceived of an idea, and we started a company-
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 19497
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 90
`
`·1· ·computer, the device.
`·2· · · · · · But when we talk about designating a unit,
`·3· ·what we are -- you don't designate a computer, you
`·4· ·designate a military role.· That's how people are
`·5· ·identified in FBCB2.
`·6· · · · Q.· So what you're --
`·7· · · · A.· So that was the distinction I was trying to
`·8· ·get to by this terminology.· I apologize if it
`·9· ·confused you.
`10· · · · Q.· Okay.· So you say the unit receives
`11· ·information from FBCB2 devices and forwards it to
`12· ·other FBCB2 devices, so --
`13· · · · A.· No, that's not what it says, sir.
`14· · · · Q.· It says:
`15· · · · · · "Individual FBCB2 units were designated to
`16· · · · receive information from FBCB2 devices and
`17· · · · forward it to other FBCB2 devices."
`18· · · · · · Am I reading that correctly?
`19· · · · A.· Yes, sir.
`20· · · · Q.· And so was there an FBCB2 device that
`21· ·received information from FBCB2 devices or was it
`22· ·something else in the unit that received the
`23· ·information from FBCB2 devices?
`24· · · · A.· There is an FBCB2 device in that unit, but
`25· ·it was designated by the role name that is the
`
`Pages 90..93
`Page 91
`
`·1· ·military term for the unit.
`·2· · · · Q.· And so when you talk about servers in this
`·3· ·paragraph, "servers consist of computers mounted on
`·4· ·Army vehicles," those are just the FBCB2 devices;
`·5· ·right?
`·6· · · · A.· Yes, sir.
`·7· · · · Q.· And so an FBCB2 device, that same hardware,
`·8· ·could either be a server or not a server; right?
`·9· · · · A.· Correct.· It services the FBCB2 mission for
`10· ·the user on that military platform, whether it is a
`11· ·server or not.· But it may serve, as you indicated,
`12· ·the additional role of being a server.
`13· · · · Q.· And so is it fair to say that any FBCB2
`14· ·device could have been a server?
`15· · · · A.· There is some technical limitations that
`16· ·prevented some FBCB2 devices being considered
`17· ·servers.
`18· · · · Q.· So let's talk about these FBCB2 computers
`19· ·you're talking about mounted on Army vehicles.· Is
`20· ·it fair to say that any of those FBCB2 computers
`21· ·could have been a server?
`22· · · · A.· Subject to the technical limitations I just
`23· ·mentioned, yes.
`24· · · · Q.· And I'm not going to ask you specifically
`25· ·about those technical limitations, but I'm going to
`
`Page 92
`·1· ·ask you:· Did you mention those in your report?· Let
`·2· ·me ask you a different way.
`·3· · · · · · Can you point to a paragraph in your report
`·4· ·where you describe those technical limitations of
`·5· ·the devices that would prevent them from being a
`·6· ·server?
`·7· · · · A.· It was not relevant to the argument.
`·8· · · · Q.· So to confirm, you didn't put that in your
`·9· ·report; right?
`10· · · · A.· It might be discussed in the '559 patent,
`11· ·which is referenced in several of these paragraphs,
`12· ·but the -- the fact that only some portion of the
`13· ·FBCB2 devices in a given unit were eligible to be
`14· ·elected as servers was not relevant to the argument
`15· ·I was making.
`16· · · · Q.· So to confirm, you didn't discuss that in
`17· ·your report; right?
`18· · · · A.· I did not discuss the specific technical
`19· ·limitation that would allow some FBCB2 devices to
`20· ·become servers and others not eligible to become
`21· ·servers, no, sir.
`22· · · · Q.· Have you ever heard the term "mesh
`23· ·network"?
`24· · · · A.· I have, sir.
`25· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· I think we're being told that
`
`Page 93
`·1· ·we have to take some time to change the tape, if you
`·2· ·want to go off the record, if that's okay.
`·3· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· This marks the end of
`·4· ·Media No. 1.· Going off the record.· The time is
`·5· ·11:38 a.m.
`·6· · · · · · (Brief recess.)
`·7· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record.
`·8· ·Here marks the beginning of Volume 1, Tape No. 2, in
`·9· ·the deposition of Dr. Neil Siegel.· The time is
`10· ·11:50 a.m.
`11· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`12· · · · Q.· Good afternoon again, Dr. Siegel.· So
`13· ·before the break we were discussing FBCB2 devices
`14· ·and whether or not they could be servers; do you
`15· ·recall that discussion?
`16· · · · A.· I do, sir.
`17· · · · Q.· And so I want to direct your attention to
`18· ·your report, at paragraph 103.
`19· · · · A.· Okay.· Yes, sir.
`20· · · · Q.· So in this paragraph you discuss the
`21· ·limitation sending to a second server a request for
`22· ·a second georeferenced map data different from the
`23· ·first georeferenced map data receiving from the
`24· ·second server of the second georeference map data.
`25· ·Do you see that limitation?
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 19498
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 34
`
`·1· ·name of that company was Command Control
`·2· ·Communications Corporation; right?
`·3· · · · A.· I only knew the 4C.
`·4· · · · Q.· Have you ever heard of a company called
`·5· ·Whittaker?
`·6· · · · A.· I think I've heard the name.· I don't know
`·7· ·anything about them, but I believe I've heard the
`·8· ·name.
`·9· · · · Q.· Do you know one way or the other whether --
`10· ·I'll withdraw the question.
`11· · · · · · Have you ever heard of a gentleman by the
`12· ·name of Sandel Blackwell?
`13· · · · A.· No.
`14· · · · Q.· Do you know one way or the other whether
`15· ·Advanced Ground Information Systems ever worked with
`16· ·Northrop Grumman on any project?
`17· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't.· I already testified
`19· ·I thought that I don't know of a company called
`20· ·Advanced Ground Information Systems.· I note, as I
`21· ·did before, that that would spell AGIS, which is the
`22· ·name that appears on all these documents that have
`23· ·been given to me in conjunction with this case and
`24· ·this piece of work, but I don't actually know
`25· ·whether that's the same company or not.
`
`Pages 34..37
`Page 35
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·2· · · · Q.· So you don't know anything about AGIS'
`·3· ·collaborations with Northrop Grumman; right?
`·4· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`·5· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not.· I never heard of
`·6· ·AGIS making any collaboration with Northrop Grumman.
`·7· ·I point out that Northrop is a company of 60- or
`·8· ·70,000 employees and -- and could be things that
`·9· ·went on that I didn't know about.
`10· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`11· · · · Q.· So it's safe to say that AGIS' interactions
`12· ·with Northrop Grumman hadn't come to your attention;
`13· ·right?
`14· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Absolutely.· I never heard of
`16· ·AGIS in conjunction with my work at Northrop
`17· ·Grumman, but like I said, you know, in a company
`18· ·that large, there could be things that went on that
`19· ·I didn't know about.· Also could have happened after
`20· ·I retired, if such a thing happened.
`21· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`22· · · · Q.· Was any portion of the work you had done
`23· ·with FBCB2 in the 1992 to 2004 time frame
`24· ·classified?
`25· · · · A.· Yes.
`
`Page 36
`
`·1· · · · Q.· Is it still classified?
`·2· · · · A.· Anything that the government has done since
`·3· ·I retired and really since Northrop stopped being
`·4· ·the main contractor I really don't know.
`·5· · · · · · I can explain that, in general, the FBCB2
`·6· ·devices and even the FBCB2 software was not
`·7· ·classified.· The only thing that was classified
`·8· ·might be the content of the data that people entered
`·9· ·into the system.· So it is the case that some
`10· ·percentage of the people who used the system are
`11· ·required to have security clearances, and we had to
`12· ·do appropriate processing.· But it's not like some
`13· ·other systems where the code itself or the devices
`14· ·themselves were considered classified.
`15· · · · Q.· But at least some portion of the work that
`16· ·you had done for FBCB2 was classified in the 1992 to
`17· ·2004 time frame; right?
`18· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Actually, as I said, I would
`20· ·say no, because the devices and the software that we
`21· ·created were unclassified, but we had to be -- the
`22· ·system had to be designed in a way that it would
`23· ·pass the government's rules and audits for a system
`24· ·that was going to process and hold classified
`25· ·information.· That's -- that's a different thing
`
`Page 37
`·1· ·than saying that the work we did was classified.
`·2· ·Because there are other contracts where the code and
`·3· ·the design documents and the requirement documents
`·4· ·are classified.· That was not the case for FBCB2.
`·5· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·6· · · · Q.· So you're changing your answer; right?
`·7· · · · A.· I'm not changing my answer.
`·8· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`·9· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`10· · · · Q.· I asked you was any portion of the work you
`11· ·had done with FBCB2 in the 1992-2004 time frame
`12· ·classified, and you said "yes," so you're changing
`13· ·that answer; right?
`14· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No.· You're taking that "yes"
`16· ·out of context.· And I immediately went on to
`17· ·explain that what was classified was the data
`18· ·content of the system and not the code and not the
`19· ·devices.
`20· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`21· · · · Q.· So I remind you again you're under oath.
`22· ·Was that question a "yes" or a "no"?
`23· · · · · · MS. BI:· Object to form.
`24· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· I'll ask it again.
`25· · · · Q.· Question is:· Was any portion of the work
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 19499
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 154
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·2· · · · Q.· You don't see the sentence where it says:
`·3· ·"This remains an FBCB2 concern"?· You don't agree
`·4· ·with that?
`·5· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`·6· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·7· · · · Q.· The Army's wrong?
`·8· · · · A.· No, that's not what that sentence says,
`·9· ·sir.· What that sentence says is this is a FBCB2
`10· ·concern.· We have to help to fix it, but it was not
`11· ·our failure.
`12· · · · Q.· Are the words on the page, "This remains an
`13· ·FBCB2 concern"?· Are those the words on the page?
`14· · · · A.· That is -- that is the words on the page.
`15· ·That doesn't mean it's our fault.· We are concerned
`16· ·in trying to fix it.· As it says, our software is
`17· ·hosted on somebody else's computer and that computer
`18· ·is failing and we have to help them fix it.· That's
`19· ·what this is referring to.
`20· · · · Q.· Can you take a look three -- the third
`21· ·bullet point from the bottom?
`22· · · · A.· "The transmission of lengthy orders..."?
`23· · · · Q.· "The transmission of lengthy orders and
`24· · · · graphical overlays from higher to lower
`25· · · · echelons using FBCB2 was not reliable."
`
`Pages 154..157
`Page 155
`
`·1· · · · · · Do you see that?
`·2· · · · A.· I do.
`·3· · · · Q.· Do you remember that being not reliable?
`·4· · · · A.· Yes, because it was where it interfaced
`·5· ·with a thing that's mentioned in the next sentence,
`·6· ·the Maneuver Control System, which is one of those
`·7· ·five systems that comprise the Army Tactical Command
`·8· ·and Control Systems.· The failures were on that side
`·9· ·of the interface, but we were involved and we were
`10· ·concerned to help them fix it.
`11· · · · Q.· Okay.· So, so far you've blamed Maneuver
`12· ·Control System and ATCCS and you say it's not --
`13· ·these problems weren't problems with FBCB2; right?
`14· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`15· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`16· · · · Q.· Is that what you're saying?
`17· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`18· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· I'll withdraw the question.
`19· ·I'll withdraw the question.
`20· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· We need to go off the
`21· ·record.
`22· · · · · · (Brief recess.)
`23· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are back on the
`24· ·record.· The time is 2:10 p.m.
`25· ·///
`
`Page 156
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·2· · · · Q.· So isn't interoperability a requirement for
`·3· ·Army systems?
`·4· · · · A.· The contract and the requirements
`·5· ·specification for each system will specify what the
`·6· ·interoperability requirements might be, correct.
`·7· · · · Q.· And we can get into the specifics, but at a
`·8· ·general level, FBCB2 was required to be
`·9· ·interoperable with ATCCS and MCS; correct?
`10· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`11· · · · · · If you could just give me time to object.
`12· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sorry.
`13· · · · · · Actually, those were not explicit
`14· ·contractual requirements, they were things that they
`15· ·asked us to do.
`16· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`17· · · · Q.· So the Army asked you to do that; right?
`18· · · · A.· Uh-huh.
`19· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`20· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`21· · · · Q.· So what you're saying is the Army asked you
`22· ·to attempt interoperability between FBCB2, MCS and
`23· ·ATCCS?
`24· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`25· ·///
`
`Page 157
`
`·1· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·2· · · · Q.· Right?
`·3· · · · A.· Yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· And there were problems; right?
`·5· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`·6· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· There were problems on their
`·7· ·side of the interface, correct.
`·8· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·9· · · · Q.· Nothing -- no problems on your side; right?
`10· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`11· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· When we found -- when the
`12· ·problems were finally found and corrected, they were
`13· ·on their side of the interface.
`14· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`15· · · · Q.· So what you're saying is there were no
`16· ·problems with FBCB2?
`17· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`18· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`19· · · · Q.· That this report is incorrect; is that what
`20· ·you're saying?
`21· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`22· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The report does not say, in
`23· ·this thing where we're talking about this interface
`24· ·problem, does not say the problems were on the FBCB2
`25· ·side of the interface.· It is silent on that matter.
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 19500
`
`Pages 218..221
`Page 219
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 218
`·1· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· In my non-lawyer's way, and
`·2· ·reading what it says about anticipation in the
`·3· ·U.S. -- I would say that my description of FBCB2 in
`·4· ·and of itself demonstrates anticipation, and that
`·5· ·that is reinforced by the documents that I cite,
`·6· ·including the patent, but including the other
`·7· ·documents.
`·8· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·9· · · · Q.· So are the patents and the other documents
`10· ·part of an obviousness analysis for rendering any of
`11· ·the claims invalid?
`12· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`13· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think we switched from
`14· ·anticipation to obviousness, but -- but they are
`15· ·part of my analysis in the way I just described
`16· ·where they are used.
`17· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`18· · · · Q.· So do you intend to tell the jury that the
`19· ·claims are obvious in view of the FBCB2 system in
`20· ·combination with any of the additional patents or
`21· ·printed publications you've cited to?
`22· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`23· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not quite sure what you
`24· ·mean by "combination."· But in the sense of the
`25· ·plain meaning that I'm using, both of those items,
`
`·1· ·yes, I would agree with that statement.
`·2· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·3· · · · Q.· So is it fair to say that you don't know
`·4· ·what an obviousness combination is?
`·5· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`·6· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No, I know what it says in
`·7· ·the -- in the sections up here where it defines the
`·8· ·procedures and -- of how you determine obviousness.
`·9· ·If the difference between the claims and the prior
`10· ·art subject matter as a whole would have been
`11· ·obvious at the time of the invention was made to a
`12· ·person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`13· ·subject matter pertains, that is the test that I
`14· ·applied.
`15· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`16· · · · Q.· So do you --
`17· · · · A.· And then in paragraph 39 it goes on and
`18· ·actually has kind of a step-by-step procedure of how
`19· ·you do an obviousness analysis, and that's what I
`20· ·followed.
`21· · · · Q.· And you followed that analysis when you
`22· ·looked at FBCB2 in combination with the other
`23· ·patents and publications you reference in your
`24· ·report; is that right?
`25· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`
`Page 220
`·1· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· When we talked about
`·2· ·obviousness, yes, which was done in only some of the
`·3· ·sections.
`·4· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· Would you mind if we take a
`·5· ·short break?
`·6· · · · · · MS. BI:· That's fine.
`·7· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are off the record.
`·8· ·The time is 3:52 p.m.
`·9· · · · · · (Brief recess.)
`10· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are back on the
`11· ·record.· The time is 4:05 p.m.
`12· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`13· · · · Q.· Good afternoon again, Dr. Siegel.
`14· · · · A.· Sir.
`15· · · · Q.· So before you go to the document in front
`16· ·of you, earlier we talked about ARM; do you recall
`17· ·talking about that?
`18· · · · A.· Uh-huh.
`19· · · · Q.· We talked about Intel chips as well; right?
`20· · · · A.· We mentioned both of those, sir.
`21· · · · Q.· And you're aware that Intel and ARM has
`22· ·different structure sets?
`23· · · · A.· That's correct.
`24· · · · Q.· And when they get compiled into machine
`25· ·code, it's -- so when code gets compiled for an ARM
`
`Page 221
`·1· ·processor as compared to an Intel processor, it's a
`·2· ·different machine code; right?
`·3· · · · A.· The executable code is different.· The
`·4· ·source code may be identical.
`·5· · · · Q.· The instructions are different; right?
`·6· · · · A.· The source code, which are instructions,
`·7· ·are identical.· The machine code, which is simply a
`·8· ·rendering of those into the format and syntax
`·9· ·understood by the actual processor, will have to be
`10· ·matching the form syntax expected by the processor,
`11· ·but the instructions in some real sense are
`12· ·identical because they derive from the same source
`13· ·instructions.
`14· · · · Q.· But the instruction sets are different;
`15· ·right?
`16· · · · A.· The coded numbers that are actually
`17· ·processed by the machine will be different.· The
`18· ·instructions, the source instructions, which define
`19· ·the work, the processing, the algorithms, the
`20· ·sequencing, the conditional processing the software
`21· ·does is defined by the source code, not by the
`22· ·particular coding that's used by the instructions.
`23· · · · Q.· So is it or is it not different
`24· ·instructions?· Do you know?
`25· · · · · · MS. BI:· Objection to form.
`
`
`Epiq Court Reporting Solutions - New YorkEpiq Court Reporting Solutions - New York
`
`1-800-325-33761-800-325-3376
`
`www.deposition.comwww.deposition.comYVer1f
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 309-5 Filed 01/18/19 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 19501
`
`
`DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018DR. NEIL G. SIEGEL - 11/14/2018
`Page 234
`·1· ·source code.· That is the way the system was
`·2· ·designed.· That is my general practice as a system
`·3· ·engineer, is I very, very seldom would look at
`·4· ·source code to analyze something or -- and I would
`·5· ·not certainly design something by writing source
`·6· ·code.· I would write design representations.
`·7· ·BY MR. RUBINO:
`·8· · · · Q.· Do you know whether any of the design
`·9· ·representations that you've discussed today are
`10· ·propriety to Northrop Grumman?
`11· · · · A.· No, nothing -- nothing in this report is
`12· ·Northrop Grumman propriety information.
`13· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· All right.· I have no further
`14· ·questions.
`15· · · · · · MR. MODI:· Want to take a break?
`16· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· Sure.
`17· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are off the record.
`18· ·The time is 4:24 p.m.
`19· · · · · · (Brief recess.)
`20· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are back on the
`21· ·record.· The time is 4:35 p.m.
`22· · · · · · MS. BI:· There are no further questions
`23· ·from Apple.
`24· · · · · · MR. RUBINO:· I guess no more from me
`25· ·either.· We're done.
`
`Pages 234..237
`Page 235
`·1· · · · · · MR. MODI:· Let's go off the record.
`·2· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Like close it out?
`·3· · · · · · MR. MODI:· Can we go off the record for a
`·4· ·minute?
`·5· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are off the record.
`·6· ·The time is 4:36 p.m.
`·7· · · · · · (Discussion held off the record.)
`·8· · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are back on the
`·9· ·record.· The time is 4:37 p.m.· Here marks the end
`10· ·of Volume I, Videotape No. 3, in the deposition of
`11· ·Dr. Neil Siegel.· Going off the record.· The time is
`12· ·4:37 p.m.
`13· ·///
`14· ·///
`15· ·///
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · Declaration
`
`Page 236
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·1· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA· · ·)
`
`·2· ·COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES· ·)· · ss.
`
`·3
`
`Page 237
`
`·4· · · · · · I, Philip D. Norris, a Certified Shorthand
`
`·5· · · · · · I hereby declare I am the deponent in the
`
`·5· ·Reporter for the State of California, do hereby
`
`·6· ·within matter; that I have read the foregoing
`
`·6· ·certify:
`
`·7· ·deposition and know the contents thereof, and I
`
`·7· · · · · · I am the deposition officer that
`
`·8· ·declare that the same is true of my knowledge,
`
`·8· ·stenographically recorded the testimony i