Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC., and
`WHATSAPP, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-267-ADA
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-269-ADA
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-272-ADA
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM, INC.;
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM HENRY MANGIONE-SMITH
`
`I, William Henry Mangione-Smith, declare as follows under penalty of perjury according to the
`
`laws of the United States:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and, if called as a
`
`witness, I could and would competently testify to those facts. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate, which is $650 per hour. My compensation does not depend on and in no way affects
`
`the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`My technical background covers most aspects of computer system design, including
`
`low level circuitry, computer architecture, computer networking, graphics, application software, client-
`
`server application, Web technology, and system software (e.g., operating systems and compilers). I am
`
`a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery, which are the two most significant professional organizations in the computer field. I have
`
`been employed as a design engineer, research engineer, professor and technical expert. Over my
`
`professional career I have been an active inventor with at least 121 issued U.S. patents, 206 published
`
`and pending U.S. patent applications and many unpublished U.S. patent applications.
`
`3.
`
`From 1984 until 1991 I attended the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I
`
`was awarded the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Engineering, Master of Science and Engineering,
`
`and Doctor of Philosophy. My doctoral research focused on high-performance computing systems
`
`including computer architecture, applications and operating system software, and compiler technology.
`
`One of my responsibilities during my graduate studies included teaching senior undergraduate students
`
`who were about to enter the profession.
`
`4.
`
`After graduating from the University of Michigan I was employed by Motorola in
`
`Schaumburg, Illinois. While at Motorola, I was part of a team designing and manufacturing the first
`
`commercial battery-powered product capable of communicating Internet email over a wireless (i.e.,
`
`radio frequency) link and one of the first personal digital assistants. I also served as the lead architect
`
`on the second-generation of this device. Part of my responsibilities at Motorola involved the
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`specification, design, and testing of system control Application-Specific Integrated Circuits
`
`(“ASICs”). I conducted the initial research and advanced design that resulted in the Motorola M*Core
`
`embedded microprocessor. M*Core was designed to provide the high performance of desktop
`
`microprocessors with the low power of contemporaneous embedded processors. The M*Core
`
`received widespread use in several communications products including various telephone handsets,
`
`advanced pagers, and embedded infrastructure. While at Motorola I was also the sole inventor on one
`
`U.S. patent.
`
`5.
`
`From 1995 until 2005 I was employed by the University of California at Los Angeles
`
`(“UCLA”) as a professor of Electrical Engineering. I was the director of the laboratory for Compiler
`
`and Architecture Research in Embedded Systems (“CARES”) and served as the field chair for
`
`Embedded Computing Systems. The CARES research team focused on research, engineering and
`
`design challenges in the context of battery-powered and multi-media mobile computing devices. One
`
`of the key developments of my lab was the Mediabench software tool, which is widely used to design
`
`and evaluate multi-media embedded devices. Key elements of Mediabench include software that is
`
`essential for modern digital telephony. My primary responsibility, in addition to classroom teaching,
`
`involved directing the research and training of graduate students. I was a tenured member of the
`
`faculty and had responsibilities for teaching as well as scholarly research. While at UCLA I was a
`
`named inventor on three U.S. patent applications. My colleagues at UCLA were some of the leading
`
`scientists and engineers in the world with a long list of innovations from computer network security
`
`devices to the nicotine patch. The graduate student researchers in my laboratory came from a diverse
`
`set of backgrounds, all with undergraduate degrees in computer engineering, electrical engineering or
`
`computer science. Many of them had multiple years of experience working as professional engineers
`
`in areas such as software development, computer system design and ASIC circuit design.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`6.
`
`From 2005 until 2009, I was employed at Intellectual Ventures in Bellevue,
`
`Washington. My responsibilities at Intellectual Ventures included business development, technology
`
`assessment, market forecasting, university outreach, collaborative inventing, intellectual property
`
`licensing support, and intellectual property asset pricing. My colleagues and co-inventors at
`
`Intellectual Ventures included the former lead intellectual property strategist at Intel, Intel’s lead IP
`
`council, Microsoft’s chief software architect, the founder of Microsoft research, the designer of the
`
`Mach operating system, the architect of the U.S. Defense Department’s Strategic Defense Initiative,
`
`the founder of Thinking Machines (a seminal parallel-processing computer system), and Bill Gates. I
`
`had responsibility for hiring and managing over 15 staff members including multiple Ph.Ds. with
`
`degrees in engineering and science along with decades of experience in product design and
`
`engineering.
`
`7.
`
`A brief summary of some of my qualifications for the facts and understandings stated in
`
`this declaration are as follows: I have more than 27 years of experience as a computer architect,
`
`computer system designer, educator, and as an executive in the PC and electronics business. I am also
`
`a member of a number of professional associations, such as the ACM, IEEE and have been intimately
`
`involved in professional research through the International Symposium on Microarchitecture (Program
`
`Chair for 26th and General Chair for 36th), IEEE Transactions on Computers (Associate Editor),
`
`ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (Associate Editor), and IEEE Computer
`
`(Associate Editor). I also have been on the program committees for many computer conferences,
`
`including a Network Processors Workshop. For further details regarding my employment and
`
`academic history, please refer to my curriculum vitae (Ex. A).
`
`III. Task
`
`8.
`
`I have been asked to provide testimony regarding the understanding of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of invention regarding the technology disclosed and
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`claimed in VoIP-Pal’s patents in general, and in particular, in U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606 patent (“the
`
`’606 patent”). This is not the first time I have provided testimony for VoIP-Pal. For example, I
`
`provided expert declarations and deposition testimony in inter partes reviews (IPR2016-01198 and
`
`IPR2016-01201) relating to two of VoIP-Pal’s patents, namely, U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 (“the ’815
`
`Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005 (“the ’005 Patent”), of which the ’606 patent is a continuation.
`
`I have also previously submitted a declaration regarding the ’606 patent, which I incorporate by
`
`reference. See Case No. 5:20-cv-2397-LHK, Dkt. No. 52-1; Case No. 5:20-cv-2460-LHK, Dkt. No.
`
`62-1; Case No. 5:20-cv-2995-LHK, Dkt. No. 63-1. While I am not a lawyer and have no formal legal
`
`training, I am a prolific inventor with many issued Patents, I have worked at the intersection of patents
`
`and computer technology for at least 15 years, and I have provided expert testimony in many patent
`
`cases. In making the statements contained in this declaration, I have relied on my education in
`
`computer engineering, 30+ years of professional experience, and at least the documents identified
`
`below.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 (“the ’815 Patent”) and its file history;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005 (“the ’005 Patent”) and its file history;
`
` Documents filed in IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 (inter partes reviews relating to the
`
`parent ’815 and ’005 Patents), including inventor declarations, prior art, telecommunications
`
`dictionaries and reference works.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,826,002 (“the ’002 patent”) and its file history;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,948,549 (“the ’549 patent”) and its file history;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,813,330 (“the ’330 patent”) and its file history;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,537,762 (“the ’762 patent”) and its file history;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872 (“the ’872 patent”) and its file history;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606 (“the ’606 patent”) and its file history;
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`9.
`
`This declaration comprises my true and honest statement of the facts, based upon my
`
`review of the patents-in-suit and their file histories, my educational background, my knowledge of
`
`prior communications methods, and my experience and knowledge as a professional and person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for at least the last 25 years. I am prepared to provide verbal testimony and
`
`supplementary written declarations should those be of service to the Court.
`
`10.
`
`I am informed that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is
`
`entitled the right to exclude use by others. I am informed that the Court examines the intrinsic
`
`evidence for a patent to define the patented invention’s scope. I am informed that the intrinsic
`
`evidence includes the claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`11.
`
`I am informed that the Court begins by gives claim terms their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am informed
`
`that claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. I am informed that other claims,
`
`asserted and un-asserted, can provide additional instruction because terms are normally used
`
`consistently throughout the patent. I am informed that differences among claims, such as additional
`
`limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance.
`
`12.
`
`I am informed that claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
`
`part. I am informed that in the specification, a patentee may define their own terms, give a claim term
`
`a different meaning than it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow some claim scope. I am
`
`informed that, although the Court generally presumes terms possess their ordinary meaning, this
`
`presumption can be overcome by statements of clear disclaimer, and this presumption does not arise
`
`when the patentee acts as their own lexicographer.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed that the specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms where the
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone. I am informed that, although the
`
`specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the claims,
`
`particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification should not typically be read into
`
`the claims.
`
`14.
`
`I am informed that the prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context
`
`for claim construction because a patentee may define a term during prosecution of the patent. I am
`
`informed that claims may be limited by what the patentee told the PTO, if the prosecution history
`
`shows that the patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed
`
`interpretation during prosecution to obtain claim allowance.
`
`15.
`
`I am informed that the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to shed useful light on the
`
`relevant art. I am informed that technical dictionaries and treatises may help the Court understand the
`
`underlying technology and the way one skilled in the art might use claim terms. I am informed that
`
`expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the meaning of a term in the pertinent field.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a patent may be found invalid by failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, which provides the requirements for definiteness, written description,
`
`and enablement.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent’s specification must conclude with one or more claims
`
`particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter that the applicant regards as the
`
`invention. This requirement is referred to as the definiteness requirement. Definiteness is measured
`
`from the viewpoint of a person skilled in [the] art at the time the patent was filed. Additionally, claims
`
`are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history. Thus, the definiteness
`
`requirement requires that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution
`
`history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. This
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`requirement mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. I understand
`
`that Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) of the ’606 patent, as of
`
`the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/856,212, filed on November 2, 2006, and of
`
`Application No. 12/513,147, filed as PCT Application No. PCT/CA2007/001956 on November 1,
`
`2007, would find the scope of the claim terms to be sufficiently clear in light of the general knowledge
`
`of the art as further informed by the intrinsic evidence, including the patent specification as a whole.
`
`19. Based on my education and experience, I am familiar with the level of knowledge that a
`
`POSITA would have possessed during the relevant period of time. By the priority date of the ’606
`
`patent, I was a person who had more than ordinary skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`I consider myself an expert in the relevant field of technology of the ’606 patent. In
`
`forming my opinions for this Declaration, I have used the perspective of a POSITA defined as follows:
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date would be someone with an undergraduate degree
`
`in either Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a closely related
`
`discipline. Furthermore, I believe that such a person would also have 2 years of experience in system-
`
`level software development. In my opinion a greater degree of professional experience could serve to
`
`replace some degree of formal education. I also believe that some greater degree of formal education
`
`could serve to replace some degree of professional work experience.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`“network element[s]”
`
`21. The term “network element[s]” appears in claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 19-21, 23, 24, 27, 32 of
`
`the ’606 patent. For example, the phrase “first and second network elements” appears in claim 1, 8,
`
`19, 24 and 32 of the ’606 patent, and some claims also recite at least one of the terms “first network
`
`element” and “second network element.”
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, the bounds of these claim terms are readily understandable to a
`
`POSITA. In the ’606 patent, a “network element” is simply an “element” of the network, that is, a
`
`component or device that is part of a communication network. See, e.g., Figure 1 generally. Network
`
`elements are generally associated with at least one network address. See, e.g., column 14, lines 1-6 and
`
`elsewhere. Thus, the term “network element” as recited in the claims would be understood by a
`
`POSITA as a network device or component that is associated with a particular network address. The
`
`specification discloses various examples of network elements throughout, including in Figure 1.
`
`Several examples of network elements in a preferred embodiment are listed at column 14, lines 3-4
`
`(“call controller”, “media relay,” “telephones”) although the list is non-exhaustive (id.: “any others”).
`
`Different network elements may perform different functions, for example, an embodiment of a routing
`
`controller network element is disclosed that can perform routing, billing, and rating. See col. 11, line
`
`25-27 and Figure 7.
`
`23. Regarding the terms “first” or “second,” when applied to “network element,” a
`
`POSITA would understand these terms as simply labels assigned to network elements, providing an
`
`antecedent basis for referring to the specific elements in the claim. The use of “first” and “second”
`
`(and other adjectives) is a well-known claim drafting convention. Claim 1 of the ’606 patent, in its
`
`preamble, uses the labels of “first” and “second” multiple times to refer to various things: i.e., “a first
`
`participant device associated with a first participant and a second participant device associated with a
`
`second participant, the first and second participant devices being associated with first and second
`
`network elements of the communication system, respectively.” Here, a POSITA would simply
`
`understand that “first” and “second” are being used as labels (not to denote the quality of a recited
`
`item). Thus, a POSITA would conclude that a “first participant device” is associated with a “first
`
`network element”, and that a “second participant device” is associated with a “second network
`
`element”. The question of whether the first and second devices are associated with the same network
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`element or with different network elements is clear in claim 1—the claim as drafted allows for both
`
`alternatives. Indeed, the claim expressly recites a processing step which figures this out: “processing
`
`the new second participant identifier, using the at least one processor, to determine whether the second
`
`network element is the same as the first network element”. Although this claim language is already
`
`sufficiently clear, if the POSITA looked to the specification, they would find helpful examples of a
`
`comparable process, for example, determining whether a node associated with the caller is (or is not)
`
`the same as the node associated with the callee. See col. 3, lines 9-29; col. 21, lines 11-15; col. 25,
`
`lines 61-67; Fig. 8A. The initiating party and the called party may both be associated with a network
`
`node, but the system must determine whether it is the same node or a different node to route the call.
`
`In one example, a Vancouver user may call a Calgary user who is associated with the same node as the
`
`Vancouver user (i.e., the Vancouver node) (see col. 25, line 61 to col. 28, line 44). In another
`
`example, the Vancouver user (associated with the Vancouver node) may call a London user who is
`
`associated with a different node (i.e., the London node) (see col. 21, line 10 to col. 23, line 49). In the
`
`first example, the second user’s node is the same as the first user’s node. In the second example, the
`
`second user’s node is different than the first user’s node. Whether from the claim, or from reviewing
`
`the illustrative examples in the specification, the scope of “network element,” “first network element”
`
`and “second network element” would not be unclear or indefinite to a POSITA. Considering the
`
`specification, a POSITA would have no difficulty understanding the claims that recite “network
`
`element,” including the recited steps of determining whether or not the network elements associated
`
`with the caller and callee are the same, although a POSITA would appreciate that the claims are not
`
`limited to the implementations that are disclosed in the preferred embodiments, which are merely
`
`examples (col. 37 lines 24-28).
`
`24.
`
`In one preferred embodiment, a Vancouver subscriber and a Calgary Subscriber may
`
`both be associated with a Vancouver node having an domain name address of “sp.yvr.digifonica.com”
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`or the equivalent IP address (see, e.g., Figures 16-17; compare Figures 10 and 11 (“Domain”)),
`
`whereas a London callee could be associated with a London node at “sp.lhr.digifonica.com” (or the
`
`equivalent IP address). See Figure 12. In embodiments where each subscribers have a username that
`
`has a prefix which identifies their node, one way of determining if both parties are associated with the
`
`same node or network element is to compare the prefix of a caller identifier and a callee identifier (col.
`
`3 lines 9-17; col. 21 lines 11-20). It is possible to look up prefixes in a table to identify a node or
`
`network element for handing the call (col. 21 lines 35-38). One could alternatively determine the
`
`addresses that the caller and callee use to access communication services and compare those addresses
`
`directly, for example, in the form of a fully qualified domain name or an IP address (col. 13 lines 55-
`
`67). Other ways of determining whether a callee and callee are associated with the same network
`
`element would be apparent to a person of skill in the art. Comparing two things to determine whether
`
`they are the same or different is a common step in computer-implemented systems and would be
`
`within the ordinary skill of a POSITA. It is not necessary (nor even possible) to exhaustively list all
`
`the different ways of implementing a comparing step for the patent claims to be understood by a
`
`POSITA.
`
`25. Defendants assert it would be necessary for a POSITA to know in advance whether a
`
`“network element” is a single device or multiple devices or whether it is a logical component to
`
`understand the claim. It is not necessary to answer any of these implementation questions to
`
`understand the bounds of the claims with reasonable certainty. There are countless implementation
`
`decisions that a network engineer must answer—e.g., “Will this network device use electrical
`
`transmission or optical transmission?”—but such implementation details need not be spelled out for a
`
`claim term to be clear. The mere fact that the term “network element” is broad does not, for that reason
`
`alone, make the term unclear. Even if the term “network element” is broad enough to cover multiple
`
`devices that work together to implement a network function, that does not make the term indefinite.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`The ’606 patent discloses nodes 11 and 21 that are composed of multiple elements but this fact does
`
`not create any lack of clarity. Furthermore, the Defendants have not explained why a “network
`
`element” that encompasses a “logical component” is indefinite. I assume that what is meant by a
`
`“logical component” is a software-implemented network component, but if so, there is no explanation
`
`for why a software-implemented network component is indefinite. A POSITA would know that
`
`network elements can be implemented in hardware or in software. The specification indicates that one
`
`example of a “network element” is a routing controller, which can have a dedicated computer
`
`hardware (Figure 7, col. 11 lines 25-27). The specification also indicates that the routing controller
`
`could be implemented, in some embodiments, as a “module” on a shared computer system. Column
`
`13 lines 48-54. Whether the functions of a routing controller are performed solely by hardware or by a
`
`“module” is an implementation choice that would be understood by a POSITA. A POSITA would
`
`also understand how a module (or logical component) would be embodied in a physical device given
`
`that software-implemented inventions are implemented by computer processors executing computer
`
`code. Considering the specification, and also the common knowledge of a skilled artisan, a POSITA
`
`would know there are multiple ways of implementing a network device.
`
`26.
`
`It is not necessary to resort to extrinsic evidence at all, given the specification’s own
`
`usage of the term “network element.” However, even the extrinsic evidence confirms that the term
`
`“network element” is commonly used in the art as a broad reference to items of network equipment,
`
`consistent with the specification. See, e.g., Valdar, Andy, Understanding Telecommunications
`
`Networks, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, UK, 2006, at pages 294-296
`
`(referencing various items of network equipment as “elements”):
`
`“The first level [of network management] is that of the management of individual
`pieces of network equipment or ‘elements’, e.g. cables, multiplexors, line systems,
`cross-connects, exchanges, signalling systems and intelligent network data bases.
`
`See also, id., pages 294 (“various network elements (i.e., equipment)”) and 296 (Figure 11.11).
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`27. As discussed in ¶22, the ’606 specification refers to network elements in a conventional
`
`way. Yet the Defendants state that the ’606 patent “never even uses the term ‘network element’” and
`
`the Defendants’ expert states that the specification “does not mention the term ‘network element’ at
`
`all.” See Opening Brief at 5; Declaration at ¶36. Both statements are highly misleading. As I have
`
`discussed above, the patent specification discloses that its communication network is comprised of
`
`various “elements”. If an “element” is part of a network, then it is a “network element”. By way of
`
`comparison, the above-quoted statement in the Valdar textbook (as in the ‘606 patent) refers to an
`
`“element” of a network, but given the context of discussing a network, it would be a mistake to be so
`
`woodenly literal as to claim (as Defendants do) that the term “network element” is not used.
`
`28.
`
`I have given previous testimony illustrating functionality potentially covered by these
`
`claims in a declaration filed in Case No. 5:18-cv-07020-LHK, e.g., in ¶¶ 27-28, and 30, thus further
`
`demonstrating that the scope of the claim would be clear to a POSITA considering the specification.
`
`B.
`
`“Private Network”
`
`29. The term “private network” appears in claim 8 of the ’606 patent.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would understand from the patent specification that the term
`
`“private network” has a special meaning. “Private network” does not necessarily mean that all
`
`elements of every part of a communication’s path utilize equipment that is owned or controlled by one
`
`entity. Rather, a POSITA would recognize that the ’606 patent utilizes the term “private network”
`
`differently. For example, the ’606 patent discloses that a call to a destination on the private network
`
`may have a communication path that includes the Internet. See col. 13, lines 32-35 and 55-67; col. 14
`
`lines 40-42, col. 15, lines 33-47, col. 27 lines 47-52; 13 in Fig. 1. As such, the “private network” is
`
`private in the sense that establishment of a call and the transmission of data on the private network is
`
`privately controlled by an entity (e.g., by a “system operator”, such as VoIP-Pal’s predecessor-in-title
`
`“Digifonica,” which designed and built the system described in the patent), but this does not require
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`that each machine along the communication path must be controlled by the system operator. For
`
`example, intervening devices on the Internet need not be controlled by the system operator.
`
`31. Defendants allege that “nothing in the specification links the idea of a ‘private network’
`
`to ‘control’ over components of [the private] network.” See Defendants’ Opening Brief at p.14. This
`
`statement is inaccurate. The specification discloses various examples of control of the communication
`
`system’s internal network (i.e., “private network”) including that the system performs authentication
`
`of subscribers’ devices (i.e., preventing unauthorized users from using its services) and maintains
`
`various databases (e.g., databases of profiles, bundle records, etc.) that facilitate configuration and
`
`control of various network elements that effect communications. See, e.g., col. 15 lines 1-8; col. 17
`
`lines 16-32; col. 21 lines 1-2 and 25-34; col. 23 lines 4-22 and 38-49; col. 28 lines 40-59; and col. 31
`
`lines 41-61; Figures 8A-D, 9-14, 34, and 42-50. The specification further discloses that a “system
`
`operator” (or “an operator of the communication services”) manages the registration of subscribers and
`
`configures the communication services offered to each subscriber, for example, by configuring which
`
`“nodes” (11, 21) provide the services and what routes are used to establish calls, causing the network
`
`components of the private network along a communication path between two subscribers to work
`
`together to implement the system operator’s control of the network. See, e.g., col. 14 lines 50-65; col.
`
`19 line 36 to col. 20 line 11; col. 8, line 59; Figs. 34, 42-46, and 59-60. In effect, the system operator
`
`exercises control over a communication established in the private network from its origin at a calling
`
`subscriber to its receipt at a called subscriber based on this set of network configurations. While
`
`Defendants throw up their hands and say that VoIP-Pal’s proposed construction is “unworkable”, their
`
`own position fails to draw any inferences from the specification’s extensive disclosure of the control
`
`of the “private network” that is exercised by the “system operator.” In my view, a POSITA who
`
`reviewed the above-mentioned disclosures in the specification, would have no difficulty in
`
`understanding the type of control required to provide communication services in a “private network.”
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 69-4 Filed 04/08/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct, and that I
`
`have executed this declaration on April 8, 2022.
`
`William Henry Mangione-Smith
`
`