Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 2 of 8
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS - WACO DIVISION
`
` CASE NO. 6:21-CV-01101-ADA
`
`Page 1
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` -vs-
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
` Deposition of MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES
`
` Monday, July 25, 2022 - 2:00 P.M. EDT
`
`Reported by:
`
`S. Arielle Santos
`
`Job No.: 5236
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES:
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:
`BY - SETH R. HASENOUR, ESQ.
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`shasenour@raklaw.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR APPLE AND WITNESS:
`BY - DANIEL RICHARDS, ESQ.
`ROPES & GRAY
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Daniel.richards@ropesgray.com
`
`Page 5
`
` MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES, Testifies under
` penalty of perjury as follows:
` THE WITNESS: I do.
`
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q Good afternoon.
` Could you state your full
` name for the record?
` A Michael Caloyannides.
` Q And where are you located
` today?
` A In Herndon, Virginia.
` Q Approximately how many times
` have you previously been deposed?
` A Oh, I will say well over a
` hundred.
` Q And have you been deposed in
` well over 100 patent cases?
` A Most of them were patent
` cases. It's a very small percentage were
` not.
` Q So you understand that you're
` testifying under oath today just as if you
` were in a court of law?
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` JULY 25, 2022
` 2:00 P.M. EDT
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION of MICHAEL
`CALOYANNIDES, before S. Arielle Santos, Certified
`Court Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter and
`Notary Public.
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX
`
` MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES PAGE
` BY MR. HASENOUR 5
` BY MR. RICHARDS 127
`
` CALOYANNIDES EXHIBITS MARKED - ATTACHED
`
` Caloyannides Exhibit 1 - U.S. Patent 9
` No. 8,174,360
` Caloyannides Exhibit 2 - Declaration of 17
` Dr. Michael Caloyannides
` Regarding Claim Construction
` for U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360
` Caloyannides Exhibit 3 - Prosecution 119
` History for U.S. Patent No.
` 8,174,3260
`
`1 2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`Page 110
`
`Page 111
`
` the phases?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Calls for speculation.
` THE WITNESS: Two signals can
` drift in phase for any one of
` multitude of reasons: oscillator
` drift, relative motion. These are
` the two that come primarily to
` mind.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q If there is a change in the
` frequency of the transmission oscillator,
` can that result in the output of a control
` figure in Figure 5?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: If there is a
` change in the frequency of the
` transmission oscillator, Figure 5,
` which detects, again, phases, would
` detect that there's a shift in the
` phases getting out of Box 61 and
` 63, and the phase comparator, you
` say, oh, there's a change in phase.
` Then if that phase happens at
`
`Page 112
`
` Q So the result is that that
` output signal is triggered when there's a
` change in the frequency of the
` transmission oscillator, correct?
` A You said the result. Again,
` it's a phased detection circuitry which
` triggers when phase changes and then
` processes the signal and gives a control
` signal out saying something changed.
` Q And that change can be a
` result of a change in the frequency of the
` transmission oscillator there.
` A But that's not Figure 5.
` Figure 5 does phase changes, and detects
` phase changes and directs when there's a
` phase change.
` Q The phase change occurs when
` there's a change in the frequency of the
` transmission oscillator, correct?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Well, when a
` frequency changes in inevitably
` involves phase changes.
` Inevitably.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` a sufficiently low rate, then to
` make it through the low-pass
` filter. And then from that point
` on, it goes to the differentiator
` and the threshold switch, which
` would result in a control signal
` going out.
` But again, it's a phase
` comparator system. It's not a
` frequency comparator.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q So Figure 5 uses a phase
` comparator system to ascertain a change in
` the frequency of the transmission
` oscillator, correct?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: Figure 5 uses
` phase comparator to compare phases.
` That's it.
` Then it goes beyond that and
` claims to perform a differentiator
` and differentiation, and feeds that
` into a threshold switch.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
`
`Page 113
`
` So when phase changes are
` detected and an alarm is caused by
` Box 67, it stands to reason that if
` there is a frequency change, that
` would also result in a phase
` change, which is not the primary
` function of the device in Figure 5.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q So a change in frequency can
` be detected using a phase comparator
` system?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Misstates testimony.
` THE WITNESS: A frequency
` change will result in a phase
` change. A phase change can be
` detected with a phase locked loop
` implementation which is what is
` happening here.
` MR. HASENOUR: Let's take a
` break.
` (Whereupon a Recess Commenced
` at 4:01 p.m. and Testimony
` Recommenced at 4:09 p.m. EDT.)
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`29 (Pages 110 to 113)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`Page 114
`
`Page 115
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q I will ask you to turn to
` column 4, line 12 of the patent. And if
` you can review that paragraph.
` A Give me a second. Column 4,
` line 12?
` Q Yes.
` A The measuring device is
` connected to the coil and detects a
` property of the transmission oscillator
` formed with the coil. It can in
` particular be of the type as described in
` the stated German patent application, blah
` blah blah.
` Q Did you review that German
` patent application?
` A The German patent
` application? No, I have not.
` Q Did you consider it at all in
` forming your opinions in your declaration?
` A Considering it's only in
` German, no, I have not.
` Q You would agree the
` specification here says that an example of
` the measuring device is described in that
` German patent application?
`
`Page 116
`
` patent is incorporated by
` reference.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q You would agree a POSITA
` would understand that the structure in
` that patent is clearly linked to the
` measuring device as Claim 1?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form. Calls for legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I am not
` an attorney I have not --
` (Reporter Clarification.)
` THE WITNESS: I am not an
` attorney and I have no answer to
` that.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q Is there any reason you
` believe a POSITA would not understand the
` structure in that German patent
` application to be clearly linked to the
` measuring device of Claim 1?
` MR. RICHARDS: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: You're asking
` for a legal question. I have no
` answer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't see that
` wording there. I don't see that
` wording anywhere.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q You have no reason to believe
` that the measuring device described in
` that patent application satisfies the
` claim limitation of Claim 1 for the
` measuring device?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: Not without
` having read the patent, I have no
` opinion.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q Would you agree a POSITA
` would understand that that German patent
` application is incorporated by reference
` in the context here?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I agree
` the patent -- I'm sorry, the German
`
`Page 117
`
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q Do you have any technical
` understanding why a POSITA would not
` understand that?
` A Not having seen the patent, I
` have no comment one way or the other.
` Q You testified earlier today
` that you reviewed the prosecution history
` for the '360 patent, correct?
` A Yes. Sometime back, yes.
` Q You would agree that there
` was nowhere in that file history where
` either the applicant or the examiner
` suggested that the claimed measuring
` device was a means-plus function term?
` A Again, I am not an attorney.
` But my understanding about means-plus
` function is what was provided to me by my
` attorney, which is stated in my
` declaration, as to why I believe it is a
` means-plus function.
` Q You didn't identify anything
` in your declaration from the prosecution
` history that suggested that that term,
` measuring device, is means-plus function,
`
`30 (Pages 114 to 117)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`Page 122
`
`Page 123
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, if
` you are asking me to design a
` circuit, I could do it. Certainly
` not under the pressure of the --
` (Reporter Clarification.)
` THE WITNESS: Not under the
` pressure of an under oath
` deposition.
` I can sit down with paper and
` pencil and design one. But if you
` are asking me to do it right here
` and right now, it cannot be done.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q The next sentence I have
` highlighted here says, "None of these
` ports are shown described as being used to
` issue a circuit power down command or to
` power down a circuit."
` Do you see that?
` A I do.
` Q With respect to the argument
` presented on this page, do you see any
` discussion of the control signal recited
` in Claim 1?
`
`Page 124
`
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q Could an interrupt be an
` example of a control signal?
` A You're asking a hypothetical
` question. Out of the context of the
` patent, yes, an interrupt signal could
` actually perform a control function, yes.
` Q Are you aware of any other
` examples or formats that could be used as
` a control signal in the context of Claim
` 1?
` A Again, you are asking me to
` do things that require me to sit down and
` ponder this. I could not tell you on the
` spot.
` Q Would the simple act of
` activating a switch be the same as the
` control signal in Claim 1?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: Simple act of
` activating a switch being the same
` as what?
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q As the control signal in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A Based on what you have
` highlighted here, and I have not read the
` whole page, no, I do not.
` Q What properties must the
` claimed control signal in Claim 1 have
` beyond any generic signal?
` A What properties -- say that
` again.
` Q What properties must the
` claimed control signal in Claim 1 have
` beyond any generic signal?
` A That depends on the
` circuitry, depends on the technology. It
` depends on a number of factors. It's not
` something I can opine on right there --
` here and there on the spot.
` Q Based on your review of the
` specification, there's nothing that jumped
` out at you as any particular property the
` claimed control signal must have?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: Nothing jumped
` out at me. Doesn't mean there's
` nothing there.
`
`Page 125
`
` Claim 1.
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: Obviously would
` not be the same, they are
` different. But could it have a
` relatable function? Yes.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q In what context would it have
` a relatable function?
` A Well, I mean, if they are
` both intended to perform a given function,
` then I suppose one could say they are both
` related to the extent they are both
` intended to perform a certain function.
` Now, how they go about doing
` that, I would have to study the situation
` individually and tell you.
` Q Would the signal need to
` include a command in order to be a control
` signal in Claim 1?
` MR. RICHARDS: Objection.
` Form.
` THE WITNESS: That is a
` semantic question. It's not a
`
`32 (Pages 122 to 125)
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`Page 126
`
`Page 127
`
` MR. HASENOUR: I will pass the
` witness.
` MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. I
` just have a couple of quick
` clarifications, follow-up
` questions.
`
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. RICHARDS:
` Q Dr. Caloyannides, in
` preparing your opinion in your
` declaration, what materials did you
` consider?
` A I considered the patent, the
` declaration, the patent prosecution
` history, which I had read sometime back,
` and essentially more than half a century
` of experience that inevitably comes to
` mind comes to bear.
` MR. RICHARDS: Thank you.
` Counsel, if we can quickly
` take down the exhibit that you have
` on display right now. Thank you.
` BY MR. RICHARDS:
` Q In formulating your opinion
`
`Page 129
`
` Q Do you remember counsel
` asking you questions about Figure 5
` earlier today?
` A I do.
` Q What is being monitored in
` Figure 5?
` A Figure 5 monitors phases of
` the two oscillators, 60 and 62, and
` compares the two in item number 64.
` Q Does Figure 5 show anything
` that monitors frequencies?
` A No.
` MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. No
` further questions.
` MR. HASENOUR: No questions.
` (Whereupon Testimony Concluded
` at 4:27 p.m. EDT.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` technical question.
` BY MR. HASENOUR:
` Q Is there a difference between
` a command and a control signal?
` A Again, I am not a
` semanticist. I cannot answer that
` question as a technologist.
` Q Is there any technical
` difference between a command and a control
` signal?
` A It depends on the context.
` In this case, I don't know what the
` context is, so I cannot tell you.
` Q In the context of Claim 1,
` the control signal in Claim 1.
` A A control signal can be
` interpreted as a command, and a command
` can be interpreted as a control signal.
` This does not mean they are identical.
` Q What is the technical
` difference between the two?
` A Now you're asking me for
` subtleties I would have to think about. I
` cannot tell you again on the spur of the
` moment.
`
`Page 128
`
` in your declaration, did you take into
` consideration the contents of any specific
` prior art references?
` A Any specific prior art
` references? Not the German patent.
` Trying to remember if I looked at anything
` else. If they are not listed in my
` declaration, I do not recall offhand.
` Q In formulating your opinion
` in your declaration, you did not render
` any opinions as to the content of any
` specific prior art reference, right?
` A No, I did not.
` Q In formulating your opinion
` in your declaration, have you formulated
` any opinions with respect to any
` motivations to combine difference prior
` art references?
` A No, I was not asked to do
` that and I did not do that.
` Q Dr. Caloyannides, if we can
` turn back to Figure 5 of the '360 patent.
` A Give me one second.
` Yes, I have it in front of
` me.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`33 (Pages 126 to 129)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 49-2 Filed 07/28/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`Page 130
`
`Page 131
`
` ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
` STATE OF ___________
` COUNTY OF __________
`
` I, the undersigned, hereby
` certify that I have read the transcript
` of my testimony taken under oath in my
` deposition; that the transcript is a true
` and complete and correct record of my
` testimony, and that the answers on the
` record as given by me are true and
` correct.
`
` _______________________
` MICHAEL CALOYANNIDES
`
` Signed and subscribed to
` before me this _______ day of
` ______________, 20__.
`
` _____________________________
` Notary Public
`
` I, S. Arielle Santos,
` Certified Shorthand Reporter, Certified
` LiveNote Reporter do hereby certify:
` That prior to being examined, the witness
` named in the forgoing deposition, was by
` me duly sworn to testify the truth, the
` whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
` That said deposition was taken before me
` at the time and place set forth and was
` taken down by me in shorthand and
` thereafter reduced to computerized
` transcription under my direction and
` supervision, and I hereby certify the
` foregoing deposition is a full, true and
` correct transcript of my shorthand notes
` so taken.
` I further certify that I am neither
` counsel for nor related to any party to
` said action nor in anywise interested in
` the outcome thereof.
`
` ____________________________________
` S. Arielle Santos, CCR, CLR
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 132
`
` *** ERRATA SHEET ***
`CASE: Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
`DATE: July 25, 2022
`WITNESS: Michael Caloyannides
`JOB NO.: 5253
` PAGE/LINE CHANGE REASON
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
` ______________________________________________________
`
` ___________________________
`
` Michael Caloyannides
`
` Subscribed and sworn to before me
`
` this ____ day of ____________, 20__.
`
` _______________________________
` Notary Public
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`34 (Pages 130 to 132)
`
`