Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-IT
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DISCLOSURE OF DR. THOMAS L. MARTIN, PH.D
`
`JUNE 5, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 45
`
`[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................3
`
`OPINIONS TO BE EXPRESSED AND THE BASES AND REASONS FOR
`THOSE OPINIONS ...........................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art.................................................................6
`
`‘007 Patent: Computing athletic performance feedback data from a
`series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by a GPS receiver is not
`indefinite. ................................................................................................................7
`
`’233 Patent: “governing information transmitted between the first
`personal device and the second device.” ............................................................12
`
`III. RESERVATION ..............................................................................................................16
`
`IV. COMPENSATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .......................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Philips North America LLC
`
`(“Philips”) for this matter. In particular, I have been asked to provide expert opinions on
`
`testimony on technical matters and with regard to what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand with respect to certain patents at issue in this case. These opinions are set forth
`
`below, and I may provide testimony in response to any expert testimony advanced by
`
`Fitbit, Inc. as well.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I am a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
`2.
`
`Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, more commonly known as “Virginia Tech”
`
`where I have been employed since 2001. I was previously an Assistant Professor at the
`
`University of Alabama in Huntsville from 1999-2001. A current copy of my curriculum vitae is
`
`attached as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`As discussed in my curriculum vitae, I have more than 25 years of experience in
`
`the area of wearable technologies, with a particular emphasis on activity monitoring technology.
`
`In 1992, I began working on wearable computers for campus tour guides using the Global
`
`Positioning System (GPS) and aircraft maintenance. Since that time, I have conducted research
`
`on a wide variety of wearable computing topics and applications, including electronic textiles,
`
`ambulatory medical monitoring of physiological data such as heart rate, activity classification
`
`based upon measuring a person’s movements using sensors such as accelerometers and
`
`gyroscopes, and personal protective equipment using GPS. I have also been affiliated with the
`
`International Symposium on Wearable Computers since 1998, having served as general chair,
`
`technical program co-chair (3 times), technical program committee member, and steering
`
`committee member.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`My education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1992 from the University of Cincinnati, a Master of Science degree in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering in 1994 from Carnegie Mellon University, and a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering in 1999 from Carnegie Mellon University.
`
`5.
`
`My research areas include wearable computing (including for health and activity
`
`monitoring), pervasive computing, interdisciplinary design teams for smart devices, and
`
`electronic textiles (e-textiles). I am the co-director of the Virginia Tech E-textiles Laboratory,
`
`which conducts research on hardware and software architectures for e-textile applications,
`
`including both smart garments and large-scale fabrics such as home furnishings. Since joining
`
`Virginia Tech, I have been the Principal Investigator or co-Principal Investigator on over $6.5M
`
`in external research funding. My current research is focused on developing computational
`
`architectures and design tools for electronic textiles that will allow domain experts to develop
`
`intelligent garments and home furnishings that will work reliably across a range of populations,
`
`environments and applications. My goal is to develop intelligent fabrics that look and feel like
`
`normal fabric, while providing sensing and computing platforms that fit unobtrusively into a
`
`person’s normal daily routine. Reviews of my proposals stated that my research is “ground-
`
`breaking,” “highly innovative,” “full of exciting potential,” and “already showing a clear
`
`impact”; I was said to be “among a small group of pioneers” in electronic textiles. In 2006, I was
`
`one of 20 NSF researchers to receive the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and
`
`Engineers (PECASE) for my research on electronic textiles for wearable computing.
`
`6.
`
`One of my ongoing research thrusts is electronic textile garments for monitoring a
`
`person’s motions using a variety of sensors attached to the clothing, including accelerometers,
`
`gyroscopes, magnetometers, and bend sensors. Applications of this research include sports
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`medicine, treatment of motion-related injuries, physical therapy for stroke victims, and
`
`monitoring patients’ physiological responses during normal daily routines. I have recently
`
`completed a National Science Foundation Smart Health and Wellbeing grant to develop e-textile
`
`garments for ambulatory medical monitoring. These garments simultaneously monitor both the
`
`patient’s physiological characteristics and movements, to annotate physiological data with
`
`information about the patient’s activities, which are classified based upon measuring the
`
`movements of the patient’s body segments (torso, arms, and legs) with wearable sensors. The
`
`goal is to allow medical personnel to see the relationship of daily activities and physiological
`
`response and to use the activities to determine when physiological data is collected, providing a
`
`greater insight into the patient’s state of health and the dynamics of their wellbeing. I am
`
`currently working with colleagues at the University of Minnesota and University of Delaware on
`
`a National Science Foundation grant to develop soft exoskeletons for children with mobility
`
`impairments of their arms; my portion of the work is to monitor the movements of the arms
`
`using stitched stretch sensors and inertial measurement units (IMUs). In earlier grants from the
`
`National Science Foundation, dating back to 2002, my colleagues and I investigated a number of
`
`medical applications of e-textile garments, including gait analysis (the characteristics of a
`
`person’s walking movements) and simultaneous monitoring of a person’s movements and
`
`physiological data.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to medical applications, I investigated using the Global Positioning
`
`System (GPS) in wearable technology for personal protective equipment in industrial settings.
`
`My previous research in this area includes proof-of-concepts of a vest that uses the Global
`
`Positioning System (GPS) to alert workers-on-foot at roadside construction sites when there is an
`
`imminent risk of being struck by a passing car, as well as a hard hat for construction workers that
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`can alert them of dangerous blood levels of carbon monoxide, the sensor for which senses an
`
`individual’s blood composition to provide a personalized warning.
`
`8.
`
`My research projects have also often involved a wireless communications
`
`component. For example, most of the e-textile prototypes created in my lab have included a
`
`Bluetooth device to provide wireless communication off the garment to nearby devices such as a
`
`laptop, e.g., for visualizing the data being collected by the garment.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to my funded research projects, I have supervised numerous student
`
`design projects related to wearable technologies, including activity monitoring, location tracking,
`
`and wireless communication since 2002, when I first offered my course entitled “Wearable and
`
`Ubiquitous Computing” at Virginia Tech.
`
`II.
`
`OPINIONS TO BE EXPRESSED AND THE BASES AND REASONS FOR
`THOSE OPINIONS
`In connection with formulating my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed
`10.
`
`the patents at issue in this matter, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,007 (the ’007 Patent),
`
`7,088,233 (the ’233 Patent), 8,277,377 (the ’377 Patent), and 6,976,958 (the ’958 Patent).
`
`However, I have focused my attention on the ’007 Patent and the ’233 Patent, as well as
`
`their specifications and prosecution histories, as those are the patents on which I am
`
`specifically offering opinions below. I have also reviewed certain publicly available
`
`information, including materials cited herein. A comprehensive list of the materials
`
`considered in preparing this disclosure is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`A.
`11.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the patented
`
`inventions as of the earliest claimed priority date on the face of each patent, is an
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`individual with a.) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or computer science and b.) some experience with activity and/or health
`
`monitoring technologies, or the equivalent thereof. For the ’007 Patent a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would additionally have experience with GPS technologies, while
`
`for the ’233 Patent a person of ordinary skill in the art would also have experience with
`
`security in the context of wireless communications. I would have been, and am, an
`
`individual of at least ordinary skill in the art with respect to all of the patents at issue as
`
`of the earliest priority dates listed on each patent.
`
`12. As used above, the term “or the equivalent thereof” is intended to mean that
`
`the required levels of experience may be met by varying means, such as through
`
`educational experience – e.g., a person of ordinary skill could potentially have less
`
`industry experience but some other relevant educational experience or vice versa.
`
`B.
`
`13.
`
`‘007 Patent: Computing athletic performance feedback data from a
`series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by a GPS receiver is not
`indefinite.
`I understand that Philips contends that the term “means for computing
`
`athletic performance feedback data from the series of time stamped waypoints obtained
`
`by said GPS receiver” should be construed as “a processor (and equivalents thereof) that
`
`determines any of the following from a series of time stamped waypoints obtained by
`
`said GPS receiver during an exercise session: elapsed distance of an athlete; current or
`
`average speed of an athlete; current or average pace of an athlete.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I also understand that Fitbit contends that the specification and claim language
`
`fails to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art an algorithm sufficient to perform the
`
`function recited in this claim element.
`
`15.
`
`I further understand that, if the claim were interpreted as requiring an algorithm
`
`more detailed than what is already recited in the claim language itself, such an algorithm may be
`
`expressed in any understandable terms (including prose, a flow chart, or formula) and that a
`
`disclosure need only be adequate to render the bounds of the claim understandable to one of
`
`ordinary skill. I further understand that any supporting algorithm need not be so particularized
`
`such that it would do away with implementation choices that a skilled artisan may make.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, having read and understood the specification of the ‘007 Patent
`
`and claims 1 and 21, combined with my experience in the field as detailed above, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the bounds of claims 1 and 21.
`
`17.
`
`First, the claim language itself is not unbounded. To the extent a supporting
`
`algorithm is necessary, the claim language itself identifies algorithmic details in that athletic
`
`performance feedback data must be computed from a series of time-stamped waypoints.
`
`18.
`
`To the extent the Court construes the term “means for computing athletic
`
`performance feedback data from the series of time stamped waypoints obtained by said
`
`GPS receiver” as “a processor (and equivalents thereof) that determines any of the
`
`following from a series of time stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver during
`
`an exercise session: elapsed distance of an athlete; current or average speed of an athlete;
`
`current or average pace of an athlete,” as Philips proposes, then the specification and
`
`claims also sufficiently discloses an algorithm for computing elapsed distance, current or
`
`average speed, or current or average pace from a series of time-stamped GPS waypoints.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`Each of these calculations involves simple arithmetic that would be understood by
`
`someone with a high school level understanding of geometry and trigonometry, let alone
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`19.
`
`For example, determining elapsed distance from a series of time-stamped
`
`waypoints simply involves computing the distance between each point, and adding them up for
`
`the overall series. The distance between two points is provided by the distance formula, which
`
`most students in high school are familiar with, and which is provided below:
`
`
`
`20.
`
`That those in high school understand the distance formula, and that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand it, is demonstrated by exemplary online tutorials
`
`intended for students in high school and lower grades: https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-middle-
`
`school-math-grade-8/section/7.5/ and https://www.ck12.org/geometry/applications-of-the-
`
`distance-formula/lesson/Distance-Formula-in-the-Coordinate-Plane-GEOM/. Furthermore, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, who would have significantly more relevant training and
`
`knowledge with respect to accomplishing mathematical calculations and some familiarity with
`
`calculations based on GPS waypoints, would nevertheless understand that the simple distance
`
`formula would be used to calculate distance as contemplated in the ’007 Patent for the distances
`
`that an athlete would reasonably be expected to cover.
`
`21.
`
`By using the distance formula, a person of ordinary skill would take GPS
`
`waypoints consisting of two pairs of latitude and longitude values (lat1, lon1 and lat2, lon2,
`
`respectively; typically in lat/long format in degrees). The latitude and longitude values would
`
`first be converted from degrees to radians by multiplying each value by π/180°, which again
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`would be understood by someone with a high school knowledge of geometry and trigonometry,
`
`as demonstrated by online tutorials intended for students in high school:
`
`https://www.ck12.org/trigonometry/conversion-between-degrees-and-radians/lesson/Angles-in-
`
`Radians-and-Degrees-PCALC/ and https://www.purplemath.com/modules/radians.htm.
`
`Approximating the shape of the Earth as a sphere with radius R, and with the latitude/longitude
`
`pairs represented in radians, then the distance between these two GPS waypoints could be
`
`calculated by treating the earth’s surface as a plane and using the distance formula above , with
`
`(x2-x1)= R×(lon2-lon1)×cos((lat1+lat2)/2) and (y2-y1)= R×(lat2-lat1). The units of the resulting
`
`distance would be based upon the units that were used for the Earth’s radius, e.g., 6371
`
`kilometers or 3958.8 miles. Examples abound demonstrating how one of ordinary skill would
`
`have applied this high-school level math to calculate distance from a series of GPS waypoints,
`
`including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_distance#Flat-surface_formulae,
`
`https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html, and
`
`http://www.faqs.org/faqs/geography/infosystems-faq/ at Q5.1. I note that the infosystems-faq
`
`page states that question Q5.1 is from a post on the Internet newsgroup comp.infosystems.gis in
`
`October 1996, which demonstrates how common this knowledge would be to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art when the ‘007 Patent was filed. While there may be more complicated
`
`methods for measuring distance over the surface of the earth over long distances (e.g. a ship
`
`navigating across the ocean), where a planar approach might introduce more error than desired,
`
`the approach more than suffices for the very short distances one would be tracking between a
`
`series of GPS waypoints while performing some form of athletic activity. It is also the approach
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would understand from the disclosure of the specification.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would also understand how to apply simple math to
`
`determine average and current speeds and paces from a series of time-stamped waypoints. Once
`
`distance is calculated, speed is simply the measure of distance over time, which is grade school
`
`level math:
`
`
`
`23.
`
`That those in grade school would understand how to calculate speed, and that
`
`therefore a person of ordinary skill would surely understand the same, as demonstrated by the
`
`following online tutorials intended for middle school audiences:
`
`https://www.ck12.org/c/physics/speed/lesson/Speed-MS-PS/ and
`
`https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-
`
`2.0/section/9.4/primary/lesson/speed-ms-ps.
`
`24. Meanwhile, athletic pace (e.g. “running a 10 minute mile”) is simply the inverse
`
`of speed and would be calculated by dividing time by distance—which is also a straightforward
`
`and commonly understood application of simply math that a person of ordinary skill would also
`
`understand.
`
`25.
`
`For speed and pace, a person of ordinary skill would understand that a current
`
`speed or pace could be determined for a particular point in time, or that an average could be
`
`determined by averaging across prior measurements. Determining an average (also known as the
`
`“arithmetic mean”) is also a simple mathematical concept known to those in grade school, let
`
`alone a person of ordinary skill in the art, which involves taking the values of a set and dividing
`
`by the number of values in said set. That this would be known to those in grade school is
`
`demonstrated by the following online tutorials intended for grade school audiences:
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`https://www.mathsisfun.com/mean.html and https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-probability-and-
`
`statistics-concepts/section/5.1/
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Fitbit contends that “athletic performance feedback data” in the
`
`patent should be construed such that “time remaining” and “miles remaining” should be included
`
`as exemplary forms of “athletic performance feedback data.” These measures would be
`
`derivative of the distance and speed determinations described above, and would require that a
`
`user of the claimed invention have input some sort of destination end point. To calculate miles
`
`remaining, a person of ordinary skill would simply calculate the distance from the most recent
`
`GPS waypoint to said endpoint as described above. I note that this calculation would not utilize
`
`a series of time-stamped GPS waypoints as required by the claim, but rather only the most recent
`
`waypoint. If the user were able to enter a series of waypoints for their intended path instead of
`
`just a destination end point, then a person of ordinary skill would also simply use the distance to
`
`the next remaining waypoint from the current location and add it to the sum of the distances of
`
`the remaining waypoints along the path to find the total distance remaining. Again, however,
`
`this also is not described in Claims 1 and 21 of the patent. To determine time remaining, one
`
`would simply divide the distance remaining by the average speed of the user for the exercise
`
`session, which would be determined via simple arithmetic as described above. In neither case
`
`would I find the addition of these terms to the proposed construction as somehow affecting the
`
`ability of a person of ordinary skill to understand the claim, and my opinion on the definiteness
`
`of the claim would not change were “miles remaining” and “time remaining” added to the claim.
`
`27.
`
`C.
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that claim 1 of the ’007 Patent is not indefinite.
`
`’233 Patent: “governing information transmitted between the first
`personal device and the second device.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The ‘233 Patent describes a communication system and method for a personal
`
`device. A key aspect of this communication system is security, particularly in view of the fact
`
`that the patent contemplates that the system of claim 1 would be used in medical settings. To
`
`that end, the patent explains how it provides a system with “multiple levels of prioritization,
`
`authentication of a person (task, step, process or order), and confirmation via interrogation of
`
`person, device, or related monitor.” (See ’233 Patent at Abstract).
`
`29.
`
`Of particular note is the embodiment of Figure 5 of the patent, which describes a
`
`personal device associated with a victim V. (See ’233 Patent at 11:49-53) In the situation
`
`described in Figure 5, the personal device of victim V may be in short-range wireless
`
`communication with a second device of a bystander B, via, for example BLUETOOTH. (See
`
`’233 Patent at 11:54-66.) The personal device of victim V can then communicate with other
`
`aspects of the network (e.g. a dispatcher or responding personnel) via the second device of
`
`bystander B in order to facilitate medical assistance in some form to victim V. (See ‘233 Patent
`
`at Fig. 5 and 12:1-37.) Important in this embodiment is the idea that “the ability of various
`
`entities spread around a network to receive and/or transmit to and control the personal device
`
`100 requires some measure of security.” (’233 Patent 13:27-30.) To that end, the patent goes on
`
`to describe how
`
`“Only authorized agents should be allowed access to device 100.
`For example, in the example shown in FIG. 5, only responding
`personnel RP (such as trained paramedics) who are on the scene of
`the event may be allowed to send a command to the personal device
`100 causing the personal device 100 to dispense medication to the
`victim. Certainly, the bystander B should not be allowed this level
`of access, even though the bystander B’s personal wireless device
`600 may be acting as an intermediary in communication from the
`personal device 100 to the dispatcher D.”
`
`
`(’233 Patent at 13:30-41.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 14 of 45
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
` This disclosure demonstrates that, beyond the communications protocols that
`
`might be utilized to implement a short-range wireless communication scheme between the first
`
`personal device of victim V and a second device of bystander B (or a second device of
`
`responding personnel RP once on site), an additional level of security is required that controls
`
`the transmission of information between the devices.
`
`31.
`
`This additional level of security, one that specifically controls the transmission of
`
`information, is reflected in the last element of claim 1:
`
`A bi-directional wireless communication system comprising:
`
`
`(a) a first personal device, the first personal device further
`comprising:
`
`(i) a processor;
`(ii) a memory;
`(iii) a power supply;
`(iv) at least one detector input; and
`(v) a short-range bi-directional wireless
`communications module;
`(b) a second device communicating with the first device,
`the second device having a short-range bi-directional wireless
`communications module compatible with the short-range bi-
`directional wireless communications module of the first device;
`and
`
`(c) a security mechanism governing information
`transmitted between the first personal device and the second
`device.
`
`32.
`
`The claim specifically requires that information transmitted between the first
`
`personal device and the second device be governed in a fashion consistent with the description
`
`in the specification—i.e. that the transmission of information between the first personal device
`
`and the second device be controlled in some manner.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that Fitbit has taken the position that “governing information
`
`transmitted between the first personal device and the second device” can be accomplished by any
`
`of the abstract forms of “security” described in the patent, including encryption. (See ’233
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`Patent at 13:13:41-14:10.) I disagree, as many of the forms of “security” identified in the
`
`specification do not govern or control the transmission of information from one device to another
`
`as contemplated, for example, in the embodiment of Figure 5. For example, encryption is a
`
`technique that may protect information, but it does not govern or control its transmission.
`
`Encryption would not control the transmission of information from the personal device of victim
`
`V to bystander B. Meanwhile, an implementation of authentication is a form of security that can
`
`indeed govern or control transmission of information from the first personal device from victim
`
`V to a second device of either bystander B or responding personnel RP as contemplated in the
`
`embodiment of Fig. 5, since transmission to the unauthenticated bystander B could be disallowed
`
`while transmission to authenticated responding personnel RP would be enabled. Important in
`
`such an authentication scheme is the fact that the authentication scheme is not limited simply to
`
`establishing a short-range wireless communication link between the first device and a second
`
`device (such as what would be provided by BLUETOOTH). Rather, such an authentication
`
`scheme would sit on top of any protocol-level schemes, and would actually control the
`
`transmission of information from one device to another. That is to say that a determination
`
`would need to be made as to whether a transmission is allowed, regardless of what protocol
`
`underlying communications may utilize. This further accomplishes the goal of the patent to
`
`provide multiple levels of security/authentication/confirmation for such sensitive applications
`
`involving medical data.
`
`34.
`
`Accordingly, in my opinion the construction proposed by Philips is consistent
`
`with what a person of ordinary skill would understand the term “governing information
`
`transmitted between the first personal device and the second device” to mean in light of the
`
`context of the specification, while avoiding any attempts to conflate the term with a broader
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 16 of 45
`
`
`
`understanding of “security” that is inconsistent with the specification and the nature of how the
`
`claimed system would function.
`
`35.
`
`Additionally, I note that my understanding of the term is also consistent with
`
`dictionary definitions of the term. Collins English Dictionary equates the term as “govern” with
`
`“control,” as does Merriam Webster’s online dictionary. (See Ex. C, Collins English Dictionary
`
`definition of govern (“to control or determine”); Ex. D, Merriam Webster definition of govern
`
`(“to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of”).)
`
`III. RESERVATION
`I expressly reserve the right to modify or supplement this report based upon
`
`36.
`
`any additional information produced or presented to me in this litigation and/or based
`
`upon any rulings by the Court.
`
`37.
`
`I further reserve the right to respond to any facts, opinions, or arguments
`
`presented by any expert witness retained by Fitbit in this matter.
`
`IV. COMPENSATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
`I have been retained by Philips and am being compensated for the time that
`
`38.
`
`I spend on this matter at my regular consulting rate of $400 per hour. My compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the outcome of this litigation.
`
`39.
`
`I have not testified as an expert in trial or by deposition during the past four
`
`years.
`
`40.
`
`If called upon to testify as to my opinion, I may use any of the patents, web
`
`pages, videos, definitions, or other documents or products identified herein or identified
`
`in the attached exhibits, as well as photographs, charts, graphs, schematics, layouts,
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 17 of 45
`Case 1:19-cv-11586—IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 17 of 45
`
`animations, and/or models based upon such documents or materials or that I may
`
`otherwise create, in order to explain my opinion.
`
`June5.2020
`
`$40 1 - Ma,-
`
`l
`. Thomas L. Martin, P 1D
`
`r
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 18 of 45
`Case 1:19-cv-11586—IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 18 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 73-5 Filed 06/05/20 Page 19 of 45
`
`
`
`Thomas L. Martin
`http://www.faculty.ece.vt.edu/tlmartin/
`
`
`Education:
`
`
`
`8/1992-8/1999 Carnegie Mellon University
`Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
`M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering, December 1994.
`Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering, August 1999.
`Advisor: Dr. Daniel P. Siewiorek
`Ph.D. dissertation title: Balancing Batteries, Performance, and Power: System Issues in CPU
`Speed-Setting for Mobile Computing
`
`
`
`
`
`GPA: 4.0/4.0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GPA: 3.9/4.0
`
`
`9/1987-6/1992 University of Cincinnati
`College of Engineering, Cincinnati, Ohio
`B. S. in Electrical Engineering, with optional minor in VLSI Systems Engineering, June 1992.
`Employment:
`2019-present
`Deputy Executive Director, Virginia Tech Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology
`2018-present
`Courtesy faculty appointment, Department of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech
`2015-2019
`Associate Director, Virginia Tech Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology
`2013-present
`Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech.
`2013-2015
`Senior Fellow, Virginia Tech Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology
`2013-present
`Courtesy faculty appointment, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech
`2012-present
`Courtesy faculty appointment, School of Architecture + Design, Virginia Tech.
`2006-2013
`Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech.
`2001-2006
`Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech.
`1999-2001
`Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of
`Alabama in Huntsville.
`
`Honors/Awards:
`Virginia Tech:
`• Virginia Tech Alumni Teaching Award, 2017.
`• Virginia Tech College of Engineering Pete White Award for Innovation in Engineering Education, 2014.
`• Virginia Tech XCaliber Award (team), 2014. This university award is for using technology in education;
`Professor Paola Zellner-Bassett and I were selected for collaborating in her Textile Space course.
`• Best Paper Award for 2012, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, August 2013.
`• First place (tie), Charles W. Steger Design Competition, May 2012, for an interactive architectural textile
`concept developed with Professor Paola Zellner-Bassett from the VT architecture program.
`• Virginia Tech XCaliber Award (team), 2012. This university award is for using technology in education; the
`award was given to the faculty team from the interdisciplinary design course.
`• Virginia Tech Diggs Teach