`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 321-4 Filed 02/23/22 Page1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 321-4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
` PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA )
`
` LLC, )
`
` )
`
` Plaintiff, )
`
` )
`
` vs. ) Case No.
`
` ) 1:19-cv-11586-IT
`
` FITBIT, INC., )
`
` )
`
` Defendant. )
`
` CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
` Videotaped Deposition of
`
` THOMAS L. MARTIN, Ph.D.
`
` Conducted Remotely
`
` Tuesday, February 1, 2022
`
` 8:59 a.m. EST
`
`Job No. CS5029507
`
`800-567-8658
`
`973-410-4098
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 321-4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`Page 2
`
` The videotaped deposition of
`
` THOMAS L. MARTIN, Ph.D., conducted remotely,
`
` was stenographically reported by Lisa A.
`
` Knight, Registered Diplomate Reporter,
`
` Certified Realtime Reporter, and Realtime
`
` Systems Administrator.
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`800-567-8658
`
`973-410-4098
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 321-4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` (Appearing remotely)
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
` JOHN W. CUSTER, ESQUIRE
` FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
` 111 Huntington Avenue
` Suite 2500
` Boston, Massachusetts 02199
` 617.226.3148
` jcuster@foley.com
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
` DAVID J. SHAW, ESQUIRE
` DESMARAIS LLP
` 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
` Suite 200
` Washington, District of Columbia 20006
` 202.451.4900
` dshaw@desmaraisllp.com
`
` HENRY L. ARD, ESQUIRE
` DESMARAIS LLP
` 230 Park Avenue
` New York, New York 10169
` 212.351.3400
` hard@desmaraisllp.com
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` MICHAEL BARANKOVICH, Videographer
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`800-567-8658
`
`973-410-4098
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 321-4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`Page 306
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` substantially similar to each other. So the
`
` tech -- sorry. Technically comparable
`
` without being substantially similar.
`
` MR. CUSTER: Okay. I have no
`
` further questions.
`
` FURTHER EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. SHAW:
`
` Q. As you've used the phrase
`
` "technically comparable" in your opinion that
`
` the '191 and '377 patents are technically
`
` comparable, what does the phrase "technically
`
` comparable" mean in that context, Doctor?
`
` MR. CUSTER: Objection to the
`
` extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`
` A. So, you know, as I've laid out
`
` in the expert report, those two patents
`
` used -- they were a continuation of the same
`
` application. The specifications were nearly
`
` identical, in terms of both the text and
`
` drawings. And they were directed towards the
`
` same general type of technology, in terms of
`
` monitoring health and exercise parameters.
`
` (Simultaneous crosstalk.)
`
` Q. You -- oh, I'm sorry. Go
`
`800-567-8658
`
`973-410-4098
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`