throbber
Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`October 22, 2014
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
` MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, GOOGLE INC.,
` and APPLE INC.
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
` ARENDI S.A.R.L.
` Patent Owner.
` ____________
` Cases:
`IPR2014-00206 (Patent No. 7,496,854)
`IPR2014-00207 (Patent No. 7,496,854)
`IPR2014-00208 (Patent No. 7,917,843)
`
` Wednesday, October, 22 2014
` 9:29 a.m.
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOHN V. LEVY, Ph.D.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 1
`
`

`
`October 22, 2014
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`4
`
`12
`
` I N D E X
`3 JOHN V. LEVY, Ph.D
`4 DIRECT EXAMINATION PAGE
`5 By Mr. Yap 5
`6 By Mr. Asher 133
`
`789
`
`10 E X H I B I T S
`11 For Identification Page
`12 Exhibit 1013 - Joint Discovery Plan 13
`13 Exhibit 1014 - Scheduling Order 13
`14 Exhibit 1015 - How to programmatically insert
`15 text into Word document 110
`16
`17 *Previously marked exhibits attached.
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`2
`
`123
`
` Deposition of JOHN V. LEVY, Ph.D, taken by
`4 Petitioner at the Offices of Morrison &
`5 Foerster LLP, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest,
`6 Washington, D.C. before Randi J. Garcia, Registered
`7 Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for
`8 the District of Columbia, beginning at approximately
`9 9:29 a.m., when were present on behalf of the
`10 respective parties:
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`3
`
`5
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
`2 COUNSEL FOR
`3 PETITIONER APPLE, INC.
`4 ALEX S. YAP, ESQUIRE
`5 MEHRAN ARJOMAND, ESQUIRE
`6 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`7 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
`8 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`9 (213) 892-5200
`10 ayap@mofo.com
`11 marjomand@mofo.com
`12
`13 COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER, ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`14 ROBERT M. ASHER, ESQUIRE
`15 SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`16 125 Summer Street, 11th Floor
`17 Boston, MA 02110-1618
`18 (617) 443-9292
`19 rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`20
`21 Also Present:
`22 Robert Kent, Esquire
`
`1 Thereupon,
`2 JOHN V. LEVY, Ph.D
`3 after having been first duly sworn, was
`4 examined and testified as follows:
`5 EXAMINATION
`6 BY MR. YAP:
`7 Q Please state your name and address for
`8 the record.
`9 A John Victor Levy. My address is P.O.
`10 Box 1012, Inverness, California 94937.
`11 BY MR. YAP:
`12 Q So I just placed before you deposition
`13 notices for IPR2014-00206, IPR2014-00207, and
`14 IPR2014-00208.
`15 Are you familiar with these documents?
`16 A No.
`17 Q Do you understand that you will be
`18 testifying today for these three proceedings?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q And you have never seen these documents
`21 before?
`22 A That's correct.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`6
`
`1 Q So when I -- for -- for today's
`2 deposition, when I am referring to "these
`3 proceedings," I will be referring to IPR2000 --
`4 2014 -- strike that.
`5 I will be referring to IPR2014-2 --
`6 00206, IPR2014-00207, and IPR2014-0208.
`7 Do you understand?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Okay. So I've placed before you three
`10 declarations submitted in these proceedings for
`11 IPR2014-00206 and IPR2014-00207 regarding the
`12 '854 patent.
`13 You submitted the same declaration for
`14 both of these IPRs, right?
`15 A That's right.
`16 Q And they are both filed as Exhibit 2003.
`17 Do you see that, bottom right-hand corner?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q Okay. And for IPR2014-00208 regarding
`20 the '843 patent, you submitted a different
`21 declaration, correct?
`22 A That's right.
`
`7
`
`1 Q Okay. And it is filed as Exhibit 2002
`2 in that proceeding.
`3 A Correct.
`4 Q And I will refer to that particular
`5 declaration as the '843 declaration, and the
`6 other two declarations filed in the '854 IPR as
`7 the '854 declaration.
`8 A Okay.
`9 Q Do you understand?
`10 A Yes.
`11 Q Thank you.
`12 Now, can you turn to page 35 of the '854
`13 declaration.
`14 MR. ASHER: Do you have page numbers?
`15 THE WITNESS: There are no page numbers
`16 here.
`17 BY MR. YAP:
`18 Q Can you turn to your signature page.
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q Is that your signature on the page?
`21 A Yes, it is.
`22 Q And above that you stated that you
`
`October 22, 2014
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`8
`
`1 declare everything to be true under the penalty
`2 of perjury.
`3 A Yes.
`4 Q Okay. Can you look at the -- and this
`5 is the same for the other '854 declaration,
`6 because they are identical, correct?
`7 A Yes. They are identical. They should
`8 be identical.
`9 Q Yeah. Can you turn to page -- there is
`10 probably no page -- but can you turn to the '843
`11 declaration, the signature page.
`12 Is that your signature right there?
`13 A Yes, it is.
`14 Q Okay. Now, Exhibit B to your
`15 declaration is the same for all three
`16 declarations?
`17 A Yes.
`18 Q And is Exhibit A also the same for all
`19 three declarations?
`20 A Yes.
`21 Q So on the first page of Exhibit B, you
`22 state summary of your experiences. Do you see
`9
`
`1 that? On the top it says, "Summary."
`2 A Yes.
`3 Q And it states that you have been engaged
`4 as an expert in over 50 cases, is that right?
`5 A Yes, it is.
`6 Q Do you need to update any of these
`7 numbers here?
`8 A Oh, well, if I were updating this
`9 litigation support experience document, I would
`10 add -- I would change a few things, but the
`11 numbers only go up.
`12 Q Understood.
`13 And you stated here that you have
`14 provided testimony at Markman -- sorry, scratch
`15 that -- testimony at trial or arbitration in
`16 seven cases.
`17 A Correct.
`18 Q How many of those are at trial and how
`19 many -- what's the breakdown?
`20 A One arbitration case. The remainder at
`21 trial.
`22 Q Okay. Good. And it states here that
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`10
`
`1 you have also submitted expert report or
`2 declaration in 27 cases.
`3 A Correct.
`4 Q Okay. So those are submitted reports?
`5 A I'm sorry?
`6 Q Those are submitted reports or
`7 declarations?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Okay. Good.
`10 Now, in this 50 cases you were engaged
`11 as an expert, are those for testifying or are
`12 they -- do they include consulting?
`13 A They include consulting.
`14 Q Okay. What's the approximate breakdown
`15 there?
`16 A Well, if you're making the distinction
`17 between those cases in which I actually
`18 testified, either in deposition or trial, versus
`19 those which I did not, I actually don't know the
`20 breakdown, but -- I could add them up for you,
`21 but I don't know it off -- offhand.
`22 Q That's fine. Is it 50/50?
`
`October 22, 2014
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` I don't really distinguish between those.
` I do -- I could point out at least one
` that I can remember where I was engaged only in
` pretrial preparation and I did not submit a
` report.
` Q Okay.
` A That was a long time ago.
` Q Okay. Thank you.
` So let's look at your case listings in
` the same exhibit. So in the very first case you
` have here Crossroads Systems v Dot Hill Systems
` Corp. You noted that you're the expert for
` plaintiff Crossroads Systems, and it says here,
` "Expert report and deposition for Markman."
` What does this mean? It means that you
` submitted an expert report?
` A I submitted a expert report for the
` Markman proceedings, and I was deposed for that
` Markman proceeding, and then subsequent to this
` summary, I have actually testified at the
` Markman hearing.
` Q Okay. I am trying to figure out the
`
`11
`
`13
`
`1 A Oh, no. I think, as you can see, the
`2 trial testimony is only seven cases. And as you
`3 know, most cases don't go to trial, so the
`4 majority of cases I have been engaged in, I may
`5 have submitted declarations or a report, but the
`6 majority were not -- did not involve testimony.
`7 Q Okay. So I guess there is a
`8 misunderstanding here. I was looking for the
`9 breakdown between consulting engagements,
`10 meaning you weren't asked to submit a report,
`11 you were just there to, say, help out with
`12 infringement analysis or invalidity analysis
`13 but --
`14 A Yeah.
`15 Q -- there is no need for you to submit
`16 any declarations or reports.
`17 A Okay.
`18 Q Versus one that you would be submitting
`19 a report as or declaration as an expert?
`20 A Well, most of my engagements, of course,
`21 begin as a consulting type of engagement and
`22 then become a testifying engagement later. And
`
`1 terminology here --
`2 A Sure.
`3 Q -- what you meant by "expert report and
`4 deposition."
`5 Okay. Let's look at two pages down
`6 there is a case MonkeyMedia v Apple and
`7 MonkeyMedia v Bonavista, et al.
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q So let me see here, it says that you
`10 submitted an expert report on infringement and
`11 also deposition and testimony at -- at Markman,
`12 is that correct?
`13 A Correct.
`14 Q It also says here the case is awaiting
`15 completion of the re-exam, is that correct?
`16 A Yes.
`17 (Thereupon, Exhibits 1013 and 1014 were
`18 marked for identification purposes.)
`19 BY MR. YAP:
`20 Q So I just placed before you
`21 Exhibit 2013, which is a joint discovery plan in
`22 this MonkeyMedia case against Apple.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`14
`
`1 And Exhibit 2014 is a scheduling order
`2 by the judge in the same case, in the Monkey
`3 Media v Apple case.
`4 Do you see that?
`5 A I see them.
`6 Q Okay. Good. Can you look at
`7 Exhibit 2014, which is the scheduling order, and
`8 can you please read paragraph 13, which is the
`9 last page on page 3.
`10 A I think you meant to say Exhibit 1014?
`11 Q Oh, yes. I apologize.
`12 A Paragraph 13 reads: "The Court will
`13 enter a supplemental scheduling order that sets
`14 trial date and other relevant dates after it
`15 enters its Markman order. The parties should
`16 consult local rules CV-16(E) regarding matters
`17 to be filed in advance of trial. No discovery
`18 other than the discovery described in the
`19 parties' written discovery plan filed on
`20 October 11, 2010 will be conducted before the
`21 Markman hearing except by agreement of the
`22 parties or an order of this Court."
`
`October 22, 2014
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`16
`
`1 A Well, I may have misstated exactly what
`2 kind of expert it was. Perhaps it was on
`3 Markman on claim construction. That would have
`4 been a mistake if I did that. But I definitely
`5 appeared at the Markman hearing and testified
`6 and was cross-examined there.
`7 Q Are there any other stuff that you've
`8 made up or incorrectly provided here in your
`9 declaration?
`10
` A Not that I -- not that I'm aware of.
`11
` Q Okay. Nothing you want to correct in
`12
` your -- your declarations or your CVs at this
`13
` moment?
`14
` A No.
`15
` Q Okay. So let's turn to Exhibit A of
`16
` your declarations. So it states here that
`17
` you're the management consultant of John Levy
`18
` Consulting currently, is that correct?
`19
` A Yes.
`20
` Q Actually, I think somewhere in your
`21
` declaration you state that you're the sole
`22
` proprietor of John Levy Consulting, is that
`
`15
`
`17
`
`1 Q If you look at Exhibit 1013, which is
`2 the joint discovery plan referenced by the
`3 Court. Look at page 3. Right before subsection
`4 C there is a paragraph there. It starts with
`5 "The parties have agreed." Can you read that?
`6 A Just after C, is that right?
`7 Q Just before C, there is a paragraph.
`8 A "The parties have agreed that all other
`9 discovery will be conducted after the Markman
`10
` hearing. Furthermore, discovery after the
`11
` Markman hearing which will relate to all
`12
` allegations in MonkeyMedia's Third Amended
`13
` Complaint and Apple's Answer and Counterclaims
`14
` will be conducted in two phases: Fact discovery
`15
` and expert discovery."
`16
` Q So I can represent to you that fact
`17
` discovery and expert discovery hasn't started in
`18
` the MonkeyMedia case against Apple.
`19
` So looking back at your CV, you state
`20
` that you have submitted an expert report on
`21
` infringement.
`22
` Did you make that up?
`
`1 correct?
`2 A Yes. That is the current form of my
`3 consulting company is a sole proprietorship.
`4 Q Okay. Anyone else works for John Levy
`5 consulting other than you?
`6 A No.
`7 Q So under experience, under John Levy
`8 Consulting you have, I guess, three sentences or
`9 three areas that you -- John Levy Consulting
`10
` provides services for.
`11
` Do you see that?
`12
` A I see the three sentences, yes.
`13
` Q For the last four years, what is the
`14
` breakdown in terms of your services rendered for
`15
` each of the three areas?
`16
` And, actually, do you mind reading the
`17
` three areas out for us. It is easier and we can
`18
` get it on the record.
`19
` A Sure. "Managing development of
`20
` computer, software and storage devices. General
`21
` business consulting for small firms both for
`22
` profit and nonprofit. Expert witness in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`18
`
`1 intellectual property and contract dispute
`2 litigation."
`3 Q So can you tell us what's the breakdown
`4 in terms of your services rendered in the last
`5 four years amongst these three different areas?
`6 A Okay. Just a moment. I want to check
`7 one thing.
`8 Q Sure.
`9 A In the last four years, virtually all of
`10 my consulting has been in expert witness work.
`11 Q Okay. The last sentence here under --
`12 under John Levy Consulting.
`13 A Yes, I was attempting to summarize over
`14 20 years of work as an independent consultant in
`15 these three sentences. So that's why it covers
`16 the various kinds of work.
`17 Q Okay. So this is over 20 years, so over
`18 the last 10 years, what's the breakdown in the
`19 percentage?
`20 A Well, as you'll see on page 10 of my
`21 Exhibit B, there are a variety of clients for
`22 whom I have done various kinds of consulting
`19
`
`1 work listed there. I guess there are five
`2 different engagements -- actually, five
`3 different companies for which I have had
`4 multiple engagements.
`5 Q So is it fair to say that at least
`6 recently, say, four, five -- from four or five
`7 years ago till now, you derived most of your
`8 income from expert witness -- being an expert
`9 witness in intellectual property and contract
`10 dispute litigations?
`11 A It is fair to say that that activity has
`12 crowded out the other consulting, yes.
`13 Q Understood. It's good to be busy.
`14 So looking at the area of expertise
`15 under your summary of experience on Exhibit A,
`16 you have -- you listed a number of areas that
`17 you're an expert in, is that correct?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q What do you base that on?
`20 A My actual experience in my employment;
`21 my continuing awareness of research and
`22 development developments in the field that I
`
`October 22, 2014
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`20
`
`1 follow; and, of course, also my academic
`2 background.
`3 Q So when you say "continuing awareness of
`4 research and development in the field," what do
`5 you mean? Is it just reading up...
`6 A Well, I mean that I continue to be a
`7 member of the Association for Computing
`8 Machinery and the IEEE Computer Society. That's
`9 I-E-E-E. And I read the technical publications
`10
` in those areas, as well as various
`11
` research-related documents that I subscribe to.
`12
` Q So if you -- does this include if you
`13
` were to, say, do a case on electronic
`14
` cigarettes, and -- would you consider yourself
`15
` an expert after that, after having consulted in
`16
` that case?
`17
` A Typically, I would not consider simple
`18
` engagement on a case in a particular area as a
`19
` basis for calling myself an expert. In fact, I
`20
` would not typically accept an engagement in
`21
` which I did not already have expertise in the
`22
` field of technology involved.
`
`21
`
`1 Q So of the areas that you listed here, I
`2 mean, I don't see anything relating to
`3 databases. Do you see that?
`4 A Those words are not in there, no.
`5 Q So is it fair to say that database is
`6 not an area of expertise for you?
`7 A Well, let's see, I do not hold myself as
`8 a specialist in databases but, of course, with
`9 both my computer science background and my
`10
` experience with companies such as Tandem
`11
` Computers, I have worked with databases. I am
`12
` familiar with query languages and things
`13
` associated with them.
`14
` Q But that doesn't make you an expert,
`15
` does it, just being able to query a database and
`16
` use a database?
`17
` A Well, I would say a person with a Ph.D
`18
` in computer science who has done the usual types
`19
` of studies that were required to get there would
`20
` be sufficiently familiar with database
`21
` principles to call themselves an expert relative
`22
` to the general population.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`22
`
`1 Q So you think it's easy for someone like
`2 you to learn how to work a program or database
`3 or -- with your background?
`4 A Well, I don't think that I have an
`5 opinion on whether it's easy for a person to
`6 learn how to become expert.
`7 Q For you --
`8 A But I definitely am familiar with
`9 database principles and how they are applied.
`10 Q How much reading up would you need to do
`11 to be able to learn how to program database or
`12 write programs to interact with database?
`13 A I'm sorry, I don't have an opinion on
`14 that.
`15 Q You don't have an opinion on whether you
`16 would be able to write programs to query a
`17 database?
`18 A No, I don't have an opinion on how much
`19 reading one would have to do in order to become
`20 an expert on that.
`21 Q If you're asked to program a program to
`22 interact with a database, do you already possess
`
`October 22, 2014
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`24
`
`1 Q No, write the same second application
`2 program that was referenced in the two patents?
`3 Strike that.
`4 So based on your area of expertise
`5 listed here, is it fair to say that you do not
`6 have -- your background for -- on database
`7 programming is not up to the level of an expert
`8 in expert database programming?
`9 A No. I don't think so. We have -- my
`10
` background -- I have extensive experience in
`11
` operating systems, file systems, file access
`12
` protocols, and in storage subsystems, which are,
`13
` of course, what are used in the back end of
`14
` databases, and how they are used for storage and
`15
` access systems such as RAID. And so I have a
`16
` lot of expertise there that are relevant to
`17
` database systems.
`18
` Q In the '854 and '843 patent, they
`19
` reference accessing databases being able to
`20
` insert information into a database.
`21
` Do you feel that you have the required
`22
` skills to understand how that is done?
`
`23
`
`25
`
`1 the knowledge to do that, or do you need to read
`2 up?
`3 A Well, I think you would have to be more
`4 specific about what kind of programming and what
`5 programming language and to what end one was
`6 doing the programming.
`7 As you probably know, the difference
`8 between writing a one-time-use program as a
`9 demonstration versus writing a piece of
`10
` production code for use in a commercial system
`11
` are vastly different challenges. So there is
`12
` quite a range possible there.
`13
` Q Okay. What about the program that is
`14
` referenced in the '854 and '843 patent?
`15
` A I have no trouble understanding the
`16
` types of programs that are referenced in the
`17
` '843 and '845 patents.
`18
` Q Are you able to write them?
`19
` A Write --
`20
` Q Recreate?
`21
` A You mean write a commercial program like
`22
` the Access database?
`
`1 A Yes.
`2 Q And what is that level of skill?
`3 A I don't know quite how to answer that.
`4 It's sufficient to understand how database
`5 programs or, in this case, word processor
`6 programs for that matter, are interfaced with
`7 and the operations they are capable of
`8 performing.
`9 Q Isn't that difficult?
`10 A It may be for some people.
`11 Q And for you?
`12 A I'm quite familiar with those
`13 operations.
`14 Q So it's trivial to you?
`15 A I don't think I would call it that word.
`16 Q What would you call it?
`17 A I'm sorry, I don't know quite what
`18 you're asking me to characterize.
`19 Q How to write a program to insert
`20 information into a database.
`21 A I don't think knowledge of -- sorry, the
`22 capability of writing a program to insert
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`26
`
`1 information into a database is necessarily
`2 crucial to having the knowledge needed to
`3 understand both the principles and the theory
`4 behind the specifications of these patents.
`5 Q Why not?
`6 A Understanding the principles of how they
`7 are interfaced with and what they do, I think,
`8 is quite sufficient.
`9 Q So, just to be clear, you do not have to
`10 understand -- you just have to understand what
`11 they do, but you don't have to understand how
`12 they do it; is that your testimony here?
`13 A No. No. I'm saying that one may not
`14 have to have the skills needed to sit down and
`15 write an extensive sequel query in order to
`16 understand how a query operates in a database.
`17 Q Is that a difficult operation, what you
`18 just described?
`19 A Writing a sequel query?
`20 Q Uh-huh.
`21 A I wouldn't call it difficult. It
`22 requires familiarity with a particular
`
`October 22, 2014
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`28
`
`1 somewhat difficult, yes.
`2 Q What about a person of ordinary skill in
`3 the art at the time of the invention of the '854
`4 patent or -- and '843 patent, would that be
`5 difficult?
`6 A I'm sorry, can you specify what the
`7 "that" is?
`8 Q Under your --
`9 A I know, but what is it we are talking
`10
` about? Writing a program to access something in
`11
` a database?
`12
` Q Yeah. To access, to insert things in
`13
` your database.
`14
` A I think not every person of ordinary
`15
` skill in the art, as I specified for the '854
`16
` and '843 patents, would necessarily have the
`17
` specific skills to write such a program. But I
`18
` believe they would be capable of acquiring those
`19
` skills relatively easily.
`20
` Q Does your area of expertise here include
`21
` programming a spell checker, or grammar checker?
`22
` A That is not listed in my list of areas
`
`27
`
`29
`
`1 programming language, if you like.
`2 Q What about inserting something into a
`3 database?
`4 A Well, inserting something into a
`5 database is a matter of understanding the
`6 interfaces to the database program and what
`7 operations are available. Those, I understand.
`8 Q Is that a difficult thing to do for you?
`9 A I don't think the difficulty to me is
`10 particularly relevant to the issue.
`11 Q Is that a difficult thing to do?
`12 A I'm sorry, I don't understand quite what
`13 you are asking for.
`14 Q For someone to program -- to write a
`15 program to insert some information into a
`16 database.
`17 A Well, writing programs in itself, if you
`18 want them written well and for commercial-level
`19 quality, is somewhat difficult and requires
`20 experience, some familiarity with the tools of
`21 the program writing and debugging and so on.
`22 So I think for most people that would be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` of expertise.
` Q Do you consider yourself an expert in
` spell checker programmer or grammar checker
` programmer?
` A Well, that's not a question I've
` considered before, so I'm not quite sure how
` that would differ from being an expert in
` programming in general.
` Q So are you saying anyone who knows
` programming is capable of programming a spell
` checker or grammar checker?
` A Anyone who holds themself or herself out
` as a professional programmer would be accustomed
` to being presented with a problem to be solved
` and a program to be written for which they would
` need to study the specifics, and then proceed
` with design and implementation.
` And so I don't think the question of
` whether a person is an expert on a particular
` problem is relevant.
` Q So which is the area of expertise here
` that enables you to call yourself a programmer?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`30
`
`1 Is it the software, firmware, and data system,
`2 that line?
`3 Where does it -- where is it here that
`4 says that you are a programmer, that you hold
`5 yourself out as a programmer?
`6 A I actually don't call myself a
`7 programmer.
`8 Q What do you call yourself?
`9 A I call myself the things that I say on
`10 this summary of my CV.
`11 Q So you wouldn't call yourself a
`12 professional programmer?
`13 A Well, I haven't considered that
`14 question. I do not hire myself out as a
`15 professional programmer as a primary thing that
`16 I do.
`17 However, I have quite a bit of
`18 experience managing programmers and reading
`19 their code, so I have a lot of expertise in
`20 software and in the art of software engineering.
`21 Q So you wouldn't call yourself a
`22 programmer, which is what you testified, but you
`
`October 22, 2014
`9 (Pages 30 to 33)
`32
`
`1 A I actually probably have never called
`2 myself a programmer, per se. I have been
`3 involved in design of software and in management
`4 of the development of software, and I am very
`5 familiar with a number of programming languages
`6 and what good code looks like.
`7 Q So are you familiar with APIs?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Are you familiar with Word Object Model?
`10
` A Yes.
`11
` Q Can we turn to page 3 of your Exhibit A?
`12
` So it states here that you're an
`13
` inventor to seven patents, correct?
`14
` A Yes.
`15
` Q Do any of these relate to databases?
`16
` A No.
`17
` Q What about word processing?
`18
` A Word processing?
`19
` Q Yes.
`20
` A None of the patents on which I am a
`21
` coinventor relate to word processing.
`22
` Q What about to the area of technology
`
`31
`
`33
`
`1 would -- but you would say that you have some
`2 expertise as a professional programmer; is that
`3 what you are testifying to?
`4 A No. I am saying I consider myself
`5 expert in the area of software engineering and
`6 in programs in general, having read a great
`7 number of programs and written quite a few
`8 myself. But that is not my primary profession
`9 today. Programmer is not my primary
`10 professional today.
`11 Q What about in 1998? Are you a
`12 programmer?
`13 A In 1998, I was supervising software
`14 engineers.
`15 Q You didn't answer the question.
`16 A That's as close as I can get. I was not
`17 writing programs for pay --
`18 Q So you wouldn't --
`19 A -- which is what I think would be the
`20 definition of a professional programmer.
`21 Q So you wouldn't call yourself a
`22 programmer, per se, in 1998?
`
`1 relating to the '854, '843 patent?
`2 A No. None of these patents relate to
`3 software in general or to that -- that
`4 technology.
`5 Q Now, let's take a look at your '854
`6 declaration. And I'm at paragraph 16. There
`7 are no pages here.
`8 Now, in this paragraph you discuss who a
`9 person of ordinary skill in an art is. Do you
`10 mind reading it?
`11 A "In my opinion, a person of ordinary
`12 skill in the art pertaining to the '854 patent
`13 at the relevant date discussed below would have
`14 at least a bachelor's degree in computer science
`15 or electrical engineering or related discipline
`16 and approximately two years' experience
`17 designing user applications or software
`18 modules."
`19 Q Now, let's look at your '843
`20 declaration, paragraph 15. You also discuss the
`21 level of skill in the art, right?
`22 A Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Levy, Ph.D., John V.
`
`34
`
`1 Q And it appears that the person of
`2 ordinary skill is the same for both patents, is
`3 that correct?
`4 A Yes.
`5 Q By -- in 1998 do you have two years of
`6 experience designing user applications of
`7 software modules?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Can you elaborate?
`10
` A Sure. During my graduate work, I did --
`11
` was employed part-time as a programmer writing
`12
` software for a data acquisition system that was
`13
` installed at the NASA, N-A-S-A, in California.
`14
` And also, I designed and built a
`15
` simulation system for multiprocessor computers
`16
` which I implemented and then used for my Ph.D
`17
` studies.
`18
` I had done other programming before that
`19
` time.
`20
` Q Let's get to that in a bit.
`21
` So the graduate work that you did as a
`22
` part-time programmer writing software for data
`
`35
`
`1 acquisitions system as a graduate student, was
`2 that for your master's in 1996 time frame?
`3 A No.
`4 Q No? What time frame was that?
`5 A This was between 1966 and '72 when I was
`6 a graduate student at Stanford University in the
`7 Ph.D program in computer science. And I did
`8 outside work consulting as a programmer for a
`9 small firm in Mountain View, California.
`10
` Q And is it around the same time frame
`11
` where you designed the simulation system for
`12
` multiprocessor computers?
`13
` A Yes.
`14
` Q Any other programming experience before
`15
` that -- I mean, any other experience that would
`16
` have been designing user applications of
`17
` software modules?
`18
` A Yes. I was part of a team that
`19
` developed software modules for use at the
`20
` Stanford Linear Accelerator Center where I was
`21
` supported for my graduate work in acquiring data
`22
` from the physics experiments going on there.
`
`October 22, 2014
`10 (Pages 34 to 37)
`36
`
`1 And also in -- we built a operating
`2 system of our own for the real

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket