”condition” of Claim 1 must be broader than merely an ”electrical condition,” yet no
`
`guidance is given as to how broad it actually is, or what scope of conditions it covers.
`
`139.
`
`In addition, Claim 80 of the ’107 patent recites "[t]he piece of Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment of Claim 79 wherein the electrical component is responsive to an
`
`electrical condition across the contacts of the Ethernet connector.” (emphasis added)
`
`Claim 79 is directly dependent on Claim 1, which recites "at least one condition applied
`
`to at least one of the contacts.” If ”condition applied” meant "electrical condition
`
`applied,” then Claim 80 would include no new limitation over Claim 79, and would
`
`therefore be invalid. Under the principle of claim differentiation, therefore, ”condition
`
`applied” in Claim 1 must be broader than ”electrical condition applied.”
`
`140. Mr. Baxter asserts that the word ”electrical” should be added to the claim.
`
`He does not explain why the intrinsic evidence would authorize reading in this new
`
`limitation. Nor does he reconcile this with dependent claims 61 and 81, which adds the
`
`limitation of ”electrical condition.”
`
`(G)
`
`Part of a Detection Protocol
`
`141. Numerous dependent claims assert that a current or impedance is part of
`
`a detection protocol. Such a determination is completely subjective. The value measured
`
`is only significant if a person decides to ascribe a meaning to it.
`
`142. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no way of determining,
`
`nor have any control over, whether the amount of current drawn or the impedance
`
`within a device is ascribed a particular meaning by one of the billions of people on
`
`earth.
`
`143. Mr. Baxter asserts that ”detection protocol” means that the equipment is
`
`configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current (flow) or the impedance of
`
`the path allow it to detect or determine some information about equipment at the other
`
`end of the device. Baxter Decl. at H1 74.
`
`-43-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`it 1029
`
`0043
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0043
`
`

`
`144.
`
`First, the detection protocol is directed to a magnitude of current or an
`
`impedance, not a piece of equipment. Moreover, his interpretation appears to be
`
`subjective concerning whether someone choses to use this magnitude for a reason (i.e.,
`
`as part of a detection protocol), or whether it is of no consequence; the inherent ability
`
`to measure a current or impedance may provide a numerical value, but whether this
`
`value is part of a detection protocol is subject to the specifications (or whims) of some
`
`other individual or organization.
`
`145.
`
`In particular, it is possible that at the time of design or manufacture of a
`
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment, a given magnitude of current or impedance may
`
`be of no particular consequence. It is not measured, or used to characterize the device.
`
`Under Plaintiffs’ interpretation, this device would not infringe since the equipment was
`
`not ”configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current (flow) or the
`
`impedance in the path allow[s] it to detect or determine some information about the
`
`equipment at the other end of the path.” Baxter Decl. at ‘][ 74. At some later date,
`
`unbeknownst to the designer or manufacturer of the device, an individual or
`
`organization may now chose to characterize that device by the current or impedance
`
`that was previously of no import. Under Plaintiffs’ interpretation, this previously non-
`
`infringing device has now magically become infringing, since it is now configured so
`
`that the magnitude of current or impedance is ascribed a meaning with regard to the
`
`piece of equipment.
`
`146.
`
`This leaves designers with a predicament; they have no guidance as to
`
`how to avoid infringement of the claims, since they have no way of knowing if someone
`
`will ever determine information about their equipment from one of the multitudes of
`
`currents and impedances present within it. A person of ordinary skill would have no
`
`way of knowing, at the time of design or manufacture of a piece of equipment, whether
`
`it would or would not infringe, particularly with respect to a detection protocol that
`
`may be conjured up at a later time by a different party.
`
`-44-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`it 1029
`
`0044
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0044
`
`

`
`(H) BaseT
`
`147. Mr. Baxter claims that a person of ordinary skill ”would understand that
`
`the term ’BaseT’ as used each claim [sic] is actually BaseT Ethernet and has its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, namely ”twisted pair Ethernet per the IEEE 802.3 Standards.” I
`
`disagree with Mr. Baxter on this point.
`
`148.
`
`First, as discussed above, there is no plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`"BaseT” or ”BaseT Ethernet.” The terms do not appear in any of the specifications of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, including the ’260 patent incorporated by reference. They also do not
`
`appear in any of the IEEE 802.3 Standards. The terms appear to be made up by the
`
`Applicants without providing any clear definition. VVhile they appear in numerous
`
`claims, a person of ordinary skill would not understand the scope of the term beyond
`
`the sole system disclosed, i.e., 1OBASE-T. ‘O12 Patent, 12:13-14.
`
`149. Mr. Baxter attempts to define "BaseT” as ”twisted pair Ethernet per the
`
`IEEE 802.3 Standards (e.g., 10BaseT/ IEEE 802.3i, 1OOBaseTX/ IEEE 802.3u, and
`
`1000BaseT/ IEEE 802.3ab [sic]).” Baxter Decl. at ‘ll 98. However, even this definition is
`
`vague, as there are numerous uses of twisted pair cable in Ethernet beyond those
`
`alluded to, and it is not at all clear whether the described system could even operate on
`
`them, e.g.:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`1BASE5: Ethernet operating at 1 Mb/ s, using a single unshielded twisted pairs
`
`AUI (part of 1OBASE 5): Ethernet operating at 10 Mb / s using 4 shielded
`
`twisted pairs.
`
`100BASE-T4: Ethernet operating at 100 Mb / s using 4 unshielded twisted
`
`pairs, but in an unusual asymmetrical configuration.
`
`100BASE-T2: Ethernet operating at 100 Mb / s using 2 unshielded twisted
`
`pairs (with a more complex encoding scheme than is used in 100BASE-TX
`
`or 100BASE-T4).
`
`4 The system disclosed in the patents-in-suit all use two twisted pairs to deliver DC current and
`
`-45-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`it 1029
`
`0045
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0045
`
`

`
`0
`
`10GBASE-T: Ethernet operating at 10,000 Mb / s using 4 pairs of Category 6a
`
`or better cabling.
`
`150. Mr. Baxter minimally attempts to include 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T in
`
`his definition, yet these systems use considerably lower signal levels and more complex
`
`encoding schemes than 10BASE-T. See, generally, IEEE 802.3. While the teachings of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit (including the ’260 patent incorporated by reference) may be able to
`
`operate in the relatively high-noise-margin environment of 10BASE-T, there is nothing
`
`in the specification that indicates the system would be operational in either a
`
`100BASE-TX or 1000BASE-T environment without significant disruption of the Ethernet
`
`communications. In particular, 1000BASE-T uses a complex encoding scheme that
`
`operates at 250 Mb / s per pair, in a bi-directional manner. It is quite sensitive to
`
`disturbances on the Ethernet cable, and requires very careful installation and
`
`component selection, even without the intrusion of the system described in the patent
`
`specifications.5
`
`151.
`
`1000BASE-T was not even formally adopted by the IEEE at the time of the
`
`filing of the provisional patent application (April 10, 1998). While the specification was
`
`available in draft form, many details and features of the standard were unsettled and
`
`remained subject to change before final approval. Even if it were at all possible for the
`
`system described in the patents to operate in a 1000BASE-T environment, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would not assume this to be true while the specifications of the final
`
`standard were still in flux.
`
`152. Had the Applicants wanted to claim that the system disclosed could
`
`operate in a 100BASE-TX or 1000BASE-T environment, they could have stated so.
`
`Instead, there is support only for the recited 10BASE-T system.
`
`5 The situation is even worse for 10GBASE-T, which uses Tomlinson-Harashima
`precoded (THP) Pulse Amplitude Modulation with 16 levels (PAM-16), encoded in a
`two dimensional pattern and transmitted at 800 Megasymbols / second]
`
`-46-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`0046
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0046
`
`

`
`153. As explained above, the term "BaseT” has no meaning to a person of
`
`ordinary skill, and it surely cannot include Ethernet standards that were not even
`
`adopted at the time of filing.
`
`SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`154. As of today, this declaration represents my best opinion regarding the
`
`matters set forth above. In the event such discovery, changes to claim construction,
`
`additional data, or testimony are made available, I may find it necessary to revise or
`
`supplement my opinions.
`
`Dated: 21 January 2016
`
`-47-
`
`DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT
`
`0047
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0047
`
`

`
`Exhibit A
`
`0048
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0048
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert
`
`21885 Bear Creek Way
`Los Gatos, CA 95033
`(408) 395-5700
`rich@richseifert.com
`
`
`Ovenfieur
`
`Mr. Seifert has over 45 years of experience in the computer industry, specializing in computer network
`architecture, systems, and product design. He was one of the original developers of the 10 Mb / s Ethernet
`technology at Digital Equipment Corporation, and is now President of Networks and Communications
`Consulting, providing services to a wide range of network, semiconductor, and computer systems
`manufacturers, investors, and users. He taught graduate-level courses at the University of California for
`over 15 years, has published three best-selling technology treatises, and has chaired and co-authored
`numerous international standards for computer communications. He has served as a technology consultant
`and testifying expert to law firms in more than thirty cases over the past fifteen years. He is an advisor to
`numerous venture capital investors, has founded high-tech companies both in the U.S. and abroad, and has
`served on the Executive Boards of a number of firms. Mr. Seifert is an attorney, admitted to practice law in
`California and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
`
`Educafion
`
`B.E. (E.E.)
`M.S.E.E.
`M.B.A.
`].D.
`
`City College of New York, 1976
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1979
`Clark University, 1984
`Santa Clara University, 2006 (summa cum laude)
`
`Computerlcommunications Industry Work Experience
`
`1987-Present:
`
`Networks and Communications Consulting (Los Gatos, CA)
`President and Founder
`
`Technical and business consulting to manufacturers, integrators, investors, and users of LAN, semiconductor,
`internetworking, and computer systems products. More than 200 clients over 20 years, with projects ranging from
`strategic planning through product design, specification, and training.
`
`1984-1987:
`
`Industrial Networking, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA)
`Chief Technology Officer
`
`First employee and founding CTO for start-up company developing factory LAN modems, controllers, and
`systems. Provided technical leadership for firm (over 100 employees), as well as design and
`implementation of new manufacturing and test processes.
`
`1976-1984:
`
`Digital Equipment Corp. (Maynard, MA)
`Principal Engineer/Engineering Supervisor/ Consulting Engineer
`
`Technical leader for group of engineers developing first commercial Ethernet products. Co-author (with Xerox
`and Intel Corp.) of industry-standard Ethernet specification. Designed and developed physical channel for
`10 Mb/ s Ethernet, including serial interface and transceiver silicon. Charter member of IEEE 802 LAN
`Standards committee, and co-author of IEEE 802.3 Local Area Network Standard.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`0049
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0049
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`Teaching Experience
`1986-2002:
`
`University of California (Berkeley)
`Graduate level courses on computer network technology.
`
`1999:
`
`1998:
`
`1993-95:
`
`1987-2002:
`
`University of California (Santa Cruz)
`Undergraduate level course on business information systems.
`
`Oxford University (U.K.)
`Graduate level seminar on computer network technology.
`
`University of California (Santa Barbara)
`Graduate level seminars on computer network technology.
`
`Networks and Communications Consulting
`Nearly 100 public and private seminars delivered on computer network technology, plus
`videotape sales.
`
`Entrepreneurial Experience
`1992-2000:
`
`Tut Systems (Pleasanton, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Helped develop initial business plan, technology validation. Company taken public,
`subsequently acquired by Motorola.
`
`1997-2005:
`
`1997-1998:
`
`1997-1998:
`
`1999-2003:
`
`2000-2002:
`
`2000-2003:
`
`2000-2003:
`
`2001-2007:
`
`2001-2003:
`
`Mysticom, Inc. (Netanya, Israel; Mountain View, CA)
`Founder, Chief Architect, Board of Directors, Technical Advisory Board
`Key member of company start-up team. Helped with initial incorporation, financing,
`business plan, market validation. Company acquired by TranSwitch Corp.
`
`Juniper Networks (JNPR; San Jose, CA)
`Member of start-up team. Helped with initial product architecture, market validation.
`Company taken public.
`
`Yago Systems (Sunnyvale, CA)
`Member of start-up team. Helped with technology issues, market validation. Company
`acquired by Cabletron Systems.
`
`Nishan Systems (San ]ose, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Consulted to executive team on technology issues. Company acquired by McData Corp.
`
`IatoTech Ventures (Austin, TX)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Evaluated and advised general partners on technology investments.
`
`TeraBlaze, Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
`Founder, Chief Architect
`Key member of company start-up team. Helped with initial incorporation, financing,
`business plan, market Validation. Company acquired by Agere Systems.
`
`Storage Networks (Waltham, MA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Consulted to executive team on technology issues. Company taken public, later dissolved.
`
`Silverback Systems (San Jose, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Member of company start-up team. Helped arrange financing, consulted on technology
`issues. Company acquired by Brocade Communications.
`
`Cavium Networks (CAVM; San Jose, CA)
`Technical Advisory Board
`Member of company start-up team. Consulted on technology issues. Company taken public.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`
`
`it 1029
`
`0050
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0050
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`Publications
`
`Books:
`
`The All-New Switch Book: The Complete Guide to LAN Switching Technology, John Wiley & Sons, August 2008
`
`The Switch Book: The Complete Guide to LAN Switching Technology, Iohn Wiley & Sons, Iune 2000
`
`Gigabit Ethernet: Technology and Applications of High Speed LANs, Addison-Wesley, April 1998
`
`The Design and Planning of Enterprise-Wide AppleTalk Internetworks, Apple Computer, 1993
`
`Choosing Between Bridges and Routers, Infonetics Research Institute, 1989 (2nd ed., 1990, 3rd ed. 1991)
`
`Articles and Papers:
`The Use of Backpressure for Congestion Control in Half Duplex CSMA/CD LANs, Networks and Communications
`Consulting Technical Report 15, August 1996
`
`Issues in LAN Switching and Migration from a Shared LAN Environment, Networks and Communications
`Technical Report 14 (also published by Ka1pana,Inc.), November 1995
`
`The Efiect of Ethernet Behavior on Networks using High—Performance Workstations and Servers, Networks and
`Communications Technical Report 13 (also published by Auspex Systems), March 1995
`
`When Worlds Collide, Data Communications, January 1991
`
`Have Remote Bridge Vendors Made a Big Blunder?, Data Communications, April 1991
`
`Ethernet: Ten Years After, BYTE Magazine, Ianuary 1991
`
`Industry Standards (Author or Co-author):
`IEEE 802.3ad: Link Aggregation, 1999
`
`IEEE 802.32: Media Access Control (MAC) Parameters, Physical Layer, Medium Attachment Units, and Repeater for
`1000 Mb/s Operation, Type 1000BASE-X, 1998
`
`IEEE 802.3ac: Frame Extensions for Virtual Bridge Local Area Networks, 1998
`
`IEEE 802.3x: Specification for 802.3 Full Duplex Operation, 1997
`
`ISO/ IEC 8802-3 (IEEE 802.3): Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detect (CSMA/CD) Media Access
`Control Method and Physical Layer Specifications, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1996 (and supplements)
`
`IEEE 802.3u: Media Access Control (MAC) Parameters, Physical Layer, Medium Attachment Units, and Repeater for
`100 Mb/s Operation, Type 100BASE—T, 1995
`
`ISO/ IEC 10038 (IEEE 802.1D): Medium Access Control (MAC) Bridges, 1990, 1993 (and supplements)
`IEEE 802: Overview and Architecture, 1990
`
`IEEE 802.1E: System Load Protocol, 1990
`
`ISO 8802-4 (IEEE 802.4): T0ken—passing bus access method and physical layer specifications, 1985, 1990 (and
`supplements)
`
`Digital Equipment Corp., Intel Corp., Xerox Corp., The Ethernet: A Local Area Network,—Data Link Layer and
`Physical Layer Specifications, Version 1: September 30, 1980, Version 2: November 1982
`
`Legal Consulting Experience
`
`From 1994—present, served as technology consultant and expert witness in numerous cases (for both plaintiffs and
`defendants) involving patent infringement, breach of contract/ warranty, and tort liability. Services have
`included: clarifying and interpreting technology details for counsel, preparation of expert declarations and
`reports, providing testimony (both deposition and open court), and prior art searches. Has also served as Special
`Master (Sup. Ct., CA) in a high-profile trade secret dispute. In 2006, admitted to the bar in California, and to the
`Federal bar for the Northern District of California.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`0051
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0051
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`Legalcases
`1994-95
`
`1996-98
`
`1998
`
`1998
`
`1998
`
`1998-00
`
`1999
`
`1999
`
`2000
`
`2000
`
`2000-01
`
`2000
`
`2001
`
`3Com v. SynOptics Communications
`Workman, Nydegger 8: Seeley (Salt Lake City, UT) for Plaintiff 3Com
`Patent litigation relating to secure Ethernet repeater technology. Provided expert technology
`consultation. Case settled before deposition or trial.
`Datapoint v. Intel, et. al.
`Kenyon and Kenyon (Washington, DC) for Defendant Intel
`Patent litigation relating to multi-speed Local Area Networks, Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, LAN
`Bridges, and Auto-Negotiation. Provided expert consultation and testimony at Markman
`hearing. Summary judgment for client Intel (non-infringement); affirmed on appeal.
`Bay Networks
`Provided expert opinion on the classification of networking products for the Harmonized Tariff
`Schedule of the European Union (World Customs Organization).
`Level One v. SEEQ
`Fish 8: Richardson (Menlo Park, CA) for Plaintiff Level One
`Patent litigation relating to Fast Ethernet Auto-Negotiation and IEEE standards. Provided expert
`consultation, expert report and deposition testimony. Case settled prior to trial.
`Ashraf Dahod v. LANCity Communications (Bay Networks)
`Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin 8: Hayes (Boston, MA) for Defendant Bay Networks
`Patent litigation relating to broadband metropolitan-area network equipment. Provided expert
`consultation, expert report, and deposition testimony. Trial verdict for client Bay Networks.
`Accton Technology v. Microlinear
`Morgan, Miller 8: Blair (Walnut Creek, CA) for Plaintiff Accton
`Liability litigation relating to defective Ethernet transceiver components. Provided expert
`consultation. Case settled before trial.
`
`Texas Instruments v. Hyundai
`Jones, Day, Reavis 8: Pogue (Dallas, TX) for Plaintiff Texas Instruments
`Patent litigation relating to Fast Ethernet, signal encoding, and IEEE standards. Provided expert
`consultation and expert report. Case settled before trial (in excess of $1B for Plaintiff).
`Lucent v. Cisco Systems
`Weil, Gotshal 8: Manges (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendant Cisco Systems
`Patent litigation relating to Virtual LANs, internetworking, etc. (many patents at issue). Provided
`expert consultation. Case settled before trial.
`Nortel Networks v. Optical Networks, Inc.
`Fenwick 8: West (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendant Optical Networks
`Patent litigation relating to redundant fiber ring technology. Provided expert technology
`consultation. Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Accton Technology V. Valor Electronics
`Morgan, Miller 8: Blair (Walnut Creek, CA) for Plaintiff Accton
`Liability litigation relating to defective Ethernet power converter modules. Provided expert
`consultation and deposition testimony. Case settled before trial.
`II1tel v. Broadcom
`
`Superior Court of California (Santa Clara County)
`Litigation relating to potential disclosure of trade secrets as a result of hiring employees from a
`competitor. Served as Special Master to the Court, pursuant to a Preliminary Injunction ruling.
`Acted as a neutral, technically-knowledgeable third party to monitor work of affected employees
`to see if trade secret information was being misappropriated. Technologies at issue included
`Gigabit Ethernet and LAN Switch semiconductors. Provided report to court; case subsequently
`settled before trial.
`Grumman v. 3Com
`
`Workman, Nydegger 8: Seeley (Salt Lake City, UT) for Defendant 3Com
`Patent litigation relating to internetworking systems architecture. Provided expert consultation.
`Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Intel Corporation
`Provided expert consultation to in-house counsel regarding entire portfolio of network-related
`patents.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`0052
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0052
`
`

`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`2001-04
`
`2001-02
`
`Nortel v. Foundry Networks
`Orrick, Herrington 8: Sutcliffe (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendant Foundry Networks
`Patent litigation relating to design of bridges, switches, and routers. Provided expert consultation
`and expert reports. Case settled before trial.
`IBM V. Pluris
`
`2002-04
`
`2002-05
`
`2005
`
`2005
`
`2005-07
`
`2005-
`
`2005-07
`
`2006-07
`
`2006-07
`
`2006-07
`
`2006
`
`2006-
`
`Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto, CA) for Defendant Pluris
`Patent litigation relating to a variety of internetworking technologies. Provided expert
`consultation. Case rendered moot by dissolution of Pluris.
`Connectel v. NMS
`
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo (Boston, MA) for Defendant NMS
`Patent litigation relating to Internet fax technology. Provided expert consultation, expert report,
`deposition testimony and testimony at Markman hearing. Case settled before trial.
`Chrimar Systems v. Cisco Systems
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendant Cisco Systems
`Patent litigation relating to providing power to Ethernet devices over a communications link.
`Provided expert consultation, expert reports and affidavits, deposition and hearing testimony.
`Summary judgment for client Cisco (both non-infringement and invalidity of asserted patent
`claim).
`Connectel v. Cisco Systems
`Kirkland 8: Ellis (San Francisco, CA) for Defendant Cisco Systems
`Patent litigation relating to Internet fax technology. Provided expert consultation. Case settled
`before trial.
`Micrel v. Deloitte
`
`Bingham McCutcheon (East Palo Alto, CA) for Defendant Deloitte
`Accounting malpractice dispute relating to network semiconductor devices. Provided expert
`consultation. Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Negotiated Data Solutions v. Dell Computer
`Greenberg Traurig (Costa Mesa, CA) and Paul Hastings (Palo Alto, CA) for Defendant Dell
`Patent litigation relating to Ethernet Auto-Negotiation. Provided expert consultation. Consulting
`assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Marvell v. Broadcom
`
`O’Melveny 8: Myers (San Francisco, CA) for Defendant Broadcom
`Trade secret dispute relating to network semiconductor devices. Provided expert consultation.
`Case stayed indefinitely due to criminal prosecution of employee involved.
`L3 Communications V. Reveal Imaging Technologies, Inc.
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky 8: Popeo (Boston, MA) for Defendant Reveal
`Patent litigation relating to networked airport baggage scanning equipment. Provided expert
`consultation. Case settled before trial.
`
`Network-1 v. D-Link Systems
`Christine Yang (Fountain Valley, CA) for Defendant D-Link Systems
`Patent litigation relating to providing power to Ethernet devices over a communications link.
`Provided expert consultation, expert report, deposition testimony. Case settled before trial.
`Accton Technology v. Centillium Communications
`Morgan, Miller &: Blair (Walnut Creek, CA) for Plaintiff Accton.
`Liability litigation relating to defective network routing semiconductors. Provided expert
`consultation, declarations. Case settled before trial.
`Alcatel v. Foundry Networks
`Orrick, Herrington 8: Sutcliffe (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendant Foundry Networks
`Patent litigation relating to user authentication for network switches. Provided expert
`consultation. Case settled before trial.
`
`Antor Media v. Palm Computing
`Quinn Emanuel (Redwood Shores, CA) for Defendant Palm Computing
`Patent litigation relating to method for data communications. Provided expert consultation. Case
`settled before trial.
`
`Enterasys Networks v. Foundry Networks
`Orrick, Herrington 8: Sutcliffe (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendant Foundry Networks
`Patent litigation relating to Virtual LAN implementation in network switches. Provided expert
`consultation. Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`0053
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0053
`
`

`
`2006-10
`
`2007
`
`2008-09
`
`2008
`
`2008-10
`
`2008-09
`
`2008-
`
`2009
`
`2009
`
`2009
`
`2009-
`
`2009-10
`
`2010
`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`Chrimar Systems v. PowerDSine, Chrimar Systems v. D-Link Systems
`Orrick, Herrington 8: Sutcliffe (Menlo Park, CA) for Defendants PowerDSine and D-Link.
`Patent litigation relating to providing power to Ethernet devices over a communications link.
`Provided expert consultation, expert reports, declarations, deposition and hearing testimony.
`Case settled before trial.
`3Com v. Realtek
`
`Simpson Thacher (New York, NY) for Plaintiff 3Com
`Patent litigation relating to implementation of host interface in Ethernet and FDDI network
`products. Provided expert consultation. Consulting assignment completed during pendency of
`case.
`
`Commil v. Cisco Systems
`Simpson Thacher (Palo Alto, CA) for Defendant Cisco Systems
`Patent litigation relating to partitioning of Wireless LAN devices. Provided expert consultation.
`Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Epson v. Advanced Micro Devices
`Townsend, Townsend and Crew (San Francisco, CA) for Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant Epson.
`Patent negotiation relating to Ethernet Auto-Negotiation, Wake-on LAN, Full Duplex Ethernet
`(many patents at issue). Provided expert consultation.
`Network Appliance v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
`DLA Piper (Washington, DC) for Defendant Sun Microsystems
`Patent litigation relating to Ethernet Link Aggregation. Provided expert consultation. Case settled
`before trial.
`Fenner v. 3Com, et. al.
`Finnegan, Henderson (Palo Alto, CA) for Defendants D-Link, Extreme Networks, Netgear, ZyXel
`Vasquez, Benisek 8: Lindgren (Lafayette, CA) for Defendants SMC, Enterasys, et. al.
`Patent litigation relating to MAC bridging, IP routing, and address lookup algorithms. Provided
`expert consultation, expert report. Case settled before trial.
`Network-1 v. Enterasys, et. al.
`Vasquez, Benisek 8: Lindgren (Lafayette, CA) for Enterasys and Ioint Defense
`Follow-on case from prior Network-1 v. D-Link, same patent pursued against additional
`defendants following earlier settlement. Provided expert consultation. Consulting assignment
`completed during pendency of case.
`Fenner v. Dell, et. al.
`Weil, Gotshal 8: Manges (New York, NY) for Defendant Dell Computer
`Goodwin, Procter (Washington, DC) for Defendant Hewlett-Packard
`Follow-on case from prior Fenner v. 3Com litigation relating to MAC bridging, IP routing, and
`address lookup algorithms. Provided expert consultation. Consulting assignment completed
`during pendency of case.
`FINoc v. D-Link
`
`Law Offices of Christine Yang for Defendant D-Link
`Patent litigation relating to wireless DSL communications systems. Provided expert consultation.
`Case settled before trial.
`United States v. Ge
`
`Swanson 8: McNamara (San Francisco, CA) for Defendant Yuefei Ge
`Criminal prosecution relating to economic espionage and theft of trade secrets. Provided expert
`consultation. Defendant acquitted on two counts, mistrial (jury deadlock) on three counts.
`Zircon v. Stanley
`Haynes and Boone (San Jose, CA) for Plaintiff Zircon
`Patent litigation relating to algorithms for electronic stud finder. Provided expert consultation.
`Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Optimum Path v. SMC Networks
`Vasquez, Benisek 8: Lindgren (Lafayette, CA) for Defendant SMC Networks
`Patent litigation relating to wireless routers. Provided expert consultation. Consulting assignment
`completed during pendency of case.
`Eon V. Verizon
`
`Simpson Thacher (New York, NY) for Defendant Verizon
`Patent litigation relating to interactive video networks. Provided expert consultation, expert
`reports, deposition testimony. Case settled before trial.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`0054
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0054
`
`

`
`2010
`
`2011-
`
`2011-
`
`2011
`
`2011
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2012-
`
`2012-13
`
`2012-13
`
`2013
`
`2013-
`
`2013-
`
`2014
`
`2014-
`
`2014-
`
`Rich Seifert, continued
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Lineage Power, et. al.
`Vasquez, Benisek & Lindgren (Lafayette, CA) for Defendants Lineage Power and Cherokee Power
`Patent litigation relating to switching power systems architecture. Provided expert consultation.
`Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Eon v. D-Link
`
`Law Offices of Christine Yang for Defendant D-Link
`Patent litigation relating to interactive video networks. Provided expert consultation. Consulting
`assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Fujitsu v. D-Link
`Law Offices of Christine Yang for Defendant D-Link
`Patent litigafion relating to PCMCIA interface adapters. Provided expert consultation. Consulting
`assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`Evaluated patent portfolio for client considering acquisition of IP.
`VirnetX v. Siemens
`
`Pepper Hamilton LLP for Defendant Siemens
`Patent litigation relating to secure communications systems. Provided expert consultation.
`Consulting assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Chalumeau V. Enterasys, et. al.
`Vasquez, Benisek 8: Lindgren for joint defense.
`Patent litigation relating to Power-over-Ethernet. Provided expert consultation. Consulting
`assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Chrimar v. Avaya, et. al.
`Crowell 6: Moring for Defendant Avaya
`ITC action relating to Power-over-Ethernet. Provided expert consulting. Consulting assignment
`completed during pendency of case.
`Eon v. FLO TV
`
`Simpson Thacher for Defendant FLO TV
`Patent litigation relating to interactive video networks. Provided expert consultation. Case
`pending.
`Eon v. Novatel, et. al.
`K&L Gates for Defendants Novatel and Enfora.
`
`Patent litigation relating to interactive video networks. Provided expert consultation, expert
`report, and deposition testimony. Case settled before trial.
`USEI v. Digi
`Robins, Kaplan, lVIiller 8: Ciresi for Defendant Digi, Inc.
`Patent litigation relating to Ethernet interface design. Provided expert consultation. Consulting
`assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Eon v. Silver Spring Networks
`SNR Denton for Defendant Silver Spring Networks.
`Patent litigation relating to wireless telemetry systems. Provided expert consultation. Consulting
`assignment completed during pendency of case.
`Fenner v. Juniper Networks
`lrell 8: Manella, LLP for Defendant Juniper Networks. Provided expert consultation. Case
`pending.
`USEI v. Xerox Corp.
`Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi for Defendant Xerox Corp. Provided expert consultation, expert
`report. Case settled before trial.
`USEI v. Apple Corp.
`Williams Morgan for Defendant Apple Corp. Provided expert consultation, expert reports.
`Summary judgment in favor of Defendant Apple.
`Chrimar v. AMX, et al.
`McDermott, Will & Emery for Defendant AMX. Provided expert consultation. Case pending.
`Net Navigation Systems LLC v. Extreme Networks
`Vasquez, Benisek, and Lindgren for Defendant Extreme. Provided expert consultation. Case
`pending.
`
`Feb 2015
`
`0055
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0055
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT B
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`The following materials were considered in producing this report.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,702,760, issued Dec. 2, 2014 (including Prosecution History).
`[’O12 Patent]
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,107, issued Ian. 27, 2015 (including Prosecution History).
`[’O12 Patent]
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,019,838, issued Apr. 28, 2015 (including Prosecution History).
`[’O12 Patent]
`
`Harry Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 18”‘ ed., CMP Books, 2002.
`
`Leonard Crow, Learning Electricity Fundamentals, Howard Sams, 1957
`[hereinafter ”Crow”]
`
`Declaration of Les Baxter, Dec. 17, 2015 [hereinafter ”Baxter Dec1.”].
`
`Microchip Corp., PIC12C5XX Family Datasheet.
`
`Page 1
`
`0056
`
`it 1029
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1029
`0056