`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Page 1
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS,
`
`INC.,
`
`ET AL.,
`
`vs.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT,
`
`INC.,
`
`ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS,
`
`INC.,
`
`ET AL.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`AMX, LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS,
`
`INC.,
`
`ET AL.,
`
`vs.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS,
`
`INC.,
`
`ET AL.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS co.,
`
`ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`
`\/\./\/\./\./\./\./\./\./\./\/\./\/\./\./\./\./\/\./\/\/\./\./\./\./\./\./\./\/\/\/\./\./\./\./\./\./
`
`No. 6:13—CV—880—JDL
`
`No. 6:13—CV—881—JDL
`
`No. 6:13—CV—882—JDL
`
`No. 6:13-CV-883-JDL
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF LESLIE ALAN BAXTER
`
`TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT AMX, LLC
`
`OCTOBER 22, 2014
`
`wvvw.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`bfi:1033
`
`0001
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0001
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in
`2 the afternoon of that day, at the offices of The
`Simon Law Firm, 800 Market Street, St. Louis,
`Missouri, before Tara Schwake, a Certified Realtime
`,
`.
`_
`5 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State
`6 of Illinois, in a certain cause now pending in the
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`7 United States District Court, Eastern District of
`8 Texas, Tyler Division, wherein Chrimar Systems,
`
`3 4
`
`9 Inc., et al., are Plaintiffs and Alcatel-Lucent,
`10 Inc., et al., are Defendants; et cetera.
`1 1
`12
`1 3
`14
`
`8
`172
`173
`
`10
`
`IN D E X
`1
`WITNESSES
`2
`3 ALL WITNESSES PAGE
`4 For Defendant AMX, LLC
`5 LESLIE ALAN BAXTER
`6
`Examination by Mr. Bluestone
`Examination by M,_ Kriege,
`R6-Examination by MI- Bluestone
`EXHIBITS
`
`7
`g
`9
`10 No_
`
`PAGE
`
`11 Exhibftl US Patent No. 8,155,012
`12 Exh1b";ec?a:::,’£’$ 20’ 2014’
`52
`13
`
`Exhibit 3 August 11, 2014,
`Declaration
`14
`63
`15 Exhibit 4 9/22/14 Declaration of Les
`Baxter
`110
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 5 Claims 31 and 67
`
`116
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 6 US Patent No. 4,723,267
`
`Exhibit 7 Figure from paragraph 77
`Exhibit 8 Case No. 12-cv-623,
`
`Document 94, filed on July
`20
`25, 2014, Declaration of
`Les Baxter
`144
`21
`22 Exhibit 9 Modification of Figure 2
`:2
`25 (Exhibits attached to transcript.)
`
`123
`
`126
`
`169
`
`15
`
`17
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`‘NE§i%‘NT%?sSfi{i‘$¥%?‘iiT§‘,&T°°“T
`‘
`TYLER DIVISION
`2
`3 CHIRJJVIAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`)
`AL.’
`4 ET Phmffs,
`))
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
`
`1 APPEARANCES
`2
`
`.
`3 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.
`4
`THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`5
`800 Market Street, Suite 1700
`6
`St. Louis, Missouri 63101
`7
`(314) 241-2929
`8
`by: Mr. Timothy D. Krieger
`.
`.
`9
`tkr1eger@s1mon1awpc.com
`
`11 FOR THE DEFENDANT AMX, LLC:
`12
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
`13
`227 West Monroe Street
`14
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-5096
`15
`(312) 984-5484
`16
`by: Mr. David H. Bluestone
`dbluestone@mwe.com
`DUANE MORRIS, LLP
`1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`.
`(404) 253-6935
`by: Mr. Matthew S. Yungwirth
`(via telephone)
`msyungwirth@duanemoiiis.com
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`
`)
`
`17
`
`)
`9 "°""3'°V'““”L
`5 “'
`6 §}‘i’:_T_EL'LUCE1‘)'T'INC"
`’
`7
`D“°“““"*‘j
`)
`8 cH1u1vIARsYsTEMs,1Nc.,
`ET AL,
`)
`9
`Plaintiffs,
`)
`10 vs.
`Na. 6:13-CV-881-JDL
`)
`11 AMXLLC,
`)
`)
`12
`Defend“-)
`13 SYSE;dS, 1Nc.,
`Plaintiffs,
`)
`’, Na.6:13-CV-882-JDL
`” vs.
`15 GRANDSTRE],MNETw0RKs_ )
`16 1'NC.,
`Defemm ) )
`)
`18 e“‘T”AL‘"”.“,“_‘ S"S”)“s’ M" ’
`1,
`"‘“‘““‘”“'
`,
`’
`20 "5'
`)’ N°"‘”'°V'““DL
`21
`ELECIRONICS 9°-0
`22
`Defendants.
`)
`23
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION or WITNESS,
`3: ItLEs2I§f,Ed'§;A:§(}?;':§,l.;:jl§’o’I14‘i‘l§’,°,w°d;,",fVSf,”fiffmefiimmedm
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0002
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0002
`
`
`
`1 FOR THE DEFENDANT ALCATEL-LUCENT, INC.:
`2
`WILLIAMS MORGAN, P.C.
`3
`10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
`4
`Houston, Texas 77042
`
`MR. BLUESTONE: David Bluestone,
`1
`2 McDermott Will & Emery on behalf of Defendant AMX.
`3
`MR. KRIEGER: Tim Krieger with The
`4 Simon Law Firm on behalf of Plaintiffs.
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`(713) 934-4096
`by: Ms. Leisa Talbert Peschel, Ph.D.
`lpeschel@wmalaw.com
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`
`9 FOR THE DEFENDANT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO.:
`10
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
`11
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`12
`Washington, DC 20036
`13
`(202) 887-4465
`14
`by: Mr. Jin-Suk Park
`15
`(via telephone)
`16
`jspark@akingump.com
`17
`18 ALSO PRESENT:
`
`Mr. John F. Austermann, III
`President & CEO, CMS Technologies
`
`Ms. Tara Schwake, CRR, RPR
`Mr. John Niehaus, Videographer
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`MS. PESCHEL: Leisa Peschel with
`5
`6 Williams Morgan, P.C., on behalf of the
`7 Alcatel-Lucent Defendants in the 880 case.
`8
`MR. PARK: Jin-Suk Park with the law
`
`9 firm of Akin Gurnp for Samsung.
`10
`MR. YUNGWIRTH: This is Matt
`11 Yungwirth of the law firm Duane Morris for AMX.
`12
`MR. AUSTERMANN: John Austermarm,
`13 CMS.
`LESLIE ALAN BAXTER,
`14
`15 of lawful age, having been produced, sworn, and
`16 examined on the part of Defendant AMX, LLC,
`17 testified as follows:
`18
`EXAMINATION
`
`19 QUESTIONS BY MR. BLUESTONE:
`20
`Q Good morning, Mr. Baxter.
`21
`A Good morning.
`22
`Q Could you please state your fiill name
`23 for the record?
`24
`A My name is Leslie Alan Baxter.
`25
`Q Is there anything preventing you
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by
`1
`2 and between Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for
`3 Defendants that this deposition may be taken by
`4 Tara Schwake, Notary Public and Certified Realtime
`5 Reporter, thereafter transcribed into typewriting,
`6 with the signature of the witness being expressly
`7 reserved.
`* * * * *
`8
`(Deposition commenced at 9:01 a.m.)
`9
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: My name is John
`10
`ll Niehaus of Veritext, the date today is October 22,
`12 2014, and the time is approximately 9:01 a.m. This
`13 deposition is being held in the office of The Simon
`14 Law Firm located at 800 Market Street, St. Louis,
`15 Missouri 63101.
`16
`The caption of this case is Chrimar
`17 Systems, Inc., et a1., versus AMX, LLC, in the U.S.
`18 District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
`19 Division, Case Number 6:13-CV-881-JDL. The name of
`20 the witness is Les Baxter.
`
`today from providing complete testimony, like any
`1
`2 medications or anything like that?
`3
`A No.
`4
`Q And you got a good night's sleep?
`5
`A Yes.
`6
`Q I know you've been deposed before, so
`7 I'll skip with a lot of the formalities but one
`8 thing Iwant to make clear. If there's anything
`9 that I ask you that's unclear, please ask for
`10 clarification.
`11
`If you don't ask for clarification,
`12 the record will assume that you understood the
`13 question; is that fair?
`14
`A Yes.
`15
`Q Okay. Why don't we --
`16
`MR. PARK: I apologize for
`17 interrupting --
`18
`MR. BLUESTONE:
`19
`MR. PARK:
`-- but I can't really hear
`20 the witness's response. If there's any way to push
`
`At this time the attorneys will
`21
`22 identify themselves and the parties they represent,
`23 after which our court reporter, Tara Schwake of
`24 Veritext, will swear in the witness and we can
`25 proceed.
`
`21 the telephone closer to him, that would be
`22 appreciated.
`23
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One moment please,
`24 we're going off the record at approximately 9:03
`25 a.m.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`bit 1033
`
`0003
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0003
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`
`(Off the record.)
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
`
`3 record at approximately 9:05 a.m.
`4
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I'm going to mark
`5 as Exhibit 1 a copy of US Patent No. 8,155,012.
`6
`(Exhibit 1 marked for identification
`7 by the court reporter.)
`8
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I am assuming you
`9 have seen Exhibit 1 before, sir?
`10
`A Yes. Yes, Ihave.
`11
`Q If you could turn to claim 31,
`12 please? Do you see that claim 31 uses the term
`13 "distinguishing information"; correct?
`14
`A Yes, I do.
`15
`Q I'd just like to ask you some
`16 questions about distinguishing information as you
`17 understand it.
`
`A Okay.
`18
`Q Who decides what is distinguishing
`19
`20 information under the claims?
`
`A Who decides? Well, distinguishing
`21
`22 information is information that can allow you to
`23 classify or categorize the equipment.
`24
`Q Okay. Is there -- does the person
`25 making the device decide whether they have
`
`A Well, I think -- obviously if it's a
`1
`2 dispute we can't resolve, the court will decide for
`3 us, correct? That's the way any patent would work.
`4
`Q Fair enough. But if we're going to
`5 go look at just the term "distinguishing
`6 information," where do we go to decide what that
`7 means? Is it the intent of the person making the
`8 device? Is it the intent of the patent owner, for
`9 example, either or both?
`10
`A Well, I would look at the device and
`
`11 the way it operates, the supporting documentation
`12 and so on, and if the elements of this claim were
`
`13 met, then I would say it infringes.
`14
`Q Okay. But -- and you are not -- you
`15 are a third party, you are not the manufacturer?
`16
`A Correct.
`
`Q So it could be the person making the
`17
`18 device, it could be you in your role as an expert
`19 witness, for example?
`20
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`21
`A I don't quite follow that.
`22
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) I guess what I'm
`23 jut trying to figure out is there's obviously
`24 disputes in this case as to what is distinguishing
`25 information.
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`1 categorized or classified the equipment, or is it
`2 someone else?
`
`3
`
`A Yes, I believe at the time of
`
`4 manufacture you have done that.
`5
`Q Okay. But from -- let's start kind
`6 of from an expansive thing and funnel it down. I'd
`7 like to just get a sense of who all the respective
`8 parties could be that would make that
`9 determination.
`
`So it could be the person making a
`10
`11 device; correct?
`12
`A Yeah.
`
`Q Could it be anyone else?
`13
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`14
`A I think the -- I guess the way I read
`15
`16 this, the distinguishing information would be
`17 defined and built into the device. So that it
`
`18 would be recognized by another device.
`19
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. But let's
`20 say you and I have a dispute as to whether it's
`21 distinguishing information.
`22
`A Mm-hmm.
`
`In looking at the Exhibit 1, is there
`anything in Exhibit 1 that defines an objective
`standard of what is distinguishing information?
`A They give a number of examples.
`Q Okay. But is there one objective
`standard beyond the examples that's provided?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, vague.
`A Well, in my opinion, plain and
`ordinary meaning of the term coupled with the
`examples they give would allow one of skill in the
`art to determine that.
`
`LnNr—4o\ooo\la\Uu-l>L»JNr—‘
`
`b—lb—lb—lb—l
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. Now, with
`respect to distinguishing information, I'd like to
`14 lmow, from a temporal aspect, at what time does
`15 information become distinguishing? And let me
`16 rephrase that, that was a little long.
`17
`When does -- when do you evaluate
`18 when the information is distinguishing? At what
`19 time frame?
`
`A I'm sorry, you lost me there.
`20
`Q Okay. You had referred previously
`21
`22 about the manufacturer of a product.
`23
`A Correct.
`
`Q Whose -- whose -- and I am the
`23
`24 manufacturer. Whose determination governs whether 24
`Q When you are assessing whether that
`25 it's distinguishing or not?
`25 product has distinguishing information, do you look
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`4 (Pages 10 -13)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0004
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0004
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1 more at prior art than infringement.
`Q Well, pick any date. It doesn't
`matter to me. You lcnow, you could say it's 2000
`and 2005. I don't care.
`
`8\OOO\lO\lJI-Pbltx)
`
`at it as of the date of manufacture?
`
`>—*O\ooo\lO\U:-l>bJl\>r—*
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A Well, for a product, I would look at
`the product as it's made.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And are
`you analyzing whether it had distinguishing
`information as of the time that I manufactured it,
`or at the time you are looking at it?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A Well, unless someone has done
`
`Ir-‘P-4
`something to it in the meantime, I would assume
`12 those are the same.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) What if a
`13
`14 standard has come out in the meantime that would
`
`15 apply to that device? Would that change the
`16 analysis?
`17
`A In terms of whether it meets these
`18 claim elements?
`
`Q In terms of whether it has
`19
`20 distinguishing information.
`21
`A Well, I -- it would I guess make it
`22 easier to show if the standard defines some
`
`23 distinguishing information and the device includes
`24 it, that would be one way to show that it is
`25 distinguishing.
`I don't know if that's what you're
`
`A Okay.
`Q Same -- same hypothetical, though,
`you lcnow, at th -- at 2000 it's designed and first
`manufactured, 2002 a standard comes out that
`
`applies to it --
`A Okay.
`Q -- and 2005 we are looking at the
`same exact product again. Could it be that in 2000
`it didn't have distinguishing information but now
`in 2005 it does?
`
`.—
`._i
`>— [Q
`—A L»)
`>— -P
`>—A UI
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`>— O\
`A Well, again, you know, I look back at
`—A \l
`the claims and if it does every element of the
`>— 00
`claims, if it puts the distinguishing, if it puts
`—A \o
`the impedance there, puts impedance in the path to
`I00 associate with that distinguishing information,
`N) r—-
`then I think it would.
`NIx)
`[0U)
`N-P
`
`Q (BY MR BLUESTONE) Okay. But how do
`we know if it's put in the path to be associated
`with distinguishing information?
`A Well, you would have to look at the
`
`25
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 17
`
`looking for or not.
`1
`Q Could it be that you, as of the date
`2
`3 of the design of the product, there was no
`4 standard, but subsequent manufacture there was a
`5 standard and now distinguishing information applies
`6 where it previously did not?
`7
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`8
`A Can you give me that a little -- I'm
`9 not quite sure what you're getting at.
`10
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Sure. Well,
`11 let's say you're looking at the first -- let's say
`12 you have a product that was manufactured in 1995,
`13 and it's continuously being manufactured for ten
`14 years, let's say.
`15
`Could it be that the information --
`
`16 that it didn't have any distinguishing information
`17 in 1995 but the same exact design manufacture in
`18 2005 has distinguishing information now?
`19
`A The same exact product ten years
`20 later?
`
`Q The same exact product, yeah, ten
`21
`22 years later.
`23
`A If at the time it was manufactured in
`
`24 1995, which, of course, predates the priority of
`25 this thing, right? Then I think you're looking
`
`1 product, the documentation and so on. If the
`2 product manual has -- says, hey, under these
`3 conditions we put X impedance on this path to
`4 indicate Y, then that's a pretty strong indication
`5 that maybe you're doing that.
`6
`Q Okay.
`7
`A If it just happens to have some
`8 random impedance because we're trying to mask the
`9 transmission log or something, then I would not
`10 think that would be distinguishing information.
`11
`Q Okay. So if you had a product that
`12 was doing -- putting in 150 ohms resistor for the
`13 purpose of impedance matching, for example --
`14
`A Correct.
`
`Q -- and at that time there was no
`15
`16 standard ascribing any meaning to 150 ohms, it
`17 would not read on those elements that you're
`18 referencing?
`19
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`20
`A I would not think so.
`I mean, again,
`21 you have to analyze the entire product. We are
`22 taking one isolated feature out of context, but
`23 yeah, I think that's very possible.
`24
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. And just
`25 to make sure that I'm understanding, your point was
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`5 (Pages 14 -17)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0005
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0005
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1 I need to look at this supporting documentation and
`2 that's going to tell me why they put it in; is that
`3 right?
`4
`A Well, yes. Why I interpret the
`5 claims, the impedance in the path is there for the
`6 purpose of indicating that distinguishing
`7 information.
`
`Q Okay. And you could have an
`8
`9 impedance in the path for a variety of reasons;
`10 right?
`1 1
`A Sure.
`
`Q And one reason you gave, for example,
`12
`13 is impedance matching?
`14
`A Yes.
`
`Q Could you just briefly describe what
`15
`16 that is at high level?
`17
`A Yeah, the transmission line is a
`
`18 characteristic impedance if you want to match the
`19 impedance of that in your receiver, for instance,
`20 for signal transmission reasons.
`21
`Q Sorry, you might have been doing a
`22 little fast for the court reporter.
`23
`A You need me to repeat it?
`24
`Q Okay, sorry. So that's one thing you
`25 could put -- could you put a filter on the line,
`
`Page 19
`
`1 for example?
`2
`A You could put a filter on the line.
`3
`Q Okay. Is there anything else you
`4 could think of that you would serve the p11rpose of
`5 a ranging impedance for something other than
`6 distinguishing?
`7
`A Quite often put a termination on the
`8 line and that's so you're just matching the
`9 impedance. You could put something in to limit the
`10 current so you don't draw too much current, for
`1 1
`instance, in there.
`
`Q Okay. Like you could put an
`12
`13 isolation transformer on the line, for example?
`14
`A You could.
`
`Q Okay. And all these serve purposes
`15
`16 that you would say are separate and apart from
`17 providing distinguishing information?
`18
`A The way we have discussed them here,
`19 yes, I would say.
`20
`Q Okay. Is it possible for a device to
`21 put on, to arrange an impedance for multiple
`22 reasons?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`23
`A I don't know offhand. I can't say
`24
`25 that it's impossible.
`
`\OOO\lO\UI-l>Lo3l\)I-‘
`
`10
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`0O\I®l.II-BLAJl\)P-‘©\OOO\lO\UI-l3LI3l\)P-‘
`
`>->—A>—Ar—I>—->—A>—A>—A>—A
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`23
`24
`25
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So if you put in
`a device that -- you put impedance matching -- you
`put in an impedance for the purpose of impedance
`matching, pardon me.
`A Correct.
`
`Q At that time, because it's solely for
`that purpose, it doesn't have distinguishing
`information; correct?
`A Correct.
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But let's say,
`for example -- you're familiar with a Bob Smith
`termination; correct?
`A Yes.
`
`Q So at some point, if you've put on a
`Bob Smith termination, it's going to serve the
`purpose of impedance matching; correct?
`A Well, it's -- yeah, roughly. I mean,
`it's terminating common mode noise.
`Q And could you just give a brief
`explanation of why the Bob Smith termination is in
`place?
`A Yeah, because you can have common
`mode currents on pairs that will radiate noise and
`by putting on impedance at the end between them,
`
`Page 21
`
`you can terminate those currents and keep them from
`reflecting back and forth.
`Q Okay. And is a Bob Smith termination
`typically used these days?
`A Ibelieve so.
`
`Q So if I put a Bob Smith termination
`on my device for the additional reason of wanting
`people to know that it does impedance matching,
`have I now provided distinguishing information?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A You put it on for what purpose?
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) So one purpose of
`putting a Bob Smith termination on a Ethernet
`connector across a path would be to serve for
`impedance matching; correct?
`A Yes.
`
`Q And my question to you is take that
`same exact example and now in my head not only do I
`want to put it in for impedance matching, I want
`people to know that I'm smart enough to put on a
`Bob Smith termination. Specifically, I want people
`to know that this device is compliant with any
`requirement that you put on a Bob Smith
`termination.
`
`Does it have distinguishing
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0006
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0006
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`information?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`2
`A Not in my opinion, no.
`3
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Why not?
`4
`A Because you put the Bob Smith
`5
`6 termination there to cancel common mode noise and
`
`7 if you -- as your common mode noise you'll see is
`8 canceled, okay, fine. I mean, I don't -- you're
`9 simply meeting the EMC requirements for rating
`10 emissions, which everyone has to meet. So I don't
`11 see that as being distinguishing.
`12
`Q But there was a time before where
`13 there was no Bob Smith termination on it, right?
`14 Like when Bob Smith invented it, for example;
`15 correct?
`
`A Right. Correct.
`16
`Q Okay. So there was a time where Bob
`17
`18 Smith terminations didn't exist?
`19
`A Yes.
`
`Q And then after Bob Smith terminations
`20
`21 come into play, now there is a different category
`22 of devices, isn't there?
`23
`A I don't know that I recall a
`
`24 different category of devices, but...
`25
`Q Well, there would be a universe of
`
`1 distinguishing information on that device?
`2
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`3
`A It does not seem that way to me, no.
`4
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Because?
`5
`A Because you're simply -- you're
`6 putting that in to minimize the emissions. And
`7 other than that, there would be no point in doing
`8 it.
`
`Q So, but if there is a -- but if there
`9
`10 is a point in doing it -- so let's give a different
`11 example. I don't know Bob Smith personally, I am
`12 assuming that he's a humble man, from what I've
`13 heard, and he is a nice guy.
`14
`But let's say that Bob Smith
`15 requires, because he has a patent, that people put
`16 in his termination so that he can get credit for
`17 it. So that people know it's a Bob Smith device.
`18
`Does the arrangement of a Bob Smith
`19 termination now provide distinguishing information?
`20
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, fonn.
`21
`A Yeah, I'm struggling with that one.
`22 I still don't see how it does.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Because you're
`23
`24 saying there is a more primary purpose other than
`25 that? Is that correct?
`
`Page 23
`
`Page 25
`
`1 devices that have Bob Smith terminations and a
`
`2 universe that don't; correct?
`3
`A I suppose that's so.
`4
`Q Okay. And the impedance arrangement
`5 that identifies it as a Bob Smith termination would
`
`6 also serve to categorize it as a Bob Smith
`7 termination device, wouldn't it?
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`8
`A Well, it serves primarily to 1irr1it
`9
`10 common mode emissions, is the reason why it was put
`11 there.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Right. But you
`12
`13 said primarily. There also could be an additional
`14 reason, and that would be I am putting it in so
`15 people know it's got impedance matching. I could
`16 do that, couldn't I?
`
`A I -- that really doesn't make any
`17
`18 sense to me, but...
`19
`Q Well, let's say I have a document
`20 that says, in my spec sheet for my company, you are
`21 to put in a Bob Smith termination because we want
`22 you to do impedance matching and we want it to
`23 satisfy the IEEE standards requirement that you put
`24 in a Bob Smith termination.
`
`25
`
`In that instance, have I put in
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A I guess what I'm saying is I don't
`see that as distinguishing information. I see that
`as one design technique you could use to minimize
`common mode emission, and to the -- as opposed to
`something you want to communicate, say, to the
`device on the other end of the link.
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) But if it serves
`two purposes, step away from Bob Smith, for
`example, and just say you have a simple low-pass
`filter --
`
`A Okay.
`Q -- across the context of an Ethernet
`connector.
`I could arrange that low-pass filter
`for two purposes; right? I could do it, one, for
`filtering out high frequencies; correct? I could
`also do it as some sort of signature for the
`device, cou1dn'tI?
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`A Typically, if you describe it as a
`low-pass filter, you're doing it for filtering.
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Mm-hmm. But I
`could create the filter so that it is different
`
`|\J[\)[\)[\)>—I>—->—A>—Au—I>—a>—A>—A>—A>—AK-b3l\)>-‘©\O0O\IO\LlI-BUJIQP-‘©\O0O\lO\LlI-l>LoJl\)P-‘
`
`24 enough fiom a generic low-pass filter that people
`25 would know it was my device, couldn't I?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0007
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0007
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`A I don't know that I've ever seen
`
`2 anything like that.
`3
`Q Could it be done?
`4
`A I don't know offhand.
`
`Q Okay. So let's take a company that's
`5
`6 selling a product with an Ethernet connector. Does
`7 that Ethernet connector have an impedance across a
`8 path?
`9
`A Yes, in general there will be some
`10 paths that have some impedance across.
`11
`Q Okay. Is there ever going to be --
`12 and we can use either definition of impedance,
`13 plaintiffs‘ or defendants‘, it doesn't matter to
`14 me, just please specify which one you want to use.
`15 Is there ever going to be an instance in which an
`16 Ethernet device with an Ethernet connector is not
`17 going to have an impedance across a path?
`18
`A No, I think there's always going to
`19 be some path with some impedance.
`20
`Q Okay. And just to clarify for the
`21 record, is that under your proposed construction,
`22 or defendants‘?
`23
`A Certainly under ours.
`24
`Q Okay. Would you believe that's the
`25 case under defendants‘ as well? Or --
`
`\D0O\lO’«UI-kb)l\)I'-*
`
`10
`11
`12
`
`Q How do I know if it's for the purpose
`
`of‘?
`
`A Again, I would look to the
`documentation specifications of the product that
`would typically say that because if you're trying
`to indicate that information, there's really, I
`mean, in an Ethernet system you're talking to
`another terminal at the other end of the link;
`right?
`
`So if you're putting impedances in to
`indicate things, they have to know about it or
`you're not really indicating, right? So there
`13 would have to be some type of documentation that
`14 says when do I this, it means that.
`15
`Q And is there any particular language
`16 you'd be looking for it to say?
`17
`A I would be looking for descriptions
`18 sort of like that, that when I put this impedance
`19 in under these conditions, it means that.
`20
`Q And what's "that" in that phrase?
`21
`A Some distinguishing information that
`22 you want convey.
`23
`Q Okay. So in the absence of a
`24 document that says we put in the impedance to
`25 convey distinguishing information, would the device
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`1
`A It might be. I haven't really
`2
`3 thought that through.
`4
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. That's
`5 fair. Okay. So how does a company -- okay. So
`6 taking your construction of impedance, company
`7 selling a product with an Ethernet connector. We
`8 know it has an impedance across a path. Across the
`9 contacts; correct?
`10
`Given all of that, how does the
`11 company look at the device and say it has or it
`12 doesn't have distinguishing information?
`13
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`14
`A Well, again, I think if you look at
`15 the claims, if you do the elements in the claims,
`16 where I think distinguishing information is fairly
`17 clear from the context of this, that one of skill
`18 in the art could determine that.
`19
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) How? How would
`20 they do that?
`21
`A Well, as I said before, you look at
`22 the product, the documentation and so on, see how
`23 it works and whether it is providing an impedance
`24 for the purpose of indicating distinguishing
`25 information about the product.
`
`lack distinguishing information?
`1
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`2
`A Are you asking is that the -- is that
`3
`4 the only way to prove it? Is that what you're
`5 asking?
`6
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) We can go that
`7 way. Go ahead and answer that question that you've
`8 raised, that's fine.
`9
`A No, I don't think that's the only
`10 way. You could talk to the people who designed it.
`11 You could test it and analyze how it performs.
`12
`Q Okay. So if there was no document
`13 and no person saying we put it in for this reason,
`14 would you lack distinguishing information?
`15
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`16
`A Well, I think if it, if it's -- I
`17 would imagine in many cases, by testing and
`18 analyzing the product, you could -- you could
`19 discover, sort of reverse engineering the product,
`20 you could discover that.
`21
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) Okay. What would
`22 you look for in reverse engineering the product
`23 that would tell you what the purpose was for that
`24 impedance?
`25
`A If the impedance in the product
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`
`
`bit 1033
`
`0008
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0008
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1 correlated with a distinguishing characteristic.
`2
`Q Where do you go to look for the
`3 distinguishing characteristic that's relevant?
`4
`A I'm not sure I follow the question.
`5
`Q Well, I think you said you were
`6 looking to see if the impedance of the product
`7 correlated with the distinguishing characteristic;
`8 is that correct?
`9
`A Whether it was associated with or
`
`10 whatever you want to say, yes.
`11
`Q Sure. But the key phrase that I am
`12 focusing on is distinguishing characteristic. How
`13 does a person know what the range of distinguishing
`14 characteristics are?
`
`A Well, presumably you're talking about
`15
`16 some particular product. I mean --
`17
`Q Okay.
`18
`A And for that particular product there
`19 are things that might be relevant, and if you're
`20 using impedance to signal one of those, then I
`21 think you -- there's a good chance you meet these
`22 claims. This claim.
`
`Q So you would say that the processor
`23
`24 type could be distinguishing characteristic?
`25
`A That's one of the examples given in
`
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`1
`A I mean, I suppose it would be
`2
`3 possible. That might not be the best way to do it,
`4 but...
`
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) How would it be
`5
`6 possible?
`7
`A If there's -- if there's two
`
`8 different types of processors you might use in this
`9 thing and you put one value for one and another
`10 value for the other.
`
`Q And how do I know what values would
`11
`12 correlate to a processor type? By value, you mean
`13 something in ohms or --
`14
`A Value impedance, yeah.
`15
`Q Okay. How would I know what value
`16 would have meaning for a processor type?
`17
`A Well, again, typically there would be
`18 some documentation that would tell you how the
`19 thing operates and what the various impedances
`20 would mean. Failing that, you could test some of
`21 them with different processor types and notice that
`22 this impedance always correlates with that and this
`23 with that.
`
`Q Now, an Ethernet device would
`24
`25 typically have some sort of isolation transformer
`
`Page 31
`
`Page 33
`
`1 at the end, wouldn't it?
`1 here, yes.
`2
`A Yes.
`2
`Q How would you look at the impedance
`3
`Q And the purpose of the isolation
`3 across an Ethernet connector and correlate that to
`4 trans -- let me rephrase that, I'm sorry.
`4 a processor type?
`5
`One purpose of an isolation
`5
`MR. KRIEGER: Objection, form.
`6 transfonner would be to block current flow from the
`6
`A Well, obviously that depends on --
`7 internal circuitry of let's say that Ethernet
`7 sorry.
`8 device to the outside world; is that correct?
`MR. KRIEGER: Go ahead.
`8
`9
`A Well, that's the isolation function,
`A That would depend on how the product
`9
`10 yes.
`10 is designed, obviously.
`Q Yeah, right, but you -- in that
`11
`Q (BY MR. BLUESTONE) What would you 11
`12 need to know?
`12 circumstance you wouldn't be able to go and know
`A What? Sorry.
`13
`13 any differences in the processor, right? Because
`>—- -5 it would be blocked off; correct?
`Q What would you need to know?
`14
`A If you saw different impedances for
`15
`A Unless you put the impedance where it
`can be read from outside.
`16 different processor types, for instance. If you
`17 said, hey, when I apply this voltage, I want you to
`18 give me a resistance that indicates what your
`19 processor type is, or if you're using a technique
`20 more like outlined in specification where you're
`21 sending the processor type, the model number,
`22 whatever. There's various ways could you do it.
`23
`Q What if I'm just using a single
`24 resistor across the path? Can I use that to note
`25 the processor type is?
`
`[\)[\)[\)>—I>—->—A>—Ar—IIQ?-"©\O0O\IO\LlI
`
`Q You would have to deliberately wire
`it to put in an impedance that would go and signify
`a particular processor type; correct?
`A That -- that's one way you could do
`it, yes.
`Q You'd have to say I am putting in a
`23 100 kilo ohm resistor here and that means something
`24 to me?
`
`25
`
`A Again, I'm not sure what you mean by
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`9 (Pages 30 - 33)
`
`888-391-3376
`
`bit 1033
`
`0009
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1033
`0009
`
`
`
`Page 34
`
`Page 36
`
`1 you would have to, but that's certainly one way you
`2 could do it, yes.
`3
`Q Okay. Where, in claim 31 where we're
`4 talking about distinguishing information, where is
`5 that distinguishing information located on a
`6 Ethernet data terminal device?
`
`A I'm sorry, can you --
`7
`Q Sure. Where is the distinguishing
`8
`9 information located in a Ethernet data terminal
`10 device?
`
`A Well, first off, it depends whether
`11
`12 it has one or not. If it doesn't have one, it's
`
`13 not located anywhere. If it does, that would be a
`14 design option. When you're designing the
`15 equipment, you could decide where you want to put
`16 it.
`
`17
`
`Back in, for instance, the time frame
`
`18 of when the specification was written, there were
`19 still Ethemets that only used two pai