Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 87
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-0034
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC. and LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-0034
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF EREZ ZADOK, PH.D. IN SUPPORT
`OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 6,411,941
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 87
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................... 1
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................................... 8
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background Principles ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Means-Plus-Function .............................................................................................. 9
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ...................................... 10
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’941 TECHNOLOGY ........................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII. OPINIONS ........................................................................................................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`The Term “Agent” Does Not Connote Sufficient Structure ................................. 17
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 87
`
`I, Erez Zadok, Ph.D. declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical consultant by Defendants LG Electronics Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. I have been asked by counsel for Defendants to provide certain opinions and views related
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (the “’941 patent”) in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this
`
`Declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`3.
`
`My findings and opinions in this matter are based on my education, experience,
`
`and background in the field. My opinion and the underlying reasoning for this opinion is set
`
`forth below.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am a Professor in the Computer Science Department at Stony Brook University
`
`(part of the State University of New York (“SUNY”) system). I direct the File-systems and
`
`Storage Lab (FSL) at Stony Brook’s Computer Science Department. My research interests
`
`include file systems and storage systems, operating systems, information technology and system
`
`administration, security and information assurance, networking, energy efficiency, performance
`
`and benchmarking, compilers, applied machine learning, and software engineering.
`
`5.
`
`I studied at a professional high school in Israel, focusing on electrical engineering
`
`(“EE”), and graduated in 1982. I spent one more year at the high school’s college division,
`
`receiving a special Certified Technician’s degree in EE. I then went on to serve in the Israeli
`
`Defense Forces for three years (1983–1986). I received my Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`computer science (“CS”) in 1991, my Master’s degree in CS in 1994, and my Ph.D. in CS in
`
`2001—all from Columbia University in New York.
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 87
`
`
`
`6.
`
`When I began my undergraduate studies at Columbia University, I also started
`
`working as a student assistant in the various campus-wide computer labs, eventually becoming
`
`an assistant to the head labs manager, who was managing all public computer labs on campus.
`
`During that time, I also became more involved with research within the CS Department at
`
`Columbia University, conducting research on operating systems, file and storage systems,
`
`security, and other topics. I also assisted the CS department’s computer administrators in
`
`managing the department’s computers, which included storage, IT, networking, and cyber-
`
`security related duties.
`
`7.
`
`During the late 1980’s, I became exposed to and aware of information assurance
`
`topics. As the then fledgling Internet was growing in popularity, so were cyber-attacks of
`
`various sorts. For example, I was an undergraduate student working on computer programming
`
`assignments when the infamous “Morris Worm” hit the Internet in November of 1988.
`
`8.
`
`In 1991, I joined Columbia University’s CS department as a full-time systems
`
`administrator, studying towards my MS degree part-time. My MS thesis topic related to file
`
`system reliability, fault tolerance, replication, and failover in mobile networked systems. My
`
`main duties as a systems administrator involved installing, configuring, and managing many
`
`networked servers, proxies, and desktops running several operating systems, as well as network
`
`devices setup; this included many hardware upgrades, device upgrades, and BIOS
`
`firmware/chipset updates/upgrades. My duties also included ensuring reliable, secure,
`
`authenticated access to networked systems and licensed software, as well as software updates,
`
`security and bug fixes. Examples of servers and their protocols included email (SMTP), file
`
`transfer (FTP), domain names (DNS), network file systems (NFS), network news systems
`
`(NNTP), and Web (HTTP).
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 87
`
`9.
`
`In 1994, I left my systems administrator position to pursue my doctoral studies at
`
`Columbia University. My Ph.D. thesis topic was on versatile file system development, with
`
`examples in the fields of security and encryption, efficiency, reliability, and failover. I continued
`
`to work part-time as a systems administrator at the CS department, and eventually I was asked to
`
`serve as manager to the entire information technology (“IT”) staff. From 1991 to 2001, I was a
`
`member of the faculty-level Facilities Committee that oversaw all IT operations at the CS
`
`department. During this entire time, topics of information assurance and software protection
`
`became more prominent and time-consuming in the lives of system administrators worldwide,
`
`and my work at Columbia was no different. For example, configuring/maintaining firewalls and
`
`proxies and applying security patches, and [re]licensing software, became more important and a
`
`dominant part of everyday IT duties, as well as defending against a growing list of copyright
`
`violations and malicious software threats (e.g., viruses, worms, Trojans, spyware, and more).
`
`10.
`
`As part of my Ph.D. studies at Columbia, I collaborated on projects to develop
`
`advanced AI-like techniques to detect previously unknown viruses (a.k.a. “zero-day malware”),
`
`using data mining and rule-based detection. This work led to several highly cited papers (1,100
`
`citations for one of the papers alone), and two patents. I also became a Teaching Assistant (TA)
`
`for a first-ever Computer Security course given at Columbia University’s CS department with
`
`Dr. Matt Blaze as instructor.
`
`11.
`
`From 1990 to 1998, I consulted for SOS Corporation and HydraWEB
`
`Technologies, as a systems administrator and programmer, managing data storage use and
`
`backup/restore duties, as well as information assurance and cyber-security (e.g., malware
`
`protection, software licensing). From 1994 to 2000, I led projects at HydraWEB Technologies,
`
`and then became the Director of Software Development—overseeing the development of several
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 87
`
`products and appliances such as stateful firewalls and HTTP load-balancers. Since 2009, I have
`
`consulted for Packet General Networks, a startup specializing in secure storage and applications’
`
`data security.
`
`12.
`
`In 2001, I joined the faculty of Stony Brook University, a position I have held
`
`since. In 2002, I joined the Operations Committee, which oversees the IT operations of the CS
`
`department at Stony Brook University. From 2006 to 2010, I was the Director of IT Operations
`
`of the CS department; my day-to-day duties include setting policies regarding computing, hiring
`
`and training new staff, assisting any staff with topics of my specialty, defining requirements for
`
`new software/hardware, and purchasing. From 2010 to 2015, I have served as the Co-Chair to
`
`the Operations Committee. From 2016 to 2019, I oversaw the IT Operations as the Chair of the
`
`Operations Committee. A significant component of these duties included defining and helping
`
`implement policies for access control, firewalling, software licensing, anti-malware, anti-denial-
`
`of-service, and intrusion prevention—so as to ensure the security of users and their data, while
`
`minimizing the inconvenience and performance impact to users. These duties include protecting
`
`users from external threats as well as protecting the outside world from inside threats (e.g.,
`
`infected laptops that start to spam outsiders or steal and transmit sensitive information). Since
`
`late 2019, I’ve been a member of the department’s Executive Committee that also oversees all IT
`
`operations.
`
`13.
`
`In 2017, I became the department’s Graduate Academic Adviser, advising all
`
`Masters students (over 400 on average) and many other graduate students on an assortment of
`
`matters.
`
`14.
`
`Since 2001, I personally configured and managed my own research lab’s network.
`
`This includes setting up and configuring a bi-directional Linux based stateful packet firewall,
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 87
`
`Web proxies, SSL-based services (secure HTTP, email, etc.), and Denial-of-Service prevention
`
`techniques. I’ve personally installed, configured, changed, replaced parts, and upgraded
`
`components in numerous devices from laptops to servers.
`
`15.
`
`Throughout the 1990’s and at least until 2004, I continued to personally use,
`
`install, configure, and train others on anti-malware software to protect users from viruses,
`
`Trojans, worms, spyware, and more. I’ve personally used software from Norton, Symantec,
`
`Trend Micro, McAfee, and others. I’ve used this software on Microsoft Windows, Linux
`
`systems, and on Apple Mac OS systems.
`
`16.
`
`Since 1995, I have taught courses on operating systems, storage and file systems,
`
`advanced systems programming in Unix/C, systems administration, data structures, data/software
`
`security, and more. My courses often use storage, file systems, distributed systems, and
`
`system/network security as key teaching principles and practical examples for assignments and
`
`projects. I have taught these concepts and techniques to my students, both to my direct advisees
`
`as well as in my courses. For example, in my graduate Operating Systems course, I often cover
`
`Linux’s kernel mechanisms to protect users, applications, and data files. And in the System
`
`Administration undergraduate course, I covered many topics such as networking, firewalling,
`
`and cyber-security—including configuring and maintaining site security policies, DDoS
`
`handling, and the impact on anti-malware scanners on system performance.
`
`17. My research often investigates computer systems from many angles: security,
`
`efficiency, energy use, scalability, reliability, portability, survivability, usability, ease-of-use,
`
`versatility, flexibility, and more. My research gives special attention to balancing five often-
`
`conflicting aspects of computer systems: performance, reliability, energy use, security, and ease-
`
`of-use. Since joining Stony Brook University in 2001, my group in the File-systems and Storage
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 87
`
`
`
`Lab (FSL) has developed many file systems and operating system extensions; examples include
`
`a highly-secure cryptographic file system, a portable copy-on-write (COW) versioning file
`
`system, a tracing file system useful to detect intrusions, a replaying file system useful for
`
`forensics, a snapshotting and sandboxing file system, a namespace unification file system (that
`
`uses stackable, file-based COW), an anti-virus file system, an integrity-checking file system, a
`
`load balancing and replication/mirroring file system, network file system extensions for security,
`
`distributed secure cloud-based storage systems, a compiler to convert user-level C code to in-
`
`kernel efficient yet safe code, GCC plugins, stackable file system templates, and a Web-based
`
`backup system. I continue to maintain and release newer versions of some of these file systems
`
`and software.
`
`18.
`
`I have published over 120 refereed publications (in ACM, IEEE, USENIX, and
`
`more). To date, my publications have been cited more than 7,500 times (as per Google Scholar
`
`as of March 15, 2020). My papers cover a wide range of related technologies such as file
`
`systems, storage systems, security, performance benchmarking and optimization, energy
`
`efficiency, system administration, and more. I also published a book entitled “Linux NFS and
`
`Automounter Administration” (Sybex, 2001), covering systems administration topics related to
`
`network storage and data security.
`
`19.
`
`Some of my research has led to public software releases that have been used
`
`worldwide. I have publicly maintained the Amd Berkeley Automounter in a package called
`
`“am-utils” since 1992; this software helps administrators manage the multitude of file system
`
`mounts on dozens of different Unix systems. Since 1997, I have maintained and released several
`
`stackable file system software projects for Linux, FreeBSD, and/or Solaris, in a package called
`
`FiST. One of my stackable file system encryption projects, called Cryptfs, became the basis for
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 87
`
`
`
`IBM’s public release of eCryptfs, now part of Linux. Packet General Networks, for whom I
`
`have provided consulting services since 2009, licensed another encryption file system called
`
`Ncryptfs. Another popular file system released in 2003, called Unionfs, offers namespace
`
`unification, transparent shadow copying (a.k.a. copy-on-write or COW), file system snapshotting
`
`(e.g., useful for forensics), and the ability to save disk space by sharing a read-only copy of data
`
`among several computers, among other features.
`
`20. My research and teaching make extensive use of security features. For example,
`
`each time I taught the graduate operating system course, the first homework assignment includes
`
`the creation of a new system call that performs new or added functionality, often for encrypting a
`
`file or verifying its integrity; many of my other assignments cover topics of user/process access
`
`control, anti-virus filtering, and more. Since 2001, over 1,000 graduate students were exposed to
`
`these simple principles directly through my teaching and research at Stony Brook University.
`
`21.
`
`In another, undergraduate course titled “Advanced Systems Programming in
`
`Unix/C,” I cover many topics of system security and vulnerabilities, such as the structure of
`
`UNIX processes, memory segments such as the heap and stack, how the stack often grows
`
`“upwards,” how buffer overflow attacks can hijack a program by overriding the caller/return
`
`address, and an assortment of tools and techniques to prevent bugs from being exploited by
`
`malware. Often, the first assignment for this course is to develop a tool to encrypt/decrypt files
`
`using advanced ciphers, and use digital signatures to certify the cipher keys used. Since 2001,
`
`several hundred undergraduate students were exposed to these principles directly through my
`
`teaching and research at Stony Brook University.
`
`22.
`
`In yet another undergraduate course, System Administration, I taught network
`
`configuration, firewall security, and system security.
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 87
`
`
`
`23. My research has been supported by many federal and state grants as well as
`
`industry awards, including an NSF CAREER award, two IBM Faculty awards, two NetApp
`
`Faculty awards, a Western Digital award, several Dell-EMC awards, and several equipment gifts.
`
`I was the winner of the 2004 Computer Science Department bi-annual Graduate Teaching
`
`Award, the winner of the 2006 Computer Science Department bi-annual Research Excellence
`
`Award, and a recipient of the 2008 SUNY Chancellor’s Excellence in Teaching award (an award
`
`that can be given only once a lifetime).
`
`24.
`
`I am a named inventor on four patents, two titled “Systems and Methods for
`
`Detection of New Malicious Executables” (U.S. Patent No. 7,979,907, issued July 12, 2011; and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,487,544, issued February 3, 2009); and two more titled “Multi-Tier Caching,”
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,355,109, issued May 31, 2016; and U.S. Patent 9,959,279, issued May 1,
`
`2018).
`
`25.
`
`I have been disclosed as a testifying expert in twelve cases (including IPRs) in the
`
`past four years. I have been deposed ten times and testified in trial twice.
`
`26.
`
`A complete copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a list of my publications
`
`and contains further details on my education, experience, publications, patents, and other
`
`qualifications to render an expert opinion, is attached as Ex. A.
`
`27.
`
`The compensation I receive through my consulting company, Zadoks Consulting,
`
`LLC, is $450 per hour for my time, plus out-of-pocket expenses. This compensation is not
`
`dependent in any way on the contents of this Declaration, the substance of any testimony I may
`
`provide, or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`28.
`
`In addition to my general knowledge gained as a result of my education and
`
`experience in the field, I have reviewed and considered the references found in Ex. B.
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 87
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`29.
`
`In forming my opinions, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel
`
`has explained to me, which I have summarized below.
`
`A.
`
`30.
`
`Background Principles
`
`I understand that the purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning
`
`and scope of the patent claims at issue. I understand that the terms in patent claims are generally
`
`given the meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
`
`terms not only in the context of the particular claims in which the disputed terms appear, but in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification and the prosecution history. I further
`
`understand that while a claim is to be read in light of the specification, one must generally avoid
`
`importing limitations into the claim from the specification. I also understand that when a
`
`patentee explicitly defines a claim term or disavows the full scope of a claim term, the customary
`
`meaning does not apply.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art may also look beyond the
`
`intrinsic evidence (e.g., the specification and the prosecution history) to consult “extrinsic
`
`evidence,” such as dictionaries, in order to understand, for example, the background technology
`
`or the way in which one of skill in the art might use the claim terms during the relevant time
`
`period. However, I understand that extrinsic evidence is generally given less weight than
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function
`
`33.
`
`I understand from counsel that whether a term or phrase invokes “means-plus-
`
`function” claiming under a particular statute, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, turns on whether the words of
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 87
`
`
`
`the claim are understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite
`
`meaning as the name for structure.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that if the claims do not use the word “means,” there is a
`
`presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply; however, the presumption can be overcome
`
`if it can be demonstrated that the claims fail to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recite
`
`function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. I further understand
`
`that if the claims simply replace the term “means” with well-known “nonce” words that reflect
`
`nothing more than verbal constructions, the presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply
`
`may be overcome. I understand that some examples of these well-known “nonce” words include
`
`“module,” “mechanism,” “element,” and “device.”
`
`35.
`
`I understand that if a term is found not to have a sufficiently definite meaning as
`
`the name for structure, the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the
`
`specification corresponds to the claimed function. I further understand that the structure
`
`disclosed in the specification qualifies as a corresponding structure if the intrinsic evidence links
`
`or associates the structure to the function recited in the claim. I also understand that in terms of
`
`computer-implemented means-plus-function claims (e.g., claims relying on software) the
`
`specification must disclose an algorithm to perform the function associated with the limitation. I
`
`understand that, in these instances, absent the disclosure of an algorithm, the claims may be
`
`found indefinite.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`
`36.
`
`Counsel has informed me of the legal standard governing the determination of the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art include the following: the type of problems encountered in
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 13 of 87
`
`
`
`the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`37.
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume that the priority date
`
`for the ’941 patent is May 21, 1998, i.e., the foreign application priority date listed on the face of
`
`the patent.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the patent (i.e.,
`
`on or around the priority date) would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or in a related field, and about two or three years of experience in industry
`
`with respect to software security, storage systems, and operating systems. An advanced degree
`
`in a relevant field may substitute for a lesser amount of experience and vice versa.
`
`VI.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’941 TECHNOLOGY
`
`39.
`
`The ’941 patent is entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation Within a
`
`License Limitation,” and describes a method of identifying and restricting unauthorized use of a
`
`software program on a computer. ’941 patent at 1:6-8.
`
`40.
`
`The ’941 patent explains that “[n]umerous methods ha[d] been devised for the
`
`identifying and restricting of an unauthorized software program’s operation” prior to the alleged
`
`invention. ’941 patent at 1:12-14. These methods included both software-based methods, which
`
`wrote a license signature onto the computer’s volatile memory, as well as hardware-based
`
`methods, which authorized software usage by accessing an associated physical dongle device.
`
`’941 patent at 1:19-32. According to the ’941 patent, the problem with these prior-art methods
`
`was that the software-based methods were “very vulnerable to attack” by hackers, while the
`
`hardware-based methods were “expensive, inconvenient, and not particularly suitable for
`
`software that may be sold by downloading.” ’941 patent at 1:19-32. The ’941 patent purports to
`
`find a solution that minimizes and/or eliminates these drawbacks.
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 14 of 87
`
`
`
`41.
`
`By way of background, the ’941 provides Figure 1, which illustrates a computer
`
`on which the claimed method can be practiced. As shown in Figure 1, reproduced below, the
`
`computer contains a processor (1). ’941 patent at 5:10-16. The processor (1) contains a first
`
`non-volatile memory area (4) (e.g., the ROM section of the BIOS) and a second non-volatile
`
`memory area (5) (e.g., the E2PROM section of the BIOS). ’941 patent at 5:10-16. The processor
`
`further comprises a volatile memory area (6) (e.g., the internal RAM memory of the computer).
`
`’941 patent at 5:10-16.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`“ROM” is a commonly understood term of art that stands for “Read-Only
`
`Memory,” i.e., a non-volatile memory that can be read from, but cannot be written to or
`
`modified. Commands and data in ROM are generally put into that memory by the manufacturer
`
`during manufacturing and cannot be subsequently changed. “E2PROM” (or “EEPROM”) is a
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 15 of 87
`
`
`
`commonly understood term of art that stands for “Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-
`
`Only Memory.” E2PROM is a type of ROM that can be re-programmed using a special signal.
`
`“RAM” is a commonly understood term of art that stands for “Random-Access Memory.”
`
`Unlike ROM, RAM can be both read from and written to.
`
`43.
`
`The ’941 patent describes two asserted improvements that purportedly overcome
`
`the problems associated with the prior art software- and hardware-based solutions. The first
`
`improvement involves the use of a key and license record, which have been written into the non-
`
`volatile memories of a computer. ’941 patent at 1:38-42. The “key” represents a unique
`
`identification code for the computer, and it is embedded in the ROM of the computer’s BIOS
`
`module. ’941 patent at 1:45-50. Accordingly, the key “cannot be removed or modified.” ’941
`
`patent at 1:50-52. The license record is a record associated with a program with information for
`
`verifying that the program is licensed, e.g., the author name, program name, and a number of
`
`licensed users. ’941 patent at 1:53-58. The “key” (or portions thereof) is used to encrypt and/or
`
`decrypt the license record information (or portions thereof). ’941 patent at 1:59-65.
`
`44.
`
`Based on this disclosure, the ’941 patent explains that “any attempt to run a
`
`program at an unlicensed site will be immediately detected.” ’941 patent at 2:27-29. As the
`
`’941 patent explains, if a program is licensed to run on a given computer having a first
`
`identification code (k1) stored in the ROM portion of the BIOS, the license record (LR) of the
`
`program will be encrypted resulting in (LR)k1 being stored in the computer’s EEPROM. ’941
`
`patent at 1:29-35.
`
`45.
`
`If a hacker attempts to run the same program on a second computer having a
`
`second identification code (k2) stored in the ROM portion of the BIOS, even though the hacker
`
`may be able to copy the encrypted license record, (LR)k1 , to the second computer, the “hacker is
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 16 of 87
`
`
`
`unable to modify the key in the ROM of the second computer to K1, since . . . the contents of the
`
`ROM is established during manufacture and is practically invariable.” ’941 patent at 2:42-46.
`
`Accordingly, when the license verifier attempts to confirm that the program is licensed to run on
`
`the second computer, it encrypts the license record (LR) using key (k2) of the second computer,
`
`which gives rise to encrypted record (LR)k2. ’941 patent at 2:48-53. When the second computer
`
`compares the new encrypted license record, (LR)k2, and the copied encrypted license record,
`
`(LR)k1, it will result in a mismatch, and the application’s use can therefore be restricted. ’941
`
`patent at 2:56-59.
`
`46.
`
`The second alleged improvement that is highlighted by the ’941 patent is the use
`
`of BIOS memory, rather than some other memory space, to store the encrypted license records.
`
`’941 patent at 1:59-2:5, 4:43-47. The ’941 patent notes that the memory of the BIOS is a
`
`particularly sensitive memory area. “[T]he required level of system programming expertise that
`
`is necessary to intercept or modify commands, interacting with the BIOS, is substantially higher
`
`than those needed for tampering with data residing in volatile memory such as hard disk.” ’941
`
`patent at 3:4-9. “Furthermore, there is a much higher cost to the programmer, if his tampering is
`
`unsuccessful, i.e., if data residing in the BIOS (which is necessary for the computer’s operability)
`
`is inadvertently changed by the hacker.” ’941 patent at 3:9-13. As noted by the ’941 patent,
`
`“[t]his is too high of a risk for the ordinary software hacker to pay.” ’941 patent at 3:13-14.
`
`47.
`
`The ’941 patent claims a method of restricting software operation within a
`
`license, taking advantage of the above alleged improvements. At a high level, the patent requires
`
`four steps outlined in Figure 2, reproduced below:
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 17 of 87
`
`
`
`
`
`48.
`
`In describing Figure 2, the ’941 patent explains that the “selecting” step
`
`includes the step of “establishing a licensed-software-program in the volatile memory of the
`
`computer wherein the licensed-software-program includes contents used to form a license-
`
`record.” ’941 patent at 6:7-10.
`
`49.
`
`The “setting up” step is described as “establishing or certifying the
`
`existence of a pseudo unique key in the first non-volatile memory area; and establishing at least
`
`one license-record location in the first or the second nonvolatile memory area.” ’941 patent at
`
`6:19-22. “Establishing a license-record includes the steps of: forming a license-record by
`
`encrypting of the contents used to form a license-record with other predetermined data contents,
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2011
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 18 of 87
`
`
`
`using the key; and establishing the encrypted license-record in one of the at least one established
`
`license record locations.” ’941 patent at 6:23-28.
`
`50.
`
`The “verifying” step is described as “encrypting the licensed-software-
`
`program’s license-record contents from the volatile memory area or decrypting the license record
`
`in the first or the second non-volatile memory area, using the key; and comparing the encrypted
`
`licensed software-program’s license-record contents with the encrypted license-record in the first
`
`or the second non-volatile memory area, or comparing the licensed-software-program’s license-
`
`record contents with the decrypted license-record in the first or the second non-volatile memory
`
`area.” ’941 patent at 6:29-39.
`
`51.
`
`Finally, the “acting” step is described as “restricting the program’s
`
`operation with predetermined limitations if the comparing yields non-unity or insufficiency,” i.e.,
`
`restricting the program’s operation if the comparison in the verifying step fails. ’941 patent at
`
`6:40-42.
`
`VII. OPINIONS
`
`52.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion with respect to the term “using
`
`an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS”
`
`(claim 1).
`
`53.
`
`I understand that the parties dispute whether the term “using an agent to
`
`set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS,” as described in
`
`claim 1, is a means-plus-function limitati