Honorable Richard A. Jones
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01919 -RAJ
`
`DECLARATION OF JON B.
`WEISSMAN, PH.D. REGARDING
`CLAIM CONSTUCTION
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`HTC AMERICA, INC., a Washington
`Corporation, HTC CORPORATION, a
`Taiwanese corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`I, Jon B. Weissman, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear LLP (“Knobbe Martens”)
`
`on behalf of HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC” or “Petitioner”) as an independent
`
`expert in this case. Although I am being compensated at my usual rate of $500 per hour for the
`
`time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation depends on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding, and I have no other interest in this case.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this case involves U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”).
`
`The application for the ’941 patent was filed on October 1, 1998, as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/164,777, and the patent issued on June 25, 2002.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by counsel to review relevant materials and render my expert
`
`opinion in connection with technical matters related to the ’941 patent. I previously set forth my
`
`opinions in a declaration dated May 25, 2017, Exhibit 1009 (“Previous Declaration”) in HTC Corp.
`
`v. Ancora Techs. Inc., CBM2017-00054 (filed May 26, 2017). My opinions regarding claim
`
`construction are set forth below.
`
`4.
`
`My academic and professional background is set forth in my Previous Declaration
`
`in paragraphs 4-9. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’941 patent, the prosecution history
`
`of the ’941 patent (including the reexamination file history), the August 26, 2019 declaration of
`
`Ian Jestice, and the documents cited by Mr. Jestice.
`
`6.
`
`My understanding of the legal standards for claim construction is set forth in my
`
`Previous Declaration in paragraphs 15-18. I further understand that at the district court, the claim
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-1-
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`construction standard differs from the broadest reasonable interpretation standard that applied in
`
`the patent office proceeding.
`
`7.
`
`I set forth an overview of the ’941 patent, its file history, the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in my Previous Declaration in paragraphs 33-43.
`
`8.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the “agent”
`
`of claim 1 to have any definite structure, whether it is software, hardware, or a combination of
`
`both. The term “agent” is broad enough to encompass hardware and/or software computational
`
`entities. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,568,552, which is in a similar technological field as the
`
`’941 patent, describes a hardware agent for enforcing software licenses. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,568,552 at 1:19-25, 3:1-10, 8:55-9:12. In other contexts, an agent could be a software daemon
`
`or another type of program that is a computational entity. I stated this opinion in my Previous
`
`Declaration in paragraph 71.
`
`9.
`
`Nothing in the claim language itself specifies any particular structure. Similarly,
`
`because of the complete lack of any disclosure of an agent in the ’941 patent specification, the
`
`specification fails to define “agent” in any terms, let alone by structural terms. Further, there is
`
`nothing in the ’941 patent specification that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider to
`
`disclose an agent. Rather, a person of ordinary skill in the art would only understand the “agent”
`
`in the context of the claimed functions that the “agent” is required to perform in the claims. I stated
`
`this opinion in my Previous Declaration in paragraphs 72 and 74.
`
`10.
`
`The claimed function of the “agent” in claim 1 is “to set up a verification structure
`
`in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” There is no disclosure of hardware or software
`
`that performs this function in the ’941 patent specifications. Rather, at most, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that the ’941 patent specification describes generic, high-level
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-2-
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`functions that could potentially be used to setup a verification structure as well as for other
`
`purposes. There is no disclosure in the ’941 patent of any structure, whether a software algorithm,
`
`hardware, or a combination of both, that performs these functions. I stated this opinion in my
`
`Previous Declaration in paragraph 73.
`
`11.
`
`Furthermore, claim 1 recites that the verification structure is “in the erasable,
`
`nonvolatile memory of the BIOS.” The specification’s disclosure of the “set up” step, by contrast,
`
`describes only the processes of: (i) “establishing or certifying the existence of a pseudo-unique
`
`key in the first non-volatile memory area” (id. at 6:18-20)—which is non-erasable (id. at 2:1-3);
`
`and (ii) and “establishing at least one license-record location in the first or the second nonvolatile
`
`memory area” (id. at 6:20-22 (emphasis added)). The first step (i) is not in the erasable, nonvolatile
`
`memory of the BIOS because the first non-volatile memory area is non-erasable. The second step,
`
`at most, establishes a “location,” but does not actually perform a function of setting up a
`
`“verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS” or explain how to achieve
`
`this setting up. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand either of
`
`these disclosures to describe the claimed erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS. I stated this
`
`opinion in my Previous Declaration in paragraph 74. I also set forth further analysis of the “agent”
`
`in paragraphs 86-89 of my Previous Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`To the extent that Mr. Jestice opines that the claimed “agent” refers to software
`
`generally, I agree. I also agree with Mr. Jestice to the extent he understands that the term
`
`“program” in the claimed “verify the program” refers to a different software routine than the term
`
`“agent.”
`
`13. Mr. Jestice contends that the claimed agent “has a definite structure as a software
`
`routine as claimed in the ’941 patent.” Jestice at ¶6. I disagree. The word “agent” does not appear
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-3-
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`in the ’941 patent specification at all, as I explained in my Previous Declaration at paragraph 87.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Jestice does not identify any software routine at all.
`
`14.
`
`The first example Mr. Jestice identifies refers the ’941 patent at 1:65-2:4. Jestice
`
`at ¶7. Mr. Jestice says that “modification, removal of data in the erasable, non-volatile memory
`
`of the BIOS can be performed ‘using E2PROM manipulation commands.’” However, “using
`
`E2PROM manipulation commands” does not refer to any specific software routine. Mr. Jestice
`
`acknowledges this by stating that “Such commands are encoded in a software routine and are well-
`
`known to those skilled in the art.” Id. The commands themselves are not the software routine.
`
`They are merely the fundamental building blocks. A person of ordinary skill would need to
`
`combine those building blocks to create a software routine. In other words, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would need to know the specific E2PROM manipulation commands used in a
`
`specific software routine. Even if the commands used were provided, this still does not disclose
`
`an algorithm which would require the specific sequence of E2PROM manipulation commands and
`
`the intervening logic. The Patentee omitted any software routine from the specification. At most,
`
`the “using E2PROM manipulation commands” suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would need to look to a document other than the specification or develop their own algorithm from
`
`the commands. The specification does not identify any particular document for a person of
`
`ordinary skill to consider.
`
`15. Mr. Jestice further opines that “Such commands … are well-known to those skilled
`
`in the art.” But, the Patentee said otherwise in the prosecution history. In an Office Action
`
`Response dated Feb. 5, 2002, Patentee explained “the present invention proceeds against
`
`conventional wisdom in the art.” Feb. 5, 2002 Response to Office Action at 5. The patentee
`
`further stated, “an ordinary person skilled in the art would not consider the BIOS for any operation,
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-4-
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`
`
`including writing to the BIOS.”
`
`16.
`
`The second example Mr. Jestice identifies refers to the “bureau.” Mr. Jestice does
`
`not explain how the “bureau” relates to the claimed “agent.” In my opinion, the “bureau” and the
`
`“agent” are different. Mr. Jestice opines that “agent” is software. The “bureau” is hardware. The
`
`dependent claims and specification confirm my understanding. For example, claim 3 recites
`
`“establishing, between the computer and the bureau, a two-way data communications linkage.”
`
`Furthermore, the specification explains, “The bureau is a telecommunications accessible processor
`
`where functions such as formatting, encrypting, and verifying may be performed.” ’941 patent at
`
`3:42-44. Note that it is the bureau performing these functions and not the agent. I further
`
`understand that both parties proposed constructions of “bureau” as a “telecommunications
`
`processor.” Dkt. 58-1 (Appendix to Joint Claim Construction Statement) at 18. Such a
`
`“telecommunications accessible processor” capable of a “two-way data communications linkage”
`
`is hardware. It is not an “agent” algorithm.
`
`17. Mr. Jestice seems to acknowledge the lack of disclosure of an algorithm later in his
`
`declaration by referring to a Beeble whitepaper. Jestice at ¶14. I note that the whitepaper is marked
`
`confidential and is dated September 2001, several years after the filing date of the ’941 patent, or
`
`the foreign priority application. The whitepaper does not provide evidence of the level of ordinary
`
`skill at the time of the invention.
`
`18. Mr. Jestice further contends that the dictionary definitions cited in paragraph 13 of
`
`his declaration establish that “agent” is well-understood as “a software program or routine.” None
`
`of these definitions provide an algorithm or routine. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention would understand an “agent” to refer to software generally
`
`rather than any particular algorithm or routine.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-5-
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`19.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and that all
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that these statements were
`
`made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated:
`
`9/4/2019
`
`By:
`
`Jon B. Weissman
`
`31233907
`
`WEISSMAN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-6-
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`Appendix A
`Appendix A
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`JON B WEISSMAN
`
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`August 6, 2019
`
`Work Address:
`Department of Computer Science and Engineering
`University of Minnesota
`4-192 Keller Hall, 200 Union Street SE
`Minneapolis, MN 55455-0159
`
`EDUCATION
`
`Ph.D., Computer Science, University of Virginia, 1995.
`
`M.S., Computer Science, University of Virginia, 1989.
`
`Phone: (612) 626-0044
`Fax: (612) 625-0572
`Email: jon@cs.umn.edu
`URL: http://www.cs.umn.edu/~jon
`
`B.S., Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1984.
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`Professor, Computer Science
`Associate Professor, Computer Science
`Visiting Researcher and Distinguished Visitor
`Assistant Professor, Computer Science
`Assistant Professor, Computer Science
`Member of Technical Staff
`Software Engineer
`
`PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
`
`Univ. of Minnesota (Summer 2012 to date)
`Univ. of Minnesota (Fall 2003 to Spring 2012)
`National e-Science Center, University of Edinburgh (2007-2008)
`Univ. of Minnesota (1999-2003)
`Univ. of Texas San Antonio (1995-1999)
`Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia (1989-1991)
`Software A&E, Arlington Virginia (1984-1987)
`
`Tau Beta Engineering Honor Society, Member ACM, IEEE Senior Member
`
`ACADEMIC AWARDS AND HONORS
`• Best paper nominee, IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E) 2015.
`• Best paper, IEEE Grid conference, 2009.
`• Honorary Fellow, College of Science and Engineering, University of Edinburgh, 2007-2008.
`• IEEE Senior Member, promoted 2003.
`• Success Story, ARL HPC (HPCMO), Virtual Data Grid Project, 2002.
`• CAREER Award, National Science Foundation, 1996.
`• Supercomputing Award for “High-Performance Computing with Legion”, SC, 1995.
`• Teaching Award, University of Virginia Teaching Medal of Excellence, 1995.
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`LITIGATION SUPPORT EXPERIENCE
`
`Testifying Expert
`• client: Fenwick & West LLP, case: PersonalWeb vs. Amazon, area: cloud, data storage, project: patent
`analysis, expert reports, represented: defense, status: active, 2019.
`• client: Jenner & Block LLP, case: Kove IO, Inc., vs. Amazon Web Service, area: cloud, data storage, project:
`patent analysis, expert reports, represented: defense, status: active, 2019.
`• client Cooley LLP, case: Zak Inc vs. Facebook, area: web, project: patent analysis, expert reports, represented:
`defense, status: active, 2019.
`• client Cooley LLP, case: Blackberry Inc vs. Facebook, area: mobile computing, project: patent analysis, expert
`reports, represented: defense, status: active, 2019.
`• client: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, case: ICN Acquisition, LLC vs. ipDataTel, LLC, area: home alarm systems
`and networks, IPR declarations, represented: petitioner status: settled prior to trial, 2019.
`• client: Cooley LLP, case: Vaporstream Inc vs. Snapchat Inc, area: mobile computing, project: patent analysis,
`expert reports, deposition, represented: defense, status: stay, 2018.
`• client: Fenwick & West LLP, case: IBM vs. Groupon, area: security, web, client-server, project: patent
`analysis, expert reports, deposition, testifying, represented: defense, status: finished, 2017-2018.
`• client: DLA Piper LLP, WORKSPOT, Inc. vs. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., area: security, IPR declaration,
`deposition, represented: petitioner, status: active.
`• client: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, BMC SOFTWARE, INC., vs. CHERWELL SOFTWARE, LLC, area:
`software systems, IPR declaration, represented: petitioner, status: active.
`• client: Cooley LLP, case: Sound View Inc vs. Facebook, area: databases, web, project: patent analysis, expert
`reports, deposition, represented: defense, status: settled, 2018.
`• client: Fenwick & West LLP, case: IBM vs. Groupon vs. IBM, area: security, IPR declaration, represented:
`patent owner, status: finished, 2017.
`• client: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, area: Internet applications, IPR declaration,
`represented: petitioner, status: finished, 2017. No associated litigation.
`• client: McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, case: Trading Technologies Inc., area: distributed sys-
`tems, project: Patent Examination, declaration, represented: patent owner, status: finished, examiner inter-
`view, 2016.
`• client: Fenwick & West LLP, case: Actifio vs. Delphix, area: cloud storage, project: patent analysis, expert
`reports, represented: defense, status: finished (settled prior to trial), 2016.
`• client: Fisch Sigler LLP, case: Kaavo vs. Amazon and Tier3, area: cloud computing, IPR declarations, depo-
`sition, represented: petitioner, status: finished, 2016.
`• client: Morrison and Foerster LLP, case: Ancora vs. Apple Inc, area: security, CBM declaration, represented:
`petitioner, status: finished (settled prior to trial), 2016.
`• client: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, area: mobile computer systems, 3 IPR decla-
`rations, two depositions, represented: petitioner, status: finished, 2016. No associated litigation.
`• client: Cooley LLP, case: BMC Inc vs. ServiceNow Inc, area: computer systems, project: patent analysis,
`expert reports, deposition, represented: defense, status: finished (settled prior to trial), 2016.
`• client: Fish & Richardson P.C., case: Ericsson Inc vs. Apple Inc, area: mobile systems, project: patent
`analysis, represented: defense, status: finished, 2015.
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`• client: Morrison and Foerster LLP, case: Good Technology Inc vs. Airwatch Inc, area: mobile systems, project:
`patent analysis, 3 expert reports, deposition, represented: defense, status: finished (settled prior to trial), 2015.
`• client: Troutman Sanders, Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. Capitol One Financial Corp, claim construction
`declarations, area: mobile interfaces, represented: defense, status: finished, 2015.
`• client: Bryan Cave LLP, case: Symantec vs. Veeam Software Corporation, area: storage systems, IPR decla-
`ration, deposition, represented: patent owner, status: finished, 2014.
`• client: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, case: Clouding IP vs. Rackspace, area: storage
`systems, project: patent analysis, IPR and CBM declarations, two depositions, represented: petitioner, status:
`finished, 2014.
`• client: Sidley Austin LLP, case: Motorola vs. Microsoft, area: mobile instant messaging, project: software
`patent analysis, expert reports, deposition, represented: defense, status: finished (settled prior to trial), 2011-
`2012.
`• client: Baker & McKenzie LLP, case: WMR e-PIN vs. Wells Fargo, area: Internet e-commerce applications,
`project: software, patent analysis, expert reports, deposition, testifying, represented: defense, status: closed,
`2008-2009.
`
`Consulting Expert
`• client: William G. Osborne, Esq., Superior Edge vs. Monsanto, area: distributed software, project: code
`analysis, report, represented: plaintiff, status: closed, 2015.
`• client: Arnold & Porter LLP, Rosebud v. Adobe, area: distributed software, project: patent analysis, repre-
`sented: defense, status: closed, 2015.
`• client: Jones Day, Summit 6 vs. Apple, area: web technologies, project: patent analysis, represented: defense,
`status: closed, 2014.
`• client: Ropes & Gray LLP, case: Parallel Iron vs. EMC, area: storage systems, project: patent analysis,
`represented: defense, status: closed, 2012-2013.
`• client: Bridges & Mavrakakis LLP, case: Nokia/HTC vs. Apple, area: operating systems, project: software,
`patent analysis, represented: defense, status: closed, 2011.
`
`Professional references
`• Larissa Bifano: (DLA Piper): www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/b/bifano-larissa/
`• Timothy Sullivan: (Faegre Baker Daniels LLP): www.faegrebd.com/en/professionals/s/sullivan-timothy-m
`• Phil Haack: (Fenwick & West LLP): www.fenwick.com/professionals/pages/philliphaack.aspx
`• Priya Viswanath: (Cooley LLP): www.cooley.com/pviswanath
`• Diek Van Nort (Morrison & Foerster LLP): www.mofo.com/people/v/van-nort-diek-o
`• Joshua Goldberg (Finnegan LLP): http://www.finnegan.com/
`• Jeffrey Totten (Finnegan LLP): http://www.finnegan.com/JeffreyTotten/
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`MAJOR RESEARCH AFFILIATIONS
`
`1. Distributed Computing Systems Group, University of Minnesota, Founder and Co-Director..
`The Distributed Computing Systems Group (DCSG) is collection of faculty and students working on topics in
`parallel and distributed computing, Internet/Web, mobile, cloud, edge, IoT, big data and machine learning.
`Cross-cutting topics include storage, networking, operating systems/middleware, security, and applications.
`Research centers on system building with a focus on resource management, efficiency, reliability, and enabling
`newly emerging applications.
`
`2. Digital Technology Center, University of Minnesota, Investigator. The Digital Technology Center
`(DTC)’s goal is to create, promote, and coordinate cooperative interdisciplinary advanced technology initiatives
`between University, government, industry, and to serve as a point of entry into research and development
`partnerships with various partners. The DTC is a hub of innovation and excellence at the University of
`Minnesota in the digital technologies serving the industrial, educational, and public needs of the state of
`Minnesota and the nation. The DTC integrates research, education, and outreach in digital design, computer
`graphics and visualization, telecommunications, intelligent data storage and retrieval systems, multimedia,
`datamining, scientific computation, and other digital technologies. See dcsg.cs.umn.edu for details.
`
`3. CRIS:Center for Research in Intelligent Storage, University of Minnesota, Investigator. The
`Center for Research in Intelligent Storage (CRIS) is a partnership between universities and industry, featuring
`high-quality, industrially relevant fundamental research, strong industrial support of collaboration in research
`and education, and direct transfer of university developed ideas, research results, and technology to U.S.
`industry. Research areas include storage and memory technologies, big data, cloud computing, backup/restore,
`data deduplication, and file systems. See cris.cs.umn.edu.
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`GRANT FUNDING
`
`1. Co-Principal Investigator, CSR: Small: Location, location, location (L3): Support for Geo-Centric Appli-
`cations, NSF, 2016-2019, $528K (PI Chandra).
`
`2. Co-Principal Investigator, II-NEW: One Cloud Does Not Fit All: Minnesota Integrated cloud Systems
`research Testbed (MIST), NSF, 2013-2016, $350K, (PI DU, co-PIs Chandra, Zhang).
`
`3. Principal Investigator, An Integrated Middleware Framework to Enable Extreme Collaborative Science,
`DOE, 2012-2015, $342K UMn share, collaborative with Rutgers and University of Chicago.
`
`4. Principal Investigator, CSR: Medium: Enriching Mobile User Experience Through The Cloud, NSF, 2012-
`2015, $700K (co-PI Chandra, Karypis).
`
`5. Principal Investigator, DC: Small: One Thousand Points of Light: Accelerating Data-Intensive Applications
`By Proxy, NSF, 2009-2012, $482K, including REU supplement $36K (co-PI Chandra).
`
`6. Co-Investigator, Collaborative Research: A Multi-University I/UCRC Center on Intelligent Storage, NSF,
`2009-2014, $400K, (DU PI, many co-PIs).
`
`7. Principal Investigator, Grid Computing for E-Science, National E-Science Centre, University of Edinburgh,
`2007-2008, $52K.
`
`8. Co-Investigator, ePCRN: Electronic Primary Care Research Network, NIH Roadmap, 2006-2008, $50K (CSE
`share annual), (Peterson PI, Delaney PI, several co-investigators).
`
`9. Co-Principal Investigator, ITR: A Data Mining and Exploration Middleware for Grid and Distributed
`Computing, NSF ITR, 2003-2007, $1.5M, (Kumar PI, Weissman co-PI).
`
`10. Investigator, Intelligent Storage Consortium, DTC, 2003-2009, $250K (Du PI, Weissman, Lilja, Tewfik, Kim
`co-PIs).
`
`11. Investigator, MRI: Development of a System for Interactive Analysis and Visualization of Multi-Terabyte
`Datasets, NSF MRI, 2004-2006, $300K (Woodward PI).
`
`12. Contributor, NIH NCRR, Intelligent Data Storage Support for Microarray data, equipment, (Mayo Clinic
`PI, with Du), 2004, $222K.
`
`13. Co-Principal Investigator, Intelligent Storage Consortium - Engenio, Engenio Information Technologies,
`2004-2005, $45K, (Du PI, Weissman co-PI).
`
`14. Principal Investigator, Making Parallel Computing Easy, Department of Energy (Office of Advanced Scien-
`tific Computing Research), 2002-2007, $250K, sole PI.
`
`15. Principal Investigator, A Framework for Adaptive Grid Services, NSF ACR-CNS, 2003-2008, $240K, sole
`PI.
`
`16. Principal Investigator, Towards Community Services: Putting Parallel Network Services On-line, NSF EIA-
`NGS Program, 2002-2003, $30K, sole PI.
`
`17. Co-Principal Investigator, Collaborative Data Analysis and Visualization, NSF EIA Research Resources
`(Collaborative Research), 2002-2005, $500K (incl. 2 RA’s shared with Du), (Woodward PI, Weissman, Du,
`Retzel, Wetherby co-PIs.)
`
`18. Investigator, Metacomputing: Enabling Technologies and the Virtual Data Grid, Army High Performance
`Computing and Research Center (AHPCRC), 2000-2004, $260K, original contributor to center proposal.
`
`19. Principal Investigator, Resource Management for Parallel and Distributed Systems, NSF CAREER award
`ACR, 1996-2001, $200K, REU supplement $5K (2000), sole PI.
`
`20. Principal Investigator, Smart File Objects: An Application-directed File Access Paradigm, Texas Advanced
`Research Program ARP-010115-226, 1997-2000, $106K, sole PI.
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`21. Participant, Telecommunication Networks for Mobile and Distributed Computing and Communications,
`AFOSR-F49620-96-1-0472, 1996-2000, $2M, (PI Hiromoto).
`
`22. Co-Principal Investigator, Building a Pipeline for Minority Scholars, NSF CISE MI-I CDA-9633299, 1996
`- 1999, $1.3M. (Hiromoto PI, Weissman, Das, Boppana, Psarris, Jeffery, Rosen co-PIs).
`
`23. Fellowship, Applying Parallel Object-Oriented Computing to Scientific Applications, NASA Graduate Student
`Researchers Program Fellowship, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1991-1995, $66K.
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`PUBLICATIONS
`
`Journal Articles: for up-to-date-list, see www.cs.umn.edu/˜jon
`
`1. Albert Jonathan, Mathew Ryden, Kwangsung Oh, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon Weissman, Nebula: Dis-
`tributed Edge Cloud for Data Intensive Computing, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems,
`Vol. 28, No. 11, Nov 2017.
`
`2. Benjamin Heintz, Abhishek Chandra, Ramesh Sitaraman, and Jon B. Weissman, End-to-end Optimization
`for Geo-Distributed MapReduce, IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 2016.
`
`3. Jinoh Kim, Seonho Kim, and Jon B. Weissman, A Security-enabled Grid System for MINDS Distributed
`Data Mining, Journal of Grid Computing, 2014.
`
`4. Murray Cole, Shantenu Jha, Daniel S. Katz, Manish Parashar, Omer Rana, and Jon B. Weissman, Dis-
`tributed Computing Practice for Large-Scale Science and Engineering Applications, Concurrency: Practice
`and Experience, Volume 25, Issue 11, September 2013.
`
`5. Adam Barker, Jon B. Weissman, Jano van Hemert, Accelerating Service-Oriented Workflows, IEEE Trans-
`actions on Services Computing, 5(3), 2012.
`
`6. Jinoh Kim, Abhishek Chandra and Jon B. Weissman, Passive Network Performance Estimation for Large-
`scale, Data-intensive Computing, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22(8), August 2011.
`
`7. Jia Jingxi, Bharadwaj Veeravalli, and Jon B. Weissman, Scheduling Multi-source Divisible Loads on Arbi-
`trary Networks, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 21(4), April 2010.
`
`8. Jinoh Kim, Abhishek Chandra and Jon B. Weissman, Using Data Accessibility for Resource Selection in
`Large-scale Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 20(6), June 2009.
`
`9. Byoung-Dai Lee, Jon B. Weissman, Young-Kwang Nam, Adaptive middleware supporting scalable perfor-
`mance for high-end network services, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 32(3), May 2009.
`
`10. Adam Barker, Jon B. Weissman and Jano van Hemert, The Circulate Architecture: Avoiding Workflow
`Bottlenecks Caused By Centralised Orchestration, Journal of Cluster Computing, 12(2), 2009.
`
`11. Jason D. Sonnek, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon B. Weissman, Adaptive Reputation-Based Scheduling on Un-
`reliable Distributed Infrastructures, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 18(11), November
`2007.
`
`12. Darin England, Bharadwaj Veeravalli, and Jon B. Weissman, A Robust Spanning Tree Topology for Data
`Collection and Dissemination in Distributed Environments, IEEE Transactions for Parallel and Distributed
`Systems, 18(5), May 2007.
`
`13. Rahul Trivedi, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon B. Weissman, Heterogeity-Aware Workload Distribution in
`Donation Based Grids, invited to the International Journal for High Performance Computing and Applications
`(IJHPCA), 20(4), 2006.
`
`14. Darin England and Jon B. Weissman, A Resource Leasing Policy for On-demand Computing, invited to the
`International Journal for High Performance Computing and Applications (IJHPCA), 20(1), 2006.
`
`15. Jon B. Weissman, Darin England, and Lakshman Abburi Rao, “Integrated Scheduling: The Best of Both
`Worlds,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 63(6), 2003.
`
`16. Jon B. Weissman and Byoung-Dai Lee, “The Virtual Service Grid: An Architecture for Delivering High-End
`Network Services”, Concurrency: Practice and Experience, Vol. 14, No. 4, April 2002.
`
`17. Jon B. Weissman, “Predicting the Cost and Benefit of Adapting Parallel Applications in Clusters”, Journal
`of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 62, No. 8, August 2002.
`
`18. Jon B. Weissman, Mike Gingras, and Mahesh Marina, “Optimizing Remote File Access for Parallel and
`Distributed Network Applications” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 61, No. 11, November
`2001.
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-01338 / ANCORA EX2006
`
`

`

`19. Jon B. Weissman, “Prophet: Automated Scheduling of SPMD Programs in Workstation Networks”, Con-
`currency: Practice and Experience, Vol. 11, No. 6, August 1999.
`
`20. Jon B. Weissman “Gallop: The Benefits of Wide-Area Computing for Parallel Processing”, Journal of
`Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 54, No. 2, November 1998.
`
`21. Jon B. Weissman and Xin Zhao, “Scheduling Parallel Applications in Distributed Networks,” Journal of
`Cluster Computing, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1998, invited paper.
`
`22. Andrew S. Grimshaw, Jon B. Weissman, and W. Timothy Strayer, “Portable Run-time Support for Dynamic
`Object-Oriented Parallel Processing,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 14, No. 2, May 1996.
`
`23. Jon B. Weissman and Andrew S. Grimshaw, “A Framework for Partitioning Parallel Computations in
`Heterogeneous Environments”, Concurrency: Practice and Experience, Vol. 7, No. 5, August 1995.
`
`24. Andrew Grimshaw, Jon B. Weissman, Emily West, and Edmond Loyot, Jr., “Metasystems: An Approach
`Combining Parallel Processing and Heterogeneous Distributed Computing Systems”, Journal of Parallel and
`Distributed Computing, Vol. 21, No. 3, June 1994.
`
`25. Jon B. Weissman, Andrew S. Grimshaw, and Robert R. Ferraro, “Parallel Object-Oriented Computation
`Applied to a Finite Element Problem,” Journal of Scientific Programming, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1993.
`
`Books and Book Chapters
`
`1. Benjamin Heintz, Abhishek Chandra and Jon Weissman, Cross-Phase Optimization in MapReduce, in Cloud
`Computing for Data-Intensive Applications, Springer, 2014.
`
`2. Jon B. Weissman and Jinoh Kim, Network Awareness in Volunteer Networks, in Desktop Grid Computing,
`CRC Press, 2013.
`
`3. Steve Chapin and Jon B. Weissman, Distributed and Multiprocessor Scheduling (Operating Systems