In The Matter Of:
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`v.
` ENFISH, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - Vol. 1
`May 14, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 1 of 257
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`v.
` ENFISH, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - Vol. 1
`May 14, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 1 of 257
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION; )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. ) Case No.
` ) IPR2013-00559
`ENFISH, LLC; ) through 00563
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_______________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING
`
` San Diego, California
`
` Wednesday, May 14, 2014
`
`Reported by:
`Lynda L. Fenn, CSR, RPR
`CSR No. 12566
`
`(SF-002193)
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 2 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 2
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION; )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` vs. ) Case No.
` ) IPR2013-00559
`ENFISH, LLC; ) through 00563
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_______________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of ANTONY LLOYD
`
` HOSKING, taken on behalf of Defendants, at 4401
`
` Eastgate Mall, San Diego, California, at 9:07
`
` a.m. and ending at 4:48 p.m., Wednesday, May
`
` 14, 2014, reported by Lynda L. Fenn,
`
` CSR No. 12566, Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
` within and for the State of California,
`
` pursuant to notice.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 3 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
` For Microsoft Corporation:
`
` PERKINS COIE LLP
` BY: AMY E. SIMPSON, ESQ.
` 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 200
` San Diego, California 92130-3334
` (858) 720-5702
` asimpson@perkinscoie.com
`
` PERKINS COIE LLP
` BY: THEODORE H. WIMSATT, ESQ.
` 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
` Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
` (602) 351-8453
` twimsatt@perkinscoie.com
`
`For the Defendants:
`
` COOLEY LLP
` BY: MATTHEW J. LEARY, ESQ.
` 380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
` Broomfield, Connecticut 80021-8023
` (720) 566-4021
` mleary@cooley.com
`
` COOLEY LLP
` BY: FRANK PIETRANTONIO, ESQ.
` 11951 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5656
` (703) 456-8567
` fpietrantonio@cooley.com
`
`Also Present:
`
` Laura Vorhees, Videographer
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 4 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
` EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
`
` MR. LEARY 7, 211
`
` MR. WIMSATT 204
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1 A two-page, double-sided 8
` document entitled Patent Owner
` Enfish, LLC's Notice of
` Deposition of Antony Hosking
` Ph.D. on May 14, 2014, Inter
` Partes Review No. IPR2013-00559
`
` Exhibit 2 A two-page, double-sided 8
` document entitled Patent Owner
` Enfish, LLC's Notice of
` Deposition of Antony Hosking
` Ph.D. on May 14, 2014, Inter
` Partes Review No. IPR2013-00560
`
` Exhibit 3 A two-page, double-sided 8
` document entitled Patent Owner
` Enfish, LLC's Notice of
` Deposition of Antony Hosking
` Ph.D. on May 14, 2014, Inter
` Partes Review No. IPR2013-00561
`
` Exhibit 4 A two-page, double-sided 8
` document entitled Patent Owner
` Enfish, LLC's Notice of
` Deposition of Antony Hosking
` Ph.D. on May 14, 2014, Inter
` Partes Review No. IPR2013-00562
`
` Exhibit 5 A two-page, double-sided 8
` document entitled Patent Owner
` Enfish, LLC's Notice of
` Deposition of Antony Hosking
` Ph.D. on May 14, 2014, Inter
` Partes Review No. IPR2013-00563
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 5 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 5
`
` E X H I B I T S (Continued)
`
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 6 A 17-page, double-sided 64
` document entitled Decision on
` Institution of Inter Partes
` Review
`
` Exhibit 7 A 33-page, double-sided 92
` document entitled Petition for
` Inter Partes Review of U.S.
` Patent No. 6,151,604
`
` Exhibit 8 A one-page, double-sided 115
` document entitled Employee
` Table
`
` Exhibit 9 A one-page line paper showing 151
` deponent's shorthand signature
` and longhand signature samples
`
` Exhibit 10 A one-page, double-sided 155
` document entitled 484
` Programmer's Guide, Defining a
` Database
`
` INFORMATION REQUESTED
`
` (None)
`
` INSTRUCTION NOT TO ANSWER
`
` (None)
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 6 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 6
`
` San Diego, California
`
` Wednesday, May 14, 2014
`
` 9:07 a.m. - 4:48 p.m.
`
`09:07:38
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are on
`
`the record. Here begins Volume One, Videotape No. 1 in
`
`the deposition of Dr. Antony Hosking in the matter of
`
`Microsoft Corporation, petitioner, versus Enfish, LLC,
`
`09:07:50
`
`patent owner, before -- in the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board. The case number is 1 -- II -- excuse me, IPR
`
`2013, dash, 00559 through 0563.
`
` Today's date is May 14th, 2014. The time on
`
`09:08:16
`
`the video monitor is 9:07 a.m.
`
` The video operator today is Laura Vorhees,
`
`contracted by Merrill Legal Solutions of Woodland Hills,
`
`California. This video deposition is taking place at
`
`Cooley 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, California 92121.
`
`09:08:33
`
` Counsel, please voice identify yourselves and
`
`state whom you represent.
`
` MR. LEARY: This is Matthew Leary of Cooley
`
`LLP on behalf of patent owner, Enfish, LLC.
`
` MR. PIETRANTONIO: Frank Pietrantonio of
`
`09:08:54
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 7 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 7
`
`Cooley also here on behalf of Enfish.
`
` MR. LEARY: And also on the phone we have with
`
`us Jennifer Volk-Fortier also of Cooley LLP and also on
`
`behalf of Enfish.
`
` MS. SIMPSON: I'm Amy Simpson with Perkins
`
`09:09:09
`
`Coie representing Microsoft Corporation.
`
` MR. WIMSATT: Theodore Wimsatt also of Perkins
`
`Coie also representing Microsoft.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter today is
`
`Lynda Fenn of Merrill.
`
`09:09:21
`
` Would the reporter please swear in the
`
`witness.
`
` ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING,
`
`produced as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, and
`
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
`
`as follows:
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Go ahead.
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Hosking.
`
` A Good morning.
`
` Q Could you put your full name on the record and
`
`09:09:36
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 8 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 8
`
`spell it, please?
`
` A Full name Antony, A-n-t-o-n-y, middle name
`
`Lloyd, L-l-o-y-d, last name Hosking, H-o-s-k-i-n-g.
`
` Q The court reporter has marked as Hosking
`
`exhibits -- depo exhibits one through five the notices
`
`09:09:57
`
`of deposition of Antony Hosking for the IPR numbers IPR
`
`2013, dash, 00559 through 563.
`
` (Defendant's Exhibit 1 - 5 were marked for
`
`identification by the Certified Shorthand Reporter and
`
`are attached hereto.)
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:10:16
`
` Q I'm handing you those five exhibits.
`
` Have you seen those before?
`
` A This is the first time I've seen these.
`
` Q Do you understand that you are here regarding
`
`09:10:28
`
`the IPRs that I just mentioned, IPR 2013-559 through
`
`563?
`
` A I believe so, yes.
`
` Q All right. If you don't mind I'll take those
`
`back just to keep them out of your way.
`
`09:10:46
`
` Dr. Hosking, I'm about to hand you what has
`
`been marked of Microsoft Corporation's Exhibit 1022
`
`entitled "Corrected Declaration of Antony Hosking,
`
`Ph.D., Concerning Invalidity of the United States Patent
`
`number 6," comma, "152," comma, "604."
`
`09:11:20
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 9 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 9
`
` Is this one of the declarations that you wrote
`
`regarding this case?
`
` A Yes, it appears to be.
`
` Q Now, in addition to this corrected declaration
`
`for the '604 Patent you also wrote an earlier
`
`09:11:49
`
`declaration for the '604 Patent; correct?
`
` A Yes, I did.
`
` Q And as I understand it the only difference
`
`between that earlier declaration and this corrected
`
`declaration was the inclusion in the corrected
`
`09:12:01
`
`declaration of a sworn oath by you saying that the
`
`declaration was correct; is that right?
`
` A Yes.
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:12:16
`
` Q In addition to this declaration regarding the
`
`'604 Patent you also authored a declaration in regard to
`
`the '775 Patent; correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And for the '775 declaration you also authored
`
`09:12:30
`
`both an original and a corrected declaration; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. And the corrected declaration has been
`
`identified and is marked as Microsoft Corporation's
`
`09:12:51
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 10 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 10
`
`Exhibit 1219. It's entitled "Corrected Declaration of
`
`Antony Hosking, Ph.D., Concerning Invalidity of United
`
`States Patent No. 6,163,775." I'm handing you a copy of
`
`that declaration.
`
` Is that the declaration you authored regarding
`
`09:13:11
`
`the '775 Patent?
`
` A Yes, it appears to be.
`
` Q And as in the '604 Patent declaration do you
`
`understand that the only difference between your
`
`corrected '775 declaration and the original declaration
`
`09:13:38
`
`is the inclusion of a sworn oath that the declaration is
`
`true and correct on the last page?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Are you aware of any errors in your corrected
`
`'604 declaration?
`
`09:14:05
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The patent -- the declaration
`
`represents my opinions.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Do the declarations represent your entire
`
`09:14:19
`
`opinions on the '604 and the '775 patents?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: If I was asked to give opinions
`
`they were with respect to specific questions regarding
`
`those patents, so I may have further opinions to offer
`
`09:14:31
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 11 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 11
`
`if I was asked such questions.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q With respect to the opinions that you
`
`understood you were asked to render, do the corrected
`
`'604 and '775 declarations represent your complete
`
`09:14:44
`
`opinion?
`
` A Yes, I believe so.
`
` Q Back to my first question are you aware of any
`
`errors in the corrected '604 declaration?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Same okay.
`
`09:15:02
`
` THE WITNESS: With respect to the opinions I
`
`gave I believe they represent my opinions accurately.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q So you're not aware of any errors in the '604
`
`declaration?
`
` A No.
`
`09:15:10
`
` Q Are you aware of any errors in the '775
`
`declaration?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I give the same answer with
`
`09:15:16
`
`respect to that question.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q And the answer would be?
`
` A I'm not aware of any errors excepting these
`
`are the opinions that I've given.
`
`09:15:24
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 12 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 12
`
` Q All right. For the remainder of this
`
`deposition I am going to refer to the Enfish patents as
`
`a combination of the both of 6,151,604 Patent and also
`
`the Patent No. 6,163,775 unless I say differently.
`
` Is that okay?
`
`09:15:50
`
` A That's fine with me. If you want to
`
`abbreviate it to '775 and '604 that would be fine too.
`
` Q I'll try to do that for all our sakes.
`
` When you were preparing your two declarations
`
`had you read Microsoft's petitions in this case?
`
`09:16:07
`
` A I had read the petitions, indeed.
`
` Q Also, in preparing your declarations had you
`
`read the Patent and Trademark Appeal Boards decisions to
`
`institute the interparty's review to the 559 to 563
`
`IPRs?
`
`09:16:38
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I read those decisions.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q In forming your opinions that are set forth in
`
`your declaration have you read any materials from the
`
`09:16:47
`
`district court case between Enfish and Microsoft?
`
` A I have seen some materials from the district
`
`court case.
`
` Q And what materials are those?
`
` A I would have to -- I couldn't possibly say
`
`09:17:00
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 13 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`exactly what those materials were.
`
` Q Have you read Enfish's infringement
`
`contentions in the district court case?
`
` A Yes, I believe so.
`
` Q Have you read the court's Markman ruling in
`
`09:17:19
`
`the district court case?
`
` A I'm not sure that I have. I may have done.
`
` Q Do you understand that the court's Markman
`
`ruling sets forth the court's constructions for various
`
`terms in the two patents?
`
`09:17:33
`
` A I'm aware of that fact, yes.
`
` Q So but you're not certain whether you read the
`
`court's Markman order?
`
` A I may have done so. I do not recall.
`
` Q Okay. In preparing your declarations did you
`
`09:17:44
`
`review any source code?
`
` A I have reviewed some source code, yes.
`
` Q What source code is that?
`
` A Some early product source code was small talk
`
`source code.
`
`09:18:02
`
` Q When you say, "early product," are you
`
`referring to a product built by Enfish?
`
` A I believe it's a product that was built by
`
`Enfish, yes.
`
` Q Have you reviewed any other Enfish code?
`
`09:18:11
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 14 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 14
`
` A No, I have not.
`
` Q Where did you understand that the small talk
`
`Enfish code that you reviewed to have come from?
`
` A I believe it was filed with the patent -- it
`
`was produced with the patents.
`
`09:18:33
`
` Q Okay. And that would be the '604 and '775
`
`Patent?
`
` A I'm not sure which of the two.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` A Perhaps both.
`
`09:18:41
`
` Q What other source code did you review prior to
`
`writing your declarations?
`
` A That's the only source code I've reviewed.
`
` Q So you haven't reviewed any Microsoft source
`
`code?
`
`09:18:53
`
` A No, I have not.
`
` Q At any point did you want to review any
`
`Microsoft source code?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
`
`09:19:06
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Other than the small talk Enfish source code
`
`did you review any other source code?
`
` A No, I did not.
`
` Q In addition to the materials that you just
`
`09:19:25
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 15 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 15
`
`identified and in addition to the documents that you
`
`included as part of your declarations, what other
`
`material did you review in forming your opinions?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I believe I've given all of the
`
`09:19:50
`
`documents that I've reviewed in forming those opinions
`
`by reference into the declaration.
`
` MR. LEARY: Okay.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q So as far as you know other than the documents
`
`09:19:58
`
`that are in the declaration you didn't review any other
`
`documents --
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q -- in forming your opinion?
`
` A Correct.
`
`09:20:07
`
` Q Are you familiar with a database known as DB2?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And what is that?
`
` A It's a database product. I believe it's an
`
`IBM product, but I would have to refresh my memory.
`
`09:20:25
`
` Q You're familiar with a database product from
`
`Oracle?
`
` A Yes, I am.
`
` Q How about from Sybase?
`
` A Yes.
`
`09:20:38
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 16 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 16
`
` Q Are you familiar with any databases from a
`
`company known as Ingres?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And that's I-n-g-r-e-s; correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
`09:20:49
`
` Q Okay. How are you familiar with the DB2
`
`database?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm aware of it as a product in
`
`the marketplace.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:21:05
`
` Q Have you worked with DB2 before?
`
` A I don't recall.
`
` Q Have you worked with Oracle before?
`
` A Yes.
`
`09:21:14
`
` Q Of the databases I just mentioned what other
`
`databases in addition to Oracle have you worked with?
`
` A I believe I've worked with Ingres. Postgres
`
`is a research database that was used that was an
`
`extension of Ingres. I've worked with Research Database
`
`09:21:41
`
`Systems. I have to refresh my memory on which ones they
`
`were, but there was certainly quite a number of them.
`
` Q Between Oracle and Ingres, what are you more
`
`familiar with?
`
` A Probably the Oracle.
`
`09:22:07
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 17 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 17
`
` Q Okay. And what's the extent of your
`
`experience with Oracle?
`
` A I have used it for project work with students.
`
`I've used it in just -- I've never used it in a serious
`
`commercial sense.
`
`09:22:25
`
` Q Are you familiar with the term "database
`
`administrator" as it applies to an Oracle database?
`
` A Yes, I understand -- I believe I'm familiar
`
`with the term, yes.
`
` Q That's sometimes referred to as a DBA;
`
`09:22:39
`
`correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Have you had any experience as a DBA?
`
` A No, I've not.
`
` Q Okay. Within Oracle are you familiar with the
`
`09:22:46
`
`term "DDL," as in database definition language?
`
` A Yes, I am.
`
` Q What is DDL?
`
` A It's a language for describing the definition
`
`of your database.
`
`09:23:14
`
` Q Is that a language that a DBA in Oracle would
`
`typically use?
`
` A Yes, it is.
`
` Q Are you familiar with a term "DML," data
`
`manipulation language?
`
`09:23:37
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 18 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 18
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q How, if at all, does the DDL language and the
`
`DML language differ with respect to their purpose?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would have to refresh my
`
`09:23:50
`
`memory with respect to documentation to give a precise
`
`answer to that question.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q What's your general understanding of any
`
`differences between DDL and DML?
`
`09:24:01
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: DML is the language by which the
`
`data can be manipulated and understood.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q And how does that differ from DDL?
`
`09:24:13
`
` A The definition language is to describe the
`
`structure and form of the data.
`
` Q So, DDL describes structure and -- at a high
`
`level. DML is used to manipulate data within that
`
`structure; is that correct?
`
`09:24:49
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; mischaracterizes.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would have to refresh my
`
`memory, but the intention is to be able to manipulate
`
`the data, yes.
`
` MR. LEARY: Okay.
`
`09:25:01
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 19 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 19
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q And when you say, "the intention is to
`
`manipulate the data," you mean the DML -- the intention
`
`of DML, sorry, is to manipulate data; correct?
`
` A I would have to refresh my memory with respect
`
`09:25:11
`
`to the specific details of DDL versus DML.
`
` Q But is my statement correct at least with
`
`respect to your general understanding of DML?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can't answer that question
`
`09:25:20
`
`without refreshing my memory with respect to the precise
`
`definitions of those terms.
`
` MR. LEARY: Okay.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Do you understand that a command known as
`
`09:25:40
`
`create table in Oracle is an example of DDL language?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Create table is actually an
`
`example of a command within the SQL programming language
`
`for database systems.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:26:01
`
` Q Would you consider create table to be a DDL
`
`command?
`
` A Creating a table I wouldn't consider to be a
`
`DDL command, but it's certainly creating a definition of
`
`09:26:08
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 20 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 20
`
`a table in a database.
`
` Q Okay. What -- strike that.
`
` How have you formed your familiarity with the
`
`DB2 database?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
`09:26:43
`
` THE WITNESS: I believe -- and I'm stretching
`
`here -- I used it in a student course many, many years
`
`ago. I can't recall exactly when that was.
`
` MR. LEARY: Okay.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:27:10
`
` Q Are you familiar with the term "secondary
`
`considerations" with respect to patent law?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't believe I'm familiar
`
`with the term, no.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Have you ever heard of secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness?
`
`09:27:21
`
` A It's a legal term. I'm not a lawyer. I don't
`
`know the precise definitions of the term.
`
`09:27:31
`
` Q Have you heard of that term before?
`
` A I may have heard of the term.
`
` Q Okay. In forming the opinions in your
`
`declarations were you aware that Enfish's search
`
`products had received industry awards?
`
`09:27:51
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 21 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 21
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I was not aware of that in the
`
`formation of my opinions, no.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Have you reviewed in this case any material
`
`09:28:07
`
`that you understood to be related to secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, with respect to the term
`
`I don't have a precise understanding of the term so I'm
`
`09:28:23
`
`not sure that I can answer the question.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q So at least as far as you know, though, you
`
`didn't review any material that you were aware
`
`constituted secondary considerations?
`
`09:28:36
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would have to refresh my
`
`memory if I have such memory of the term before I could
`
`answer that question.
`
` MR. LEARY: Okay.
`
`09:28:47
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q If were you to find out that at some point
`
`Microsoft had evaluated Enfish's technology, would you
`
`want to review that evaluation and to inform the
`
`opinions in your declaration?
`
`09:29:11
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 22 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 22
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't believe it would be
`
`necessary to form my opinions. I'm not sure what the
`
`evaluation would be that you're talking about. Is it an
`
`opinion of some individual or is it a company-wide
`
`09:29:24
`
`opinion or is it a technical opinion? I don't know.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q So if you were to understand that Microsoft
`
`had performed a technical evaluation of Enfish's
`
`technology and the workings of Enfish's products that
`
`09:29:36
`
`are covered by the patents in your declaration, would
`
`you be interested in knowing what that technical
`
`evaluation was?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form and foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't know what interest I
`
`09:29:53
`
`would have in it other than if it had some technical
`
`information that informed me with respect to product,
`
`but I'm perfectly happy with understanding materials
`
`that I've independently obtained.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:30:15
`
` Q If you found out that Microsoft had considered
`
`purchasing the patents that you wrote your declarations
`
`on, would that affect your opinion -- or strike that.
`
` Could that affect your opinion?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form and foundation.
`
`09:30:30
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 23 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 23
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. Again, my
`
`opinions are rendered on a technical foundation.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Were there any materials you wanted to review
`
`to help you write your declaration that you were not
`
`09:30:45
`
`able to review?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Could you turn please to paragraph 52 of
`
`09:31:09
`
`Microsoft Exhibit 1022? That's your '604 declaration.
`
` A Fifty-three, you said?
`
` Q Actually, why don't you turn to paragraph 53?
`
` A Is there a tissue in this room here?
`
` Q There's some napkins over there.
`
`09:31:45
`
` A That's fine. It's chilly in here. Thanks. I
`
`don't want to be dripping on -- okay. Sorry.
`
` MS. SIMPSON: What page did you say again,
`
`Matt?
`
` MR. LEARY: Paragraph 53.
`
`09:31:59
`
` THE WITNESS: Fifty-three.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Paragraph 53 reads, "As such, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of," quote, "Object
`
`Identification Number," slash, "OID," end quote, "is,"
`
`09:32:12
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 24 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 24
`
`quote, "a value that identifies an object," end quote.
`
` Does paragraph 53 recite what you believe to
`
`be the broadest reasonable interpretation of OID?
`
` A That was an interpretation of OID that I did
`
`formulate.
`
`09:32:38
`
` Q Do you believe that to be the correct
`
`interpretation of OID?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I believe it to be a reasonable
`
`characterization of the definition of OID.
`
`09:32:46
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q Could you describe the process that you went
`
`through in determining this broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation for the term "OID"?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
`09:33:08
`
` THE WITNESS: So the term has a broad meaning
`
`in the art which those of ordinary skill would generally
`
`understand. The primary requirement is that an OID be
`
`able to be used to define or identify an object that is
`
`being referred to.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
`09:33:42
`
` Q What is necessary in an OID to, quote,
`
`identify an object?
`
` MS. SIMPSON: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: That if you and I or if one's
`
`09:33:58
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Enfish, LLC; IPR2014-00574
`Exhibit 2224
`Page 25 of 257
`
`
`
`ANTONY LLOYD HOSKING - 5/14/2014
`
`Page 25
`
`place and another place hold on OID that they can be
`
`compared for quality and, in fact, by -- in that sense
`
`define or identify the object that's being referred to.
`
`BY MR. LEARY:
`
` Q You mentioned a moment ago that -- something
`
`09:34:20
`
`along the lines of that one of ordinary skill would you
`
`understand what an OID was or that there was a common
`
`understanding of OID
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
