`
`Filed on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 7,324,637
`
`EXHIBIT 2004: DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF LEONARD J. FORYS
`(APR. 28, 2015)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________________
` GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION )
` Petitioners, ) Case IPR
` ) 2014-00785
` vs. )
` )
` SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) Patent
` Patent Owner. ) 6,636,591
`_______________________________)
`
` Deposition of DR. LEN FORYS, held at
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, 1100 New York
`Avenue, Washington, D C 20005, pursuant to Notice,
`before Donna Marie Lewis, Registered Professional
`Reporter and Notary Public of and for the District
`of Columbia.
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000266
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`For PETITIONER:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: MICHAEL D. SPECHT
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, D C 20005
` Telephone: (202) 772-8756
` Facsimile: (202) 371-2540
` Email: mspecht@skgf.com
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: STEVEN W. PETERS, ESQUIRE
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, D C 20005
` Telephone: (202) 772-8743
` Email: speters@skgf.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
` BRAGALONE CONROY, PC
` BY: TERRY A. SAAD, ESQUIRE
` Chase Tower
` 2200 Ross Avenue,
` Suite 4500 W
` Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
` Telephone: (214) 785-6685
` Facsimile: (214) 785-6680
` Email: tsaad@bcpc-law.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` KRISHNA SHARMA, VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000267
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS:
` DR. LEN FORYS
`EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
` Mr. Saad 5, 152
` Mr. Specht 149
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`EXHIBIT: DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Forys Exhibit 1 Article-An Environment 117
` for Treating Youthful
` Offenders
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`No. GTL1017 Second Declaration 8
`
`No. GTL1010 First Declaration 12
`
`No. GTL1012 Karacki Reference 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000268
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This
`begins video tape one in the video taped
`deposition of Dr. Len Forys in the matter of
`Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technology
`Inc. Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`case number IPR2014-00785. Patent 6,636,591.
`This deposition is being held at 1100
`New York Avenue NW, Washington, D C the date today
`is April 28, 2015 and the time on the video
`monitor is 1117h.
` The court reporter today is Donna Lewis
`and the video camera operator is Krishna Sharma,
`we're both on behalf of Digital Evidence Group.
` Would counsel please identify yourselves
`for the record.
` MR. SAAD: Terry Saad from Bragalone
`Conroy, PC on behalf of patent owner Securus
`Technologies.
` MR. SPECHT: Michael Specht, Sterne
`Kessler Goldstein Fox on behalf of petitioner
`Global Tel*Link. Also with me of our firm is
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000269
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Dr. Stephen Peters.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the court
`reporter please swear in the witness and we can
`begin.
` Whereupon
` D R. L E N F O R Y S
` after having been first duly sworn by
` the Notary Public was examined and
` testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF SECURUS
` TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
` MR. SAAD: Good morning, Dr. Forys.
` THE WITNESS: Good morning.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Do you understand why you are here
`today?
` A I think it is still morning. Yes.
` Q What is that understanding?
` A I'm here to testify on behalf of --
`answer questions on behalf of the second
`declaration that I prepared in conjunction with
`the 591 patent.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000270
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q And your understanding --
` (Court reporter requests pause)
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q And is it your understanding that the
`patent at issue in this proceeding is U S Patent
`number 6,636,591?
` A I believe that's correct.
` Q Can we agree that if I were refer to
`this patent as the 591 patent that you understand
`that I'm referring to that patent?
` A Yes, I understand that.
` Q Do you understand that you're testifying
`under oath today?
` A Yes, I am testifying under oath.
` Q Is there any reason that you can't
`testify truthfully or accurately today?
` A I don't know of any reason.
` Q You are not under any drugs or
`medications that would affect your testimony
`today?
` A I don't take any drugs or medications.
` Q Is there any other reason why your
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000271
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`testimony today might be unreliable in any way?
` A I can't think of any.
` Q What did you do to prepare for this
`deposition, Dr. Forys?
` A I reviewed the -- my second declaration
`and I reviewed the documents that were cited
`within that. And in addition I scanned the -- my
`own deposition from the first declaration and
`Dr. Akl's deposition as well. And I met with
`counsel yesterday briefly to -- just to go over
`some -- my second declaration.
` Q When you say you met with counsel, who
`did you meet with?
` A I met with Dr. Peters and -- and
`Mr. Specht.
` Q How long did you meet for?
` A A couple of hours at most.
` Q Did you review any documents during that
`meeting?
` A Primarily my second declaration.
` Q Anything else?
` A I might have made reference to -- again,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000272
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 8
`the -- I believe I cited the five documents in my
`second declaration. We might have gone and
`discussed those as well.
` Q Did you review any documents that are
`not part of the record in this matter either as an
`exhibit or a paper filing?
` A No. No.
` (Whereupon, previously marked Exhibit
` No. GTL1017 was viewed and retained by
` counsel)
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q I'm going hand you what has been marked
`in this matter as Exhibit GTL1017. Do you
`recognize this as the second declaration that you
`submitted in this matter?
` A It appears to be the case.
` Q Will you please turn to page eight of
`this document? Do you recognize that as your
`signature on page eight?
` A Yes, that's my signature.
` Q And can we have the understanding that
`if I refer to this as your second declaration that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000273
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I'm referring to Exhibit GTL1017?
` A Yes.
` Q Approximately how long did you spend
`preparing this declaration?
` A A week or so. It wasn't long. Maybe 20
`hours, ten hours. It's -- I don't remember
`offhand, but it was not a long time.
` Q So approximately ten, between ten and 20
`hours?
` A Yeah. It was over a couple week period.
`But it was a couple hours a day. So I didn't
`total it up, but it would be about that.
` Q And how many hours would you estimate
`that you worked on this matter in total?
` A I don't recall very much, because I had
`a deposition on it, then my first declaration.
`And then in addition I had some preparation work
`to write the declaration last year sometime. I
`can only give you an approximate number.
` Q What would that approximate number be?
` A I don't know. I wish I had my
`deposition in front of me from last time. But I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000274
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`would say something 50, 70 hours max. I mean
`overall -- all of this.
` Q Did you draft this declaration, your
`second declaration?
` A We drafted it in a sense that we talked
`on the phone a lot first about the issues. And
`then Dr. Peters actually drafted the thoughts that
`we had. And then I edited and we went back and
`forth several times.
` Q Okay. So Dr. Peters provided you the
`first draft of this declaration, is that correct?
` A That's what I said, yes.
` Q And what edits did you make to it -- to
`that first draft?
` A We're back and forth. It's hard to say
`because we were on the phone a lot and sent a
`couple of copies back and forth. I -- I don't
`recall exactly. But it's, you know, it's not much
`here. It's only a couple of paragraphs. So, I
`don't recall.
` Q You don't recall any of the edits that
`you made or contributions that you made to this
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000275
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`declaration?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Asked and
`answered.
` THE WITNESS: No. I'm on so many cases
`that it's a blur, to be honest with you.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did anyone else contribute to this
`declaration besides yourself and Dr. Peters?
` A I don't know.
` Q Let's take a look at page one from your
`declare -- your second declaration. And in
`paragraph two you state that: This declaration
`supplements my May 20, 2014 declaration submitted
`as Exhibit 1010 in the above referenced proceeding
`and in response to patent owner's response to
`Petition for Inter Partes review dated
`December 24, 2014 and the declaration of Robert
`Akl submitted as Exhibit 2003 and dated
`December 23, 2014. Correct?
` A Yes.
` (Whereupon, previously marked Exhibit
` No. GTL1010 was viewed and retained by
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000276
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` counsel)
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q I'm going hand you what's been marked in
`this matter as Exhibit GTL1010. Do you recognize
`this as the first declaration that you submitted
`in this matter?
` A Yes. This appears to be my first
`declaration of 591 patent.
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Please turn to page 88 of this document?
` A Eighty-eight of the one you just gave
`me?
` Q Yes?
` A Eighty-eight. Okay. At the very end.
`Yes.
` Q And do you recognize that as your
`signature?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Yes. But, again, I'm
`supposed to be testifying on the second
`declaration.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000277
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Can we have the understanding that if I
`refer to this as your first declaration that I'm
`referring to Exhibit GTL1010?
` A Fine.
` Q Looking back at your second declaration
`on page one again. The next sentence in paragraph
`two says: Included here with as appendix A is my
`up -- updated curriculum vitae that supplements
`the biographical information included in my May
`20, 2014 declaration. Correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And you did not submit a CV with your
`first declaration in this matter. Is that
`correct?
` A I don't recall. My CV is online, if I
`recall, and publicly available. So I don't know,
`because I personally didn't do it. I -- I
`couldn't attest to that.
` Q Do you see a CV attached as appendix A
`or any appendix to the first declaration that I
`handed you?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000278
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A No, I don't see that attached. But,
`again, I don't know.
` Q So when you say here that this
`supplements the biographical information included
`in the May 20 declaration, what is the
`biographical information that -- that you're
`referring to there?
` A Well, I had submitted my biographical
`information to counsel and I'd assumed it was
`there. I mean, it certainly is on my website and
`so it would be available at that time. I -- I
`keep that up-to-date to within a week.
` Q So what has been added or changed on
`your CV since May of 2014?
` A Very little. In the main part in terms
`of work outside of my legal work, I have done more
`of the same. I continued to work on call centers,
`because I own a call center software company. So
`I continued to do call center enforcing. The
`extra witness consulting work, I might have added
`one or two small items in there, if I did at all.
` The major changes would be in the past
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000279
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 15
`testimony. And that -- that would be the cases in
`the first two pages of that. Because this
`represents about five years worth of testimony.
`And so the only thing that would have been -- the
`only thing this thing adds to it is mostly the GTL
`cases and a few others. In fact I think you asked
`me about that at the last deposition.
` Q What are the few other cases that you
`are referring to --
` A -- Well.
` Q -- besides the GTL cases?
` A Yeah. There's a whole slew of GTL
`cases. And then there is the Amazon.com case
`where I testified, I believe, in September. And I
`testified to that fact at the last deposition, if
`I'm not mistaken. There is the Marvell
`Semiconductor one, again, around the same time
`frame, August, September. And again, I testified
`at my last deposition about that. The ATT case
`versus TR Labs I believe was in June -- May, June.
`I'm not sure -- of last year. And I -- the rest I
`think were -- would have been before the May 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000280
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`date, I believe -- 2014.
` Q All right. Looking back at your second
`declaration page one, section two there. It's
`titled: Information Considered. And you state
`there that: Informing my opinions in addition to
`my knowledge and experience I have considered the
`following documents that I have obtained or that
`have been provided to me. Correct?
` A Yes.
` Q All right. And you provide A through F?
` A Yes.
` Q Documents?
` A Right.
` Q Does this -- does this statement apply
`only to this second declaration?
` A Uhm -- that's all I considered in
`writing this, yes.
` Q So -- okay. So -- but it doesn't imply
`that these are the only documents you considered
`in this matter?
` A No. In fact as -- as you recall the --
`the first declaration dealt with many other prior
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000281
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 17
`arts that were submitted part of the IPR on this
`matter. And they are no longer -- because of the
`IPR ruling they're no longer appropriate, if you
`want, so I didn't bother including those.
` Q So these documents listed in A through F
`are the documents that you relied upon in forming
`the opinions expressed in this second declaration.
`Is that correct?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection --
` THE WITNESS: -- Yes.
` MR. SPECHT: Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Yes. That's
`correct.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Okay. And at the -- at the bottom of
`that section it states: I have also considered
`all other materials cited herein.
` A Yes.
` Q Are you -- are you aware of any other
`materials cited in your second declaration that
`are not listed here?
` A No. It turns out that is just a cover.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000282
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 18
`I always put that in. No, there is nothing that I
`recall that is different than what's in the first
`six things up here, paragraph three. But I just
`include it just in case. I often sometimes insert
`things in a footnote or something. But in this
`particular case I didn't do that.
` Q Do the opinions expressed in the second
`declaration supercede any opinions expressed in
`your first declaration?
` A No. This is -- this was meant to
`clarify the positions I took in the first
`declaration. There seemed to be some confusion
`over at least how you interpreted what I said and
`points that came up in the last declaration. I
`looked at the owner response. I looked at
`Dr. Akl's declaration. And I said -- I thought it
`needed further enlightenment. But there's
`nothing -- there's nothing different here, let me
`put it that way. It's the same position. It's
`just -- it's just more explanatory, because
`obviously there was some confusion.
` Q Do the opinions expressed in this second
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000283
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 19
`declaration correct any of the opinions that you
`expressed in your first declaration?
` A No. They clarify my opinions.
` Q Did you make any assumptions in
`preparing this second declaration that you did not
`also assume in preparing your first declaration?
` A Assumptions. I was -- I was aware of
`the -- the board's decision, which had some
`statements about construing certain claims, and I
`took that into account. Obviously, again -- and
`at my deposition that point was raised. And it
`was clear that some misinterpretation had
`occurred. I believe that my first declaration
`comports with the board's decision. But this
`explains it a little better, if you want.
` Q Other than the claim constructions
`provided by the board and its institution decision
`are there any other facts that you have relied
`upon or assumed in preparing the opinions of this
`declaration that you did not assume or rely upon
`in your first declaration?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000284
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 20
` A No. I think if you read it, it's just
`primarily directed toward the boards
`interpretation. And also I think the confusion of
`Dr. Akl and the patent owner in terms of how they
`interpreted -- interpreted that, how they
`interpreted my declaration. I thought it might be
`useful to clarify that. So there's nothing new
`outside of that kind of issue.
` Q Do you -- is it still your opinion that
`all of the opinions expressed in your first
`declaration are true and correct?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: I believe so. I don't
`have any reason to doubt that.
` (Whereupon, previously marked Exhibit
` No. GTL1012 was viewed and retained by
` counsel)
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Okay. I'm going hand you what -- a
`document that was marked in this matter as Exhibit
`GTL1012. Do you recognize that as a Karacki
`reference that you relied upon in your
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000285
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`declaration?
` A Yes, it appears to be the case.
` Q Can we have the understanding that if I
`refer to the Karacki reference or just Karacki
`that I'm referring to Exhibit GTL1012?
` A Yes.
` Q How would you describe Karacki?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: First of all I hadn't -- I
`haven't opined on that in this declaration. So
`this is outside of my declaration.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Can you answer the question?
` A Yes. But it is outside of my
`declaration. Do you agree -- you're not going to
`point to anything in my declaration now, are you?
` Q Does your -- does your declaration
`provide opinions regarding Karacki?
` A Yes, it does. But you asked a question
`about characterizing Karacki and I did not do that
`in my declaration here. I did it elsewhere in my
`first declaration.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000286
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q Can you answer the question?
` A Yes.
` Q And what is the answer?
` A Okay. Let me go to my first declaration
`and I'll -- I've characterized it there, so. This
`is a year ago, so bear with me.
` Paragraph 42 of my first declaration I
`state that: Karacki describes "a method by which
`young federal inmates are in effect rewarded for
`appropriate behavior" implemented at the Robert F.
`Kennedy Youth Center in Morgantown, West Virginia.
`Inmates which are limited to federal offenders
`ages 15 through 19 are referred to as "students"
`since all of them participate in an educational
`program while detained at the facility. Karacki
`points out that incentive systems for good
`behavior have had a long history in penal
`institutions. And I quote, "it could hardly be
`said that there is something new or revolutionary
`in a correctional method which provides external
`rewards for positive behavior, on the contrary
`such reward systems tend to be very cornerstone
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000287
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 23
`upon which most institutional programs are built."
` And I give a citation. And I think that
`summarizes it overall, but I continue on. This
`goes on for pages if you want me to do that.
` Q No. That's fine right there.
` A That satisfies you?
` Q Are you satisfied with your answer?
` A Well, did I answer your question, I
`guess is the -- is the thing.
` Q I asked you how you would describe
`Karacki. If that's how you would describe Karacki
`then . . .
` A That's part of it. I can continue on
`because this goes on for several pages. So this
`doesn't totally characterize Karacki. Karacki is
`beyond what I just said. And I can read the rest
`if you want. Because I don't believe that's a
`complete characterization of Karacki.
` Q Provide as complete a characterization
`of Karacki as you would like?
` A Sure. Paragraph 43: The incentive
`system derived in Karacki is a "token economy."
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000288
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 24
`Points are awarded for desirable behavior and the
`points can be used to purchase items or privileges
`with a value of one cent for each point. And I
`give a reference. Desirable behavior includes
`punctuality and productiveness but can be
`individualized based upon an -- excuse me -- based
`on an inmates character. There's a reference.
`Points are normally awarding on a weekly basis,
`but can also be awarded immediately as a bonus
`for "especially meritorious behavior." And
`there's a citation.
` Paragraph 44: The inmates are able
`to -- and this is (and in some cases are forced
`to) use their points for a wide selection of items
`and services including a savings account, room
`rental, a community tax, fines, commissary and
`snack bar purchases, recreation and special
`services, and miscellaneous charges such as a
`purchase of civilian clothing. And I give a
`citation here. Now, I have a quotation from
`Karacki: Inmates can buy telephone calls home or
`pay for items ordered from a mail order catalog.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000289
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`They can pay to attend selected events in the
`community such as athletic games, concerts, plays,
`dances, and parties. They can pay to use
`recreational equipment and facilities during their
`leisure hours, etc. This variety of choice makes
`the token economy system significant and
`meaningful. And I give a citation for that.
` Paragraph 45: Points are redeemable via
`a spending card with markings for five and ten
`points totaling 200 points. Facility staff punch
`holes in the cards to record purchases made. I
`give a citation.
` Karacki notes that "points earned are
`nontransferable" but does not explicitly disclose
`how punch cards are associated with their owners
`to prevent transfers between inmates. One
`straight forward way of preventing transfer would
`be to have signatures attached to each card, as is
`done with credit cards. Another way would be to
`have photo IDs attached to the card.
` And the rest is really my opinion except
`for -- well, let me read the citation: Even in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000290
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 26
`1970 the token economy described in Karacki was
`not novel, though its application on a large scale
`to a correctional facility was the first of its
`kind to the -- to the knowledge of the authors.
` And this is a quote from Karacki: Based
`upon operant conditioning principles of modifying
`behavior through external rewards this approach to
`retraining has been successful in such diverse
`fields as mental health and work with the mentally
`retarded and emotionally disturbed. Its
`application in the field of corrections, however,
`has been limited to small experimental studies.
` And there is a citation. And that's how
`I characterize Karacki in my first declaration.
` Q You testified previously that Karacki
`was provided to you by Dr. Peters of the Sterne
`Kessler firm. Correct?
` A I believe so. It was a year ago, so
`I -- I believe that's correct.
` Q Did you take any further steps to learn
`about the token economy system implemented at the
`Kennedy Youth Center beyond what Karacki
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000291
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`discloses?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Again, it's nothing that I
`commented on in my second declaration. But I can
`answer that. I did not look at anything else. I
`thought it was sufficient.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did you try to contact Mr. Karacki
`regarding this article?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did you try to contact Mr. Levinson
`regarding this article?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: No. Again, it's not -- I
`did not comment on this in my second declaration.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did you do any independent research
`regarding the Kennedy Youth Center?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: No. Because I -- I did
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000292
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`not discuss this in my second declaration.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did you review any other of the other
`references cited by the Karacki reference?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection scope.
` THE WITNESS: No. And, again, this was
`not the subject of this -- I thought of this
`deposition.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did you determine the current status of
`the Kennedy Youth Center?
` MR. SPECHT: Objection. Scope and
`relevance.
` THE WITNESS: No. Not that I recall.
`But, again, I did not prepare this expecting to
`have to answer these questions. So it will just
`be my recollection at this point for -- from over
`a year. So I must couch all of my answers now in
`terms of my memory from a year ago.
`BY MR. SAAD:
` Q Did you conduct any searches to identify
`any further information regarding the Kennedy
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`SEC_000293
`
`
`
`4/28/2015
`
`Global Tel*link Corp v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
`
`Leonard Forys
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Youth Center?
` MR. SP
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
