1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` APPLE INC., :
`
` Petitioner, : Case IPR2014-00237
`
` v. : Patent 8,504,697
`
` VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE :
`
` APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL : Case IPR2014-00238
`
` CORPORATION, : Patent 8,504,697
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` Deposition of FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
` Washington, DC
`
` Thursday, October 23, 2014
`
` 9:00 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 68382
`
`Pages: 1 - 296
`
`Reported By: Lee Bursten, RMR, CRR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 1
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 1
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` APPLE INC., :
`
` Petitioner, : Case IPR2014-00237
`
` v. : Patent 8,504,697
`
` VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE :
`
` APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL : Case IPR2014-00238
`
` CORPORATION, : Patent 8,504,697
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` Deposition of FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
` Washington, DC
`
` Thursday, October 23, 2014
`
` 9:00 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 68382
`
`Pages: 1 - 296
`
`Reported By: Lee Bursten, RMR, CRR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 1
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 1
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` Deposition of FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.,
`
`held at the offices of:
`
`2
`
` PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
` 875 15th Street, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
` (202) 551-1700
`
` Pursuant to agreement, before Lee Bursten,
`
`Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime
`
`Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the District
`
`of Columbia, who officiated in administering the oath
`
`to the witness.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 2
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
` JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQUIRE
`
` SCOTT M. BORDER, ESQUIRE
`
` SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
` 1501 K Street, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
` (202) 736-8000
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQUIRE
`
` PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
` 875 15th Street, NW
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
` (202) 551-1700
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 3
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` JASON E. STACH, ESQUIRE
`
` FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT
`
`4
`
` & DUNNER LLP
`
` 3500 SunTrust Plaza
`
` 303 Peachtree Street, NE
`
` Atlanta, Georgia 30308
`
` (404) 653-6400
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` JAMES STEIN, ESQUIRE
`
` FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT
`
` & DUNNER LLP
`
` 3500 SunTrust Plaza
`
` 303 Peachtree Street, NE
`
` Atlanta, Georgia 30308
`
` (404) 653-6400
`
` (Present via telephone)
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 4
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D. PAGE
`
` By Mr. Kushan 7
`
`5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (Exhibits retained by counsel)
`
` (Exhibit 1082 attached to transcript)
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. DEPOSITION EXHIBITS PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1082 RFC 2535 98
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC. PREVIOUSLY
`
`MARKED DEPOSITION EXHIBITS PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1001 US Patent 8,504,697 to Larson 9
`
` et al.
`
` Exhibit 1008 US Patent 5,898,830 to 234
`
` Wesinger, Jr. et al.
`
` Exhibit 1009 US Patent 6,496,867 to Beser et 160
`
` al.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 5
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`6
`
` E X H I B I T S C O N T I N U E D
`
`VIRNETX DEPOSITION EXHIBITS PAGE
`
` Exhibit 2004 Glossary for the Linux 96
`
` FreeS/WAN project
`
` Exhibit 2025 Declaration of Fabian Monrose, 10
`
` Ph.D. in 237
`
` Exhibit 2025 Declaration of Fabian Monrose, 11
`
` Ph.D. in 238
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 6
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`7
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`
` having been duly sworn/affirmed, testified as
`
` follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Good morning. Could you give us your full
`
`name.
`
` A Fabian Newman Monrose.
`
` Q And where do you reside?
`
` A 800 Long Meadows Road, Chapel Hill, North
`
`Carolina.
`
` Q And you understand that the testimony
`
`you're to give today is to be truthful, correct?
`
` A I do understand.
`
` Q And you're under oath?
`
` A I understand.
`
` Q Have you ever been deposed before?
`
` A I have not.
`
` Q You have not? Have you ever, outside of
`
`this proceeding, served as an expert witness in a
`
`legal proceeding?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 7
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A I've served as an expert witness on other
`
`matters related to these proceedings.
`
` Q Let me try to understand that. So is it
`
`that you've written reports or declarations about
`
`other patents?
`
` A A declaration, yes.
`
` Q Okay. Outside of the proceedings for
`
`VirnetX, have you been an expert witness for anybody?
`
` A I have not.
`
` Q Okay. And so you've never been deposed,
`
`right?
`
` A I have never been deposed.
`
` Q So I'll go through a few rules and then
`
`make sure we're on the same page.
`
` A Sure.
`
` Q In a deposition like this, I'll ask you
`
`questions. You're going to give me an answer. When
`
`you give me an answer, you have to give me a verbal
`
`answer. So if I ask you a question and you nod your
`
`head, you have to then add "yes" or "no" so I know
`
`what you're saying. Okay? Do you understand that?
`
` A Understood.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 8
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q Okay. If you need a break, just let me
`
`know, and if I'm in the middle of a question, I'll
`
`try to wrap up and let you have a break. But just
`
`keep me informed about when you want a break.
`
` In the course of the deposition, Mr. Palys
`
`may be making objections. And when he's completed
`
`his objection, then continue to answer the question,
`
`unless he's directly asked you to not or instructed
`
`you to not answer the question.
`
` A Okay.
`
` Q So if you have a question about my
`
`question, just let me know, so I can try to improve
`
`it. So if there's any ambiguity or something that
`
`you hear in the question, just let me know and I'll
`
`try and give you a better question.
`
` A Sounds fair.
`
` Q Okay. So let me just get some of the
`
`paperwork out of the way. I'm going to hand you --
`
`these are exhibits which have already been marked.
`
`This is Exhibit 1001.
`
` (Petitioner Apple Inc. Exhibit 1001 was
`
`previously marked for identification and attached to
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 9
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the deposition transcript.)
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q This is an exhibit which is the same
`
`exhibit number in the two proceedings. You
`
`understand, there were two Patent Office proceedings
`
`that you provided declarations in?
`
` A Yes, correct.
`
` Q Okay. And they both relate to the same
`
`patent owned by VirnetX, right?
`
` A Yes, the '697 patent.
`
` Q And that's this patent, correct?
`
` A That is correct.
`
` Q I'm going to hand you Exhibit 2025 in IPR
`
`number 2014-00237.
`
` (VirnetX Exhibit 2025 was previously marked
`
`for identification and attached to the deposition
`
`transcript.)
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q And this is one of your two declarations.
`
`This is in the IPR proceeding I mentioned. I'm going
`
`to call that the 237 proceeding, just for simplicity.
`
`Can you just confirm that's your declaration?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 10
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` A This is.
`
` Q Okay. And so this declaration, you're
`
`addressing a patent in the prior art that was issued
`
`11
`
`to Beser; do you remember that?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q And this is just to get us oriented. I'm
`
`going to hand you your declaration, which is Exhibit
`
`2025 in IPR 2014-00238.
`
` (VirnetX Exhibit 2025 was previously marked
`
`for identification and attached to the deposition
`
`transcript.)
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q The same process, this is your same
`
`declaration, the second declaration you provided
`
`relating to the '697 patent in the 238 proceeding; is
`
`that correct?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q Okay. And in a similar way, if I say the
`
`238 proceeding, it's the second proceeding I just
`
`mentioned. I'll just call this your 238 declaration.
`
` A That would be helpful.
`
` Q Okay. So do you understand VirnetX has
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 11
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`sued Apple for patent infringement?
`
` A I understand.
`
` Q Have you had any role in the litigation
`
`involving Apple on behalf of VirnetX?
`
` A I have not been part of the litigation.
`
` Q Have you been given any materials from the
`
`litigation?
`
` A I have not been given any materials from
`
`the litigation.
`
` Q Okay. So you haven't seen any information
`
`that has originated from Apple describing any Apple
`
`systems? And -- I'll narrow it. Everybody's seen
`
`something from Apple, I'm sure. But let me say it
`
`slightly better.
`
` I'm wondering if you have been given any
`
`materials from counsel that have been originally
`
`obtained from Apple in the litigation.
`
` A So I'm not sure I fully understand your
`
`question, but so there are prior art that's
`
`identified by Apple, which I obviously have seen.
`
` Q Okay. But outside of the information in
`
`these two proceedings, you haven't received any
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 12
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`information from, for example, the litigation that's
`
`13
`
`underway between VirnetX and Apple?
`
` A I have not.
`
` Q Okay. Can you just give me a description
`
`of what you did to prepare for today's deposition?
`
` A Sure. For the deposition itself, I went
`
`back to my declaration to refamiliarize myself with
`
`'697 in particular, I guess the specifications, the
`
`claims, looked at the prior art that was identified,
`
`which involved going back and looking at the entire
`
`intrinsic history.
`
` So I went back, I looked at -- reviewed
`
`again the petition, the decision instituted by the
`
`PTAB, went back to my declaration, made sure
`
`everything was consistent. Those are the general
`
`processes. It was an iterative process, I had to go
`
`back, this was several months ago, verify, go
`
`through, and just refresh my memory on some of the
`
`specifications and the prior art.
`
` Q Did you review the arguments that VirnetX
`
`has filed in the proceeding that quotes your
`
`declaration?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 13
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` A I did. By that, you mean the patent
`
`owner's response and how it uses my declaration?
`
`14
`
` Q Yes.
`
` A I did. Mm-hmm.
`
` Q Okay. Can you just give me a rough
`
`estimate of how much time you spent preparing for the
`
`deposition today?
`
` A For the deposition? Hard to say precisely.
`
` Q An estimate is fine.
`
` A Probably somewhere between 20 and 30 hours,
`
`in that ballpark, I would say.
`
` Q Did you meet with counsel to prepare for
`
`today's deposition?
`
` A I met with counsel about the deposition.
`
` Q How many times?
`
` A So since the -- let me think about that.
`
`Since the -- we met in early October. We're in
`
`October, sorry. A day and a half, sometime in early
`
`October, I think was -- the 6th or the 7th or the 7th
`
`or the 8th, sometime then. And then earlier this
`
`week.
`
` Q So you mentioned a number of documents that
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 14
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`you reviewed. Would you say you've reviewed every
`
`document that had been filed in each proceeding as
`
`part of your preparations for today's deposition?
`
` A Yes.
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection to form.
`
` A I reviewed -- so every document that is
`
`pertinent for these proceedings for 237 and 238, as
`
`cited in my declaration.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Okay. So there were a number of exhibits
`
`that the patent owner filed in its response to the
`
`proceedings, and those are numbered in the series
`
`2001 through two thousand I think four or five. Did
`
`you review all of those exhibits?
`
` A Two thousand -- I'm trying to remember the
`
`exact exhibit numbers, which ones these were.
`
` Q I'm just trying to understand, you just
`
`used the word "pertinent" to describe the category of
`
`documents that you had reviewed. And I'm just trying
`
`to make sure I understood that to be all the
`
`documents that were in the record of the proceeding,
`
`or a subset.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 15
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`16
`
` A I see what you're saying. So the exhibits
`
`and other documentation that supported the petition
`
`that were relevant to the decision and its instituted
`
`grounds. That's what I looked at. I'm sorry. I'm
`
`not a lawyer and there are all these legal terms.
`
`I'm trying to figure that out.
`
` Q I appreciate that. This is just to
`
`understand what you've been looking at so I know if I
`
`have to give you more time to look at something, we
`
`can do that later.
`
` A Mm-hmm.
`
` Q Did you look at any documents that you had
`
`not looked at before you wrote your declaration in
`
`your preparations today, for the deposition today?
`
`So what I'm asking --
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. You did look at some additional
`
`documents?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And what were they?
`
` A I believe a -- in legal terms, the Federal
`
`Circuit decision came out after my declaration. I
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 16
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`17
`
`skimmed that.
`
` Q Was there anything else?
`
` A No documents.
`
` Q And did you notice anything of significance
`
`about the Federal Circuit decision when you reviewed
`
`it?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection to form.
`
` A "Significance"? What does that mean?
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Well, you read the decision of the Federal
`
`Circuit, correct?
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q And did it have an effect on any of your
`
`opinions that you had previously expressed in your
`
`declaration?
`
` A No. Nothing in that decision affected my
`
`opinions expressed in my declaration.
`
` Q Okay. So let's just go back a little bit.
`
`Before you prepared -- when were you first retained
`
`to help in the proceeding?
`
` A This particular one, or retained by counsel
`
`for VirnetX?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 17
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q Well, let's just start with the easier
`
`question. When were you first retained by VirnetX
`
`for any reason?
`
` A So I believe that goes back to around July
`
`time frame of 2014.
`
` Q Okay. And what were you asked to do at the
`
`time you were retained by VirnetX?
`
` A What --
`
` MR. PALYS: Hold on. I counsel the witness
`
`to not disclose any information that you may have
`
`discussed with counsel. If you can answer the
`
`question without doing that, go ahead. But if your
`
`answer requires you to divulge any information or
`
`communications between you and counsel, I instruct
`
`you not to answer.
`
` A I guess on the advice of my counsel, I will
`
`choose not to answer the question.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q No, no. Let's try to make sure that's an
`
`accurate instruction to you. So I'm allowed to ask
`
`you what they asked you to do. That's in a general
`
`sense. I'm not asking for you to recount kind of the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 18
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`conversation you had with them, but I would like your
`
`understanding of what you were asked to do.
`
` A Understood. So I was asked to take a look
`
`at the patent at that time, I can't recall off the
`
`top of my head which one that was, that was assigned
`
`to VirnetX. I was also asked to provide an
`
`understanding of what I believed was disclosed in
`
`that patent, and later provided with some identified
`
`prior art that I believed was used by petitioner with
`
`respect to anticipation claims for that patent.
`
` Q So the patent that you -- the first patent
`
`that you mentioned, was it the '697 patent?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Do you remember the number of the patent or
`
`any part of it?
`
` A I believe it was '135.
`
` Q '135. Okay. And so you were asked to
`
`analyze the patent to see whether it had described
`
`something in it?
`
` MR. PALYS: I'm going to instruct the
`
`witness not to answer that question. You can ask him
`
`what he did, but not in particular what instructions
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 19
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 19
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`he received from counsel or communication like that.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q So did you analyze the '135 patent to see
`
`20
`
`what it was describing?
`
` A I did.
`
` Q And the '135 patent is not involved in this
`
`proceeding, right?
`
` A That is correct.
`
` Q And so I just would like to understand what
`
`you were looking for in the '135 patent.
`
` MR. PALYS: I'm going to also object to
`
`this line of questioning under scope.
`
` A So I think just like I would with any
`
`document, whether or not I understood what was being
`
`expressed in that document, for a patent,
`
`specifically whether I understood the specifications,
`
`the claims and the scope of the claims, and kept
`
`that -- and keeping in mind whether or not my
`
`understanding would have been similar to what one
`
`skilled in the art and how they would have
`
`interpreted that context at that time.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 20
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 20
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q So you weren't looking for any particular
`
`example of a system or anything in the patent?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection, form and outside the
`
`scope of direct.
`
` A I'm not sure I understand what that means,
`
`by looking for a specific system in a patent.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q I'm just trying to understand, you did an
`
`analysis of the '135 patent, and I'm trying to see if
`
`you were looking for something in it or if there was
`
`some other -- you know, you were just reading it
`
`generally for some reason.
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection to form and outside
`
`the scope of direct.
`
` A So first and foremost, as I said, in
`
`reviewing any such material, I have to be comfortable
`
`that I understand what is being expressed in that
`
`material. So as an academic, I went through, looked
`
`at the -- what was in there, does this make sense to
`
`me, if it does, how should it be interpreted.
`
` And then if any prior art, you know, is
`
`there any way that this prior art is anticipating any
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 21
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 21
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`of the claims that I'm looking at generally that's in
`
`22
`
`the patent.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q So then one of the things you might have
`
`been looking at or the reasons that you might have
`
`been looking at the '135 patent was to see if the
`
`'135 patent claims were anticipated by any prior art?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection, form, and outside
`
`the scope. I'll just ask you to keep it within the
`
`scope of the direct. We're talking about a patent
`
`that's not at issue in these proceedings.
`
` MR. KUSHAN: Joe, just make your
`
`objections, single word objections, and don't have
`
`talking objections, okay?
`
` A Could you repeat your question?
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Yes. So you indicated in one of your
`
`answers you gave me that you were looking to see if
`
`the '135 patent claims are anticipated by prior art;
`
`is that right?
`
` A At some point --
`
` MR. PALYS: Same objections.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 22
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`23
`
` A -- I looked at that.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q And do you remember what the prior art was?
`
` MR. PALYS: Same objections.
`
` A That was months ago. I'm sorry.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Was it the same prior art you considered
`
`for this proceeding?
`
` MR. PALYS: Same objections.
`
` A Honestly, I don't recall. That was months
`
`ago.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Okay. Now, do you remember, did you notice
`
`that the '135 patent had a very similar disclosure to
`
`the '697 patent?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Now, you've been granted patents, correct?
`
` A I have.
`
` Q Okay. So you've participated in the
`
`process where you would write the patent description?
`
` A I have.
`
` Q And then you know what a patent claim is?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 23
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 23
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Okay. And the patent claim defines the
`
`invention, right?
`
` A And the scope of the invention.
`
` Q And this is based on your own knowledge
`
`before you were hired to do work in this case, right?
`
` A Correct.
`
` Q Okay. And when you see a claim in a
`
`patent, that's defining the invention, as I just
`
`said, right? Let me get a cleaner question. So the
`
`claim in the patent defines the invention, correct?
`
` A So the claim defines the scope of the
`
`invention in light of the specifications, and I
`
`believe how one skilled in the art would have
`
`understood those.
`
` Q And --
`
` A Again, not a lawyer.
`
` Q I know, and I'm just asking for your
`
`understanding. It's just based on an observation
`
`that you've been granted patents.
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So I'm just --
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 24
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 24
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` A Working with lawyers at Lucent Technologies
`
`25
`
`and elsewhere.
`
` Q Great. So when you see a patent claim,
`
`that may describe one example of something that's
`
`described in the patent, correct?
`
` A I think generally that is correct. Mm-hmm.
`
` Q And it's also correct that when you look at
`
`a patent claim, the Patent Office will not grant you
`
`that claim unless they believe there's a support for
`
`that claim in the description, correct?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection, form.
`
` A My understanding is that the process is,
`
`the PTO office applies -- from my experiences,
`
`looking to see whether that is patentable.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Again, so when you see a patent claim
`
`that's been issued in the patent, and that defines
`
`the invention, you will also see a description,
`
`typically in more detail, of what that invention is
`
`in the disclosure of the patent?
`
` A You will typically see that.
`
` Q Okay. So if the patent examiner were to
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 25
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 25
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`look at your claim that you presented in a patent
`
`application and they didn't see that invention in the
`
`description, they probably wouldn't give you that
`
`patent claim, right?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection, form, and outside
`
`scope of direct.
`
` A So can you repeat your question a little
`
`bit more specifically for me, please?
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Sure. And we just walked through the
`
`description of a patent claim. It may cover a
`
`particular embodiment of the invention, right?
`
` A Mm-hmm.
`
` Q And so when you present a patent
`
`application with a claim in it, the claim gets
`
`examined for compliance with all of the requirements
`
`of patentability, right?
`
` A Right.
`
` Q So one of the questions the patent examiner
`
`may look at is whether the claim describes something
`
`which is described in the patent disclosure, correct?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection to form. Outside
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 26
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 26
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
`27
`
`scope of direct.
`
` A So I think one of the standards that would
`
`have been applied at that time by the examiner is
`
`interpreting the scope of the claims in light of the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that should be
`
`assigned. So think more broadly about what is said
`
`here, and, you know, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation as one of ordinary skill would have
`
`viewed this. So...
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q Sure. And so if the patent examiner
`
`doesn't see the invention that you've claimed that's
`
`described in your -- sorry -- that the patent
`
`examiner does not see in your disclosure a
`
`description of the invention as it's been defined in
`
`your patent claim, they won't grant you that patent
`
`claim, right?
`
` MR. PALYS: Objection to form, and outside
`
`scope of direct testimony.
`
` A I don't know.
`
`BY MR. KUSHAN:
`
` Q You don't know?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple v. VirnetX, et al., IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1083, p. 27
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1055, p. 27
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION OF FABIAN NEWMAN MONROSE, Ph.D.
`CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014
`
` A No. I mean...
`
` Q But just generally, your pa
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
